What if I just read it and told someone though..

really? REALLY?

1 : This Is not a real answer i : This Is a complex answer The cake Is a lie

Ikr 🤣🤣

I've liked and disliked this comment.

At least he didn't forget to bring a bucket of compression to start the turbo-encabulator

Mine is just not the same without the turbo…

@@Whysicist I blame Sir Charles Parsons, although Hero of Alexandria demonstrated the principals nearly two millennia earlier.

Rocket motors are relatively simple devices, and saying"this isn't rocket science" shouldn't be used at all. It surprised me that she is using that expression while talking about quantum physics which is way more complicated.

I'm reminded of a joke, about a brain surgeon being asked a bunch of math questions and saying "what do I look like, a rocket scientist?" Also, you're darn right a turbo-encabulator isn't quantum physics. Unless it turns out quantum physics is a joke.

Good one Scott😄

They probably lured in a lot of rocket scientists with that whole 'orbital' talk just to mock them later with that voodoo math they use

Would it be any easier for you if it was called Epierinthean mechanics? Epierinthean being Humptydumptian, for pickaforeignwordthatmeansnothing? Why not try wheredidileavemy glassesum vague feeling thatimayhaveforgottensomethingbut cannotrememberwhat?

yes, it isn't, it is just a BS.

I know that the term, "rocket science" is used to describe something that is very difficult to understand, but this has always seemed to me to be a misnomer. I think I learned rocket science in high school physics. It can start with the concept of conservation of momentum, and a few simple equations are derived from that, and that is it. Rocket technology, on the other hand, is devilishly difficult. Designing and building something that can put an object in a desired orbit, for instance, takes a huge effort of calculating all sorts of minutiae, applying the often-difficult sciences of all sorts of other stuff, studying and selecting appropriate materials and processes, testing, revising, and so on and on... This effort involves lots of scientists, engineers, technicians, assemblers, quality personnel, builders, and testers. I think this is what people usually are thinking about when they say, "rocket science".

The mathematics is the easier part to understand. The physics isn't.

Not everything she says is correct though, that's where you have to be careful. I'm sorry that I'm saying this, because I respect her a great deal, but her Superdeterminism video is proof that just like the rest of us, she's not infallible to leaning more towards her own beliefs either

@@theshermantanker7043 I think she never says to believe everything she says? A person would not take anyone's words without mulling it over and research the topic themselves, even if it's coming from the most educated person around...

@@neerdas5103 WHAT IS E=MC2 is dimensionally consistent. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great !! Einstein never nearly understood gravity or time. He was not a high level genius. I have exposed Einstein. I have totally outsmarted Einstein. I have surpassed Newton and Einstein. This is like detective work. Here are the facts. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The following is consistent with WHAT IS E=MC2 AND F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. This is consistent with what is E=MC2 AND F=ma. Now, ON BALANCE, carefully consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON. E=MC2 IS F=MA. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great !!!! WHAT IS GRAVITY is an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 is F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. By Frank Martin DiMeglio In understanding SPACE, what is gravity, TIME, AND time dilation (ON BALANCE), it is important is it to understand what is a BALANCED displacement of what is SPACE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. (c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.) Indeed, the stars are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is THE EYE, AND notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. NOW, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE. CLEARLY, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). “Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ON BALANCE, consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE) consistent WITH E=MC2, F=ma, TIME, AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, DESCRIBES, AND INVOLVES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Indeed, inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains what is E=MC2 AND F=ma ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !! (Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.) Great. Indeed, consider WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. I have mathematically proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. (Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) I have mathematically proven what is the fourth dimension, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! I have explained why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE. By Frank Martin DiMeglio The gravity of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground is BALANCED WITH and by WHAT IS E=MC2 (AND TIME). Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Great. By Frank Martin DiMeglio TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank Martin DiMeglio WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank Martin DiMeglio WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS WHAT IS GRAVITY is an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked ON BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Great. INDEED, consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. GREAT !!! By Frank Martin DiMeglio

@@adelalovesmadara4062 trust the science bro

Photosynthesis...,.

They travel light! 😁

Brilliant

Lonely robot in a wasteland...

Brilliantly funny😂👍

My friends aren't that bright ;)

@@ChrisSmith-ec6qp Hopefully brighter than a single photon, otherwize your friends are dark matter.

Shine on you crazy photon..XD

Some of my friends are quasars, from a distant they may look like stars but they really are black holes

She needs new friends. I like mine to hang around a bit longer.

I would have to agree with this.

Great line if you're looking to date a nuclear physicist.

@@AdelaeR who isn't? Gamer girls are so last year. 🤣🤣

Supermarket breasts supermarket boobs

The quotation says very little.

@@johnsmith1474 your answer even less ;)

And we get to shout, 'I KNEW IT!' apparently apropos of nothing when those breakthroughs are made.

More like Thomas Kuhn...

Materialism is not wrong. It's incomplete. Obviously part of reality is material. Plus fields. Plus spooky reality.

POST 132: Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong [and I have over 130 main posts on Sabine's thread on free will about this]. But ​ like you the reader- this morning a man said and I replied to him BUT TO YOU AS WELL! ​ @Vinx.909 You said "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . You then carried on to give brilliant logical explanation like the other guy above - so huge thanks. Your logic is impeccable but devoid of reason. Therefore you are wrong. Man needs the twin engines: reason and logic to reach valid conclusion. You can write consistent logic and grammar and end up with Harry Potter. It's still fiction . IN MATH you can do that too and end up with STRING THEORY: multi-verse and multi-dimensional reality of at least 9. And that is like DR. STRANGE AND SPIDER-MAN IN THE MOVIES RIGHT NOW. FICTION ! FICTION FICTION ! In physics , you can "solve" the 100 year dilemma as many have done of Schroedinger's cat in quantum physics by saying it's both dead and alive; a quantum is both particle and wave [contrary to all logic] by saying the universe and you split a 1million times per second and we are back to INFINITY WARS/AVENGERS/MARVEL COMICS - Dr. Strange: FICTION FICTION FICTION. SO when physicists say MANYWORLDS is or may be correct they are WRONG [and the word "maybe" does not even apply]. There is only existence. But how do you know ? Let's find out. Let's start at the beginning when you just said -> "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . ___________________________________ But that's like "proving pigs have wings". It's an impossibility. In fact - it is "more possible" to one day prove pigs have wings (or fly) due to prospective genetic engineering or "creative trick like putting artificial glider wings on them" and throwing them off a aircraft THAN materialism (the key suffix being "-ism" which means the totality of reality just like feminism does not mean gender equality but means superiority of women with laws to enforce this faulty false concept or just as worse environmental-ism). 1. All science is dependent upon assuming there is existence and you are a person with free will that can exercise it to generate hypotheses [computers can not do that], separate control from experiment [computers can not design this not even in VR mode as it takes a mind with free will, a spiritual non-mystical quality with potency not impotent]. It needs man's mind to interpret the results and form conclusion then defend the theses [computers can not do any of the above BUT can help collect the results and within narrow limits analyze results if subject to algorithm like gas particle equations or certain sociological things like traffic congestion and smart-city light-traffic control] IF computers could induct you can fire all the coders at trillion dollar tech companies and have a mega computer self code [think about it - it's only coding; surely this limited task can be done by computers? Answer? No. It needs man ! There are "coding tasks" computers CAN do but it is man that must induct and interpret equivalent to science above]. Conclusion? Materialism or variations like modernism, post-modernism etc. are all wrong. The mind of man is NOT physical and NOT the brain. The mind is most likely dependent upon the brain and maybe a self emergent but potent quality from the working of the brain. The words in this paragraph only like "maybe" or "most likely" are concepts of science which always probabilistic AND NEVER the ground floor to grasp reality. Science and math needs to assume there is reality: existence, mind [with free will - a spiritual but non mystical quality] with Aristotle's law of identity [truth and the above is it] to even "do science or math". How to validate you have a mind that is potent and indeed separate spiritual but not-mystical? Pick up a pen. BOOM! If you're a rational man you will know the pen is "in and of existence" as opposed to a no-thing-ness. Therefore - the biggest line in all of human history coming up: consciousness is the identification of the pen! JUST KIDDING! -> Consciousness is the identification of existence. This is the correct line. It therefore means MANY things so pay attention. a. Consciousness can not identify itself (circular logic, error of logic) and therefore must be SEPARATE to existence. b. The fact consciousness is engaging in an act, an action, a verb, the "identification" means it is potent (not impotent, not passive) meaning you exercise free will to make a choice between "no-thing-ness" and existence. c. But it is "you" that makes that choice so consciousness is NOT the universe like Nobelist Wheeler assumed or genius Freeman Dyson or his friend Deepak Chopra. Existence is a separate identity and not conscious. The pen exists in and of existence so the broadest concept of the entire cosmos is existence exists which means it existed, exists and will exist into infinity. You can NEVER ask "how" because that is to presuppose existence-BEFORE-existence , an error of logic. And you can therefore NEVER say "maybe the pen is a simulation and so are all things like in Matrix movies - how'd you know?" Because this is return to God argument: who created the simulation ? And the simulations's simulation ? And their creator's creator's creator? Reductio Ad ABSURDUM is a known error of logic. So you can only validate [like the word proof] - that existence exists by "identifying" the pen is of existence [which only a rational man can do: A.I. can not do it, animals have not done it and mental patients can not do it as irrational]. However people that are prospectively able to learn the methods of reason and logic CAN DENY "FREE WILL " [like you] whilst USING FREE WILL to make that denial. To reach ANY CONCLUSION even if wrong needs a "choice" making capacity in man: free wil. Therefore you always have free will but need to learn, master and use the correct method to reach VALID conclusion and that is is reason and logic. Now let's conclude and summarize! In conclusion : what is the ground floor of reality called "metaphysics"? Existence exists Consciousness with free will [as this identity identifies the above identity: which leads you to the below] Aristotle law of identity [there is truth of the and in the cosmos - i.e. invariant patterns that man can glean using reason and logic to "identify' such "identity"]. Existence, mind and identity. Q.E.D.

@@AmericanBrain I nearly quit reading your comment after you straw manned the meaning of “feminism” and “environmentalism”. Why would you do that? It only undermines your credibility, and provides no insight or valid description of feminism or environmentalism. Perhaps you should reserve such political messages for another setting. As for materialism, I’m not sure you disproved it. I don’t think of it as anything other than a useful (pragmatic) operational premise to serve as an ontological foundation for belief, and I don’t require that it serve any other purpose.

Measurements (input) are converted into predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Objective is dual to subjective, absolute is dual to relative, independence is dual to dependence! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non-being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. Duality (energy) creates reality! Energy is duality, duality is energy -- pure energy conforms to wave/particle or quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.

@@hyperduality2838 🆘 You are incorrect. In logic a pen 🖊 cannot be long and short at the same time in the same context. There is only existence. He could pick up a pen and validate that it is of existence. Art is fiction such as Yoda and Star Wars. Fiction is not fact. You don’t seem to make this distinction. Plato later KANT was wrong. There is only existence because you can identify Existence Exists - such as my picking up a pen 🖊 or smelling a rose 🌹 or just pointing to something 🖼 . That means you “can validate” something exists vis a vis nothing. This is the closest concept to proof. There is evidence. Only a rational man can do this because artificial intelligence cannot do this, nor animals, nor mental patients. As one identity can identify another identity then it stands to reason there is - Aristotle’s law of identity: truth. But how do you know any truth? The answer is the methods of reason and logic. In conclusion above you found out that man has a potent mind - not incompetent mind. However to reach Covid Conclusion magnus for Learn for my logic. You have not done this ever in your life. Hence you are being sweet and manipulated by any movie or any Easton nonsense. Consciousness is separate to existence, and it is not the same thing as existence. -> If consciousness identified nothing but itself such as those people that say the “universe is conscious” then it’s a contradiction in logic, cold circular logic, and error. Note 📝 Deepak Chopra, David Bohm you are trying to replace God or the universe that is conscious but that’s the same thing back to fiction and nonsense. Non-dualism is wrong . There is only existence. Concept of the entire cosmos. Everything is off existence as a post to nothing-ness Such as The era called- simulation hypothesis. That means the universe is not conscious at all and David BOHM is wrong. ->> You are conscious and therefore Consciousness belongs to you from birth to death. You can never ask how existence comes to be because that is the presuppose Existence before existence. Error. Therefore existence always existed. Whereas - existence is infinite and exists throughout space-time, in contrast “consciousness is a separate identity that is from existence but separate to existence just like you are from your mother but separate to your mother”- is delimited to your life from birth to death and belongs to you and you are perpetual first calls when you exercise consciousness such as exercise “free will to make a choice” between wrong right and the “effect” is the action of thinking or doing like raising your right arm . ->>> There is no other force , Chi , Ki , Prana- nor any of the force like in Star Wars because that is fiction fiction is not fucked so you need to get this correct. --- In summary and in conclusion this is a Metaphysics cola which asked the questions what is reality? ->>>. The answer is : existence, “consciousness of free will “ and identity. Remember consciousness has to be exercised using “free will” to make a choice between nothing in existence and reach the correct conclusion that there is “existence exists”. Therefore all things eastern were wrong, or wrong, led to poverty death, death and destruction like this smashing of Tibet and the loser losing The entire nation called the Dalai Lama. Therefore everything that I’ve said about metaphysics and then I certainly talked about epistemology- which means how do you know any identity, how do you come to know any truth like the above? Answer: the methods of reason and logic which is the complete opposite of the method of emotions. Emotions are automatic such as intuition or faith. Faith means that feeling of certainty about what something means. Do you see that in your movie Star Wars how do you sister wrong faculty of mine to reach any of Conclusion. I repeat the eastern world did that for thousands of years and it’s a complete failure resulting in mythology and myths such as Chi energy and tricks that Shaolin monks do. Put that monk into a UFC ring they will get beaten and battered. Put that monk up against MIKE Tyson and I will get smashed in the ring. The Eastern world is full of scams and tricks that the monk well the 1 inch punch and the paper will snap. Try it yourself using a cereal 🥣 box and you’ll see how easy it is. Add some sound effect using iMovie app which is free on your smart phone and put it up on UKposts and you’ll get many many many subscribers. Human beings that so easily scammed. Even physicists and scientists are scammed. Science is not the ground floor to grasp reality. Science 🧪 and math are like instruments such as in telescope or a microscope. Instruments are very very very useful . But it is the observer that was reach Conclusion using the methods reason and logic and signs no mask and independently reach Conclusion. If and when science which is independent conclusion such as many world did you end up in fiction such as Harry Potter. Or if Matthew reaches Conclusion did you end up infection such as string theory and multi-verse wish you could see in the fiction Doctor Strange and Spiderman in the movies right now.. For example using a telescope you might see two planets and be startled. But it takes a human “mind”, not the brain but the spiritual “quality with potency” called the mind using its “conceptual” faculty to realize the two planets 🪐 🌍 are in fact the same single planet that is behind the star 🌟 who is light photons that reflected off the planet have Being bent around the giant star 💫 because of Einstein’s theory of relativity at arrives at your telescope creating the illusion of two stars whereas if you do the mathematical 🧮 calculation it is in fact just one star. Indeed this one the Nobel prize, not Einstein because he only proved it theoretically but not practically. Sir Arthur Eddington won the Nobel by proving it using a telescope 🔭 . So above we have proof that there is only existence. There is no dualities unless you were saying it’s property duality which means there is brain and somehow there is a point that separate but potent quality that work together incorporation then you are correct. There is no dualism which means there is no substance dualism: but there is “property dualism “ as there is -brain and there is mind and it is likely that the “ mind depends upon the brain 🧠 “ because specific damage to the brain resulting consistent type of damage to the mind.

@@hyperduality2838 ​ @Neil Hopwood said "Maybe we need to change the strategy here. Find some Elon Musk type to pony up a serious reward for someone, anyone, to come up with solutions to these foundational quantum mechanics " I REPLIED: Let me answer it. 1. Quantum physics nor any other science or math is the ground floor for reality. See my other posts now - the ground floor is the application of reason and logic. Consciousness is the identification of existence. So existence exists. You can pick up a pick and if rational, know it is of existence (vs. nothing-ness : simulation). As one identity identifies the other identity it means there is truth: Aristotle's law of identity of and in the cosmos. 2. Science and math are like instruments: telescopes or microscopes - very VERY useful. But are NEVER the sole interpreters of data. It is URGENT you grasp this. Equations of quantum physics are algorithmic and rigorous (not chaos). The theory suggests that "the way you look at the items of reality" determines what you see. But that applies when you look at a glass of half full (or half empty) water! Or illusion of young/old woman, or duck/rabbit (google these). In quantum physics: it is either a particle or a wave OR both (Bohm). What can be said with definitiveness is it is "of existence" and not "really" random. It may be too complex for humans or their instruments to glean now or ever (as the instruments are themselves prospectively intermingled with the object it studies at the quantum level). So for now man reaches the edge of what is knowable: but that also goes for other things like outside of the zone of light that comes from the edges of visible space. What is outside that is not known and can NEVER be known! But mans' mind is potent and competent; but not God and there is no God. Man can use wider knowledge to reach conclusions that are absolute (like there is existence; there is law of causality - in the case of consciousness you are PERPETUAL FIRST CAUSE; in the case of quantum related particles - it is outside man's ability to calculate but can be inferred that it must necessarily exist otherwise one enters magical thinking - myth and nonsense). Conclusion: never forget quantum physics like all science are NOT metaphysics .They are mere instruments (in analogy) to better grasp reality like all science and math ; but it is only with reason and logic [word games: using logic] that man can grasp truth.

QM is a too small blanket. It can cover anything, but it is at the price of uncovering something else.

"Causual." I see what you did there. And the me who didn't look at the comments did not see what you did there.

That's because quantum physicists don't agree, and don't know, what constitutes a measurement. There are different interpretations. What's important is that the mathematics makes accurate predictions, which is how you know you're on the right track. But understanding what the math "means" in a broader sense? Or explaining it to a layman without first teaching them multivariate calculus? Pfff, right. Good luck.

Same here. End of the 80ies, I've studied physics and just about this question collapsed my brain :)

I've understood and argued for something different from what Sabine described as what a measurement is and isn't, so I'll take it that I was mistaken. Bum. Ah well.

It only seems that way if you failed to pay attention in high school science class. ;-)

A shared property separated by what we perceive as distance.

Wishing Sabine luck with her math.

She said "... and when they find" not I find

@@arthurbraaddoktor1579 I hope 'they' solve it via this video.

The Aether Field! e->~

Measurements (input) are converted into predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Objective is dual to subjective, absolute is dual to relative, independence is dual to dependence! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non-being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. Duality (energy) creates reality! Energy is duality, duality is energy -- pure energy conforms to wave/particle or quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.

:D :D :D Well if quantum mechanics didn't have a firm grasp on reality itself to begin with, then yeah, this would happen all the time to anyone :D

@@innerfield5481 say what? Philosophy is just a load of wannabe crap for people who can't grasp science or maths!

@@innerfield5481 we have the standard model of particle physics and we know what particles and force carriers are required to create everything. We already know and have proven that reality exists, no sain person thinks otherwise. Its the physicists that have got us to this point. You can't be serious thinking any philosopher has helped society or is any where near the intelligence of Einstein, Dirac, Feynman or Hawking!!! You are deluded if you compare a philosopher with a physicist lol!!!

@@robertowen8281 Any reasonable scientist, such as Sabine herself, can tell you that's nonsense! Modal logic (which doesn't just enable us to make valid arguments, but even makes our computers function) was developed first by Aristotle, then further by analytical philosophers like Wittgenstein and Russell (who contributed a lot to mathematics in general, like co-writing the Principia Mathematica). The scientific method was substantially developed by philosophers of science (Popper, Kuhn etc.). Newton and Leibniz were scientists and philosophers at the same time. Erwin Schrödinger was deeply influenced by vitalist philosophy, Niels Bohr was an epistemic idealist (which is expressed in the Copenhagen Interpretation), Einstein owed much of his intellectual development to reading Schopenhauer and Spinoza… Deleuzian metaphysics is built on concepts from organic chemistry, Badiou's ontology is a combination of mathematics and continental philosophy, and more recently, speculative philosophers like Quentin Meillassoux have combined philosophical realism with set theory and cosmology. Rather than accusing philosophers of being clueless about math and science, maybe you should stop the Dunning-Kruger action and learn what philosophy actually is.

@@innerfield5481 Why? Good scientists know their philosophy, and good philosophers know their science!

Cheermate

I think reality exists but sometimes I wonder what happened yesterday was it a reality ? Second why is Sabine not looking real ?

If a tree falls in the jungle and no one is there trust me it will make a noise which the plants and animals will hear 🙉....

Our Holy Book Quran says it all....Allah is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth 🌍.......

This is a very deep topic and Sabine has done a good job at it.However why is she and many like her creating doubts in our minds about reality ?

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

the more you relax, the more you'll fail to see the agenda Sabine is pushing into your brain. She obviously has a deep yearning for the world to be a straight forward physical reality as it looked in the Newtonian time and she's waiting for the "biggest breakthrough" that will bring about it, the problem is: the world doesnt care what she wishes, and thus this breakthrough will remain a wishfull thinking forever

Whip cream on the bridge

Same here. The lack of good explanations about it always bothered me. I'm not sure if I should feel relieved or disappointed that the reason is that noone actually has that explanation though.

@@Quargos relieved i'd say. means we still have so so much to figure out.

For more info about it see: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

They don't like that it's a field. They want it to be more particley.

@@crazyjkass : A relevant question is, what was the nature of the thing a moment before it was "measured" (detected)? The moment before, was it entirely near the point of detection (like a particle) or was some of it outside the past lightcone of the point of detection (like a spread-out wave)?

But that's what the Schodinger's cat "thought experiment" did. It ignored the perception of the cat itself, which was NOT a physical error, but a philosophical one.

Measurements (input) are converted into predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Objective is dual to subjective, absolute is dual to relative, independence is dual to dependence! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non-being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. Duality (energy) creates reality! Energy is duality, duality is energy -- pure energy conforms to wave/particle or quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.

Il ike the statement that the propablity collapses by the measurement, that makes it a whole lot more real in the context of this video.

Wasn't it the same with thermodynamics (entropy in particular) before we were able to better describe behaviours of individual particles? And the old good thermodynamics is still useful even when we are able to describe the same phenomena by simulating behaviour of individual particles. Maybe some day we will understand quantum systems well enough to describe them without using probability, but probability may still be useful for solving various quantum problems.

I am not sure that is the case. It _is_ indeterminate. That is what is going on.

@@bsadewitz on the contrary...All the evidence shows that the universe is deterministic. It's just that we don't have any way of predicting, or measuring or understanding beyond a certain point.

@@somethingsinlife5600 nature is deterministic but not fully determined yet. You on the other hand are free to respond to this comment or not. :)

She readily dismisses important philosophical questions as "nonsense" a little too easily (as do you).

@@gregorynixon2945 Give me a fucking break. I'm still writing papers - are you?

@@ultrametric9317 I'm a fucking retired professor of philosophy. Are you?

@@gregorynixon2945 No I am a physicist.

😂😂😂

@Skippy Why do that when one can watch brain-bending videos on UKposts?

@Skippy Sorry my intended jocularity didn't come through. I'm a grown adult here making 'your face is a ...' jokes in STEM videos. I actually get headaches from trying to follow some of the concepts of these videos. I actually worked out something that had been bothering me from this video, that's a nice buzz for me. :)

@Skippy Yet, here we are! 😆

😭😭

Even objective seems like human centric

@@raazbabbar3550 Or "reality"... Reality of what your brain interprets, right? Very egocentric! :D

I like the term 'consensus reality' to describe the mass agreements of what constitutes reality. It is more malleable than it seems, which is important to remember, I believe.

Then why wasn’t the Earth actually flat when most people in the world thought it was? Or Geocentrism real when everyone thought it was? How is it possible to find overwhelming evidence that contradicts the consensus, or “consensual reality”, when the consensus determines what’s real? Could it be that we’ve all confused our interpretation of reality for reality itself? Could it be that what’s real is real irrespective of what people believe, and that’s how nature has a continuity and consistency that people’s beliefs don’t have? Or why reality hasn’t ripped itself apart with paradoxes by trying to conform to humans’ often contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs, and beliefs don’t have to be real?

@@kurtlangberg5886 New information can force the consensus reality to be adjusted. Yes, reality is despite what anyone thinks or believes. People can experience cognitive dissonance and either break through that to a better understanding of life and realty, or try to shore up their preexisting beliefs as a survival mechanism. Individuals', groups' and societies' views change, which is why I said consensus reality is malleable. I hope that answers you.

hahahahahahahaahaha My godness, you just described me. While i was reading the comments about this crazyness i even forgot about my reality here. It's like the meme where the brains asks to the little girl that owns it if she was already sleeping and then proceeds to ask something very misterious that will keep her woke for thr rest of the night.

Check out Professor M does science, you won't regret it: and plz spread the message.

Just say the uni

As I understood (i’m not a physicist) the question is if a measurement is always accompanied by a measurement device or if two particles interacting with ech other through forces already represents a measurement.

@@ismaily.3479 it’s honestly a ridiculous idea. The instrument is made up of individual particles, so it’s always going to be particles interacting with particles. There’s no point in making a distinction between “measurement devices” (a label we apply to certain bundles of particles) vs other particles/bundles.

@@SirArthurTheGreat My assumption was that classic reality, the newtonian and einsteinian world is defined through mass interaction of particles. Think of it like this. How do you describe a particle which is not affected by any force? We assume that this particle still exists in the same state as before, but can we be so sure about that? In quantum mechanics we see strange behaviours in similar situations where forces are minimized. What if we just realized with quantum mechanics, that our perception of reality is limitted only to one were interaction always exists? We understand reality as interaction between all the things that exist. So we can't comprehend it, if this interaction/interconnection is cut.

The problem is that a "measurement" has both a physical and a nonphysical part. In quantum mechanics, interactions should be all there is, but such interactions are in principle reversible (which is called unitary). The measurement introduces a non-unitary evolution, which distinguishes it from a normal interaction. Some people contend that a measurement comprises a complex chain of interactions as described by decoherence theory. However, this can't be proven, so doesn't solve the problem. As an example of the nonphysical nature of the measurement, take the measurement of the height of a tree. You can make a measurement stick and place it next to the tree. The physical aspect is just the placement of the stick. The non-physical part is the measurement itself. You have created a measurement stick of known height and use that to gain knowledge of the height of the tree. This is where quantum mechanics runs into problems of definition. Without measurements, quantum mechanics is unitary. Yet the unitary description of reality is something we do not experience (i.e., we do not experience superpositions and we experience a distinct arrow of time). So quantum mechanics was developed to predict what we experience, or "measure". Now, since Einstein, there have been numerous advances in constraining the properties of our "reality". The first major breakthrough was Bell's theorem, which allowed a theory-independent test of the properties of reality. In particular, Bell's tests have shown that "local realism" is not compatible with observation. Einstein believed in local realism, and so thought that quantum mechanics was incomplete. Now with the development of Bell's tests, we know that Einstein's intuition was wrong on that score. The Wigner's friend experiment is a further step in this direction. In fact, Eric Cavalcanti with Howard Wiseman extended Brukner's no-go theorem to provide yet another test of reality, which included the possibility of "observer-independent facts". This, like Bell's theorem, was formulated as a theory-independent inequality that can be used to test reality. In particular, the test indicates that no theory that violates the inequality can collectively exhibit local reality and observer-independent facts. Objective reality means something to us in our macroscopic world. However, this work suggests that such objectivity is more an emergent property than a fundamental property. The measurement itself is something that takes us out of the theory to update our knowledge of the state of the system. The various interpretations of quantum mechanics deal with this in different ways. For example, in the many-worlds interpretation, there are no measurements, but infinitely many worlds that simultaneously exist. However, it doesn't explain why we only experience one of them. Overall, I think this video trivialised the underlying issues with the foundations of physics and pushed the presenter's perspective, rather than an unbiased summary. What's more important is the emergence of objectivity from quantum theory.

Exactly. When the measurement collapses the Probability wave function, a certainly occurs or exists. Therefore, the original Probability function was invalid!

There is a statistical approach that is rather intuitive but it presupposes that quantum mechanics is an approximation for an underlying reality that we may one day recover (what Einstein hoped for) or may in some way be fundamentally hidden to us (Blokhintsev's modification of Einstein's views), which is rather intuitive but some people dislike the idea that there is a gap between quantum theory and reality. The relational interpretation makes the most coherent sense if you want to interpret quantum mechanics _as is_ without adding anything to it or presupposing it is incomplete (which is a valid presupposition for a researcher, maybe not for a Layman). Velocities, lengths, the passage of time, even masses, these kinds of things all already vary in value based on reference frame, so the relational interpretation just says particle states also vary based on reference frame. Reality is not "observer-dependent" but just relativistic. In both views, there is no measurement problem.

I'm a layman on QM, but couldn't you infer the particle's existence and (at least) the type of information it carried by weighing the source before and after its emission, or otherwise accounting for the missing particle?

@@jesseb1677 You definitely could, given you know and keep unaffected the state of the source system before-during-and-after the interaction. We can do it for a system of 2 quantas. To some degree, we can do it for a system of 4 or even 8 (see Quantum Computers), but that's it. Nobody is able to control the quantum state of a macro system.

"Bob-darn thing " I'm gonna start using this

is not that hard... there was matrices, and matrices and matrices

invertible matrix theorem, eigen values, eigen vectors, row reduction

I dunno. The explanation sounds like it's much ado about nothing. Why should the measurement of a particle be anymore mysterious than: we don't know exactly where it is, until we measure it.

@@wulphstein Right? I share your question. If an update of the wave function is dependent on the information the measurer recieves, I fail to see why this is logically any different than the case of observation of movement from different inertial systems

That is great - I've not heard the first half of this before, but it's the important part!

Well I probably don't have your brain power, I was just a mechanic but Ive heard the second line used as it's own quote.

@@stclairstclair >>> I was a mechanic as well...👍👍

But each measurement costs a little bit of energy, so it *does* cause something to happen, which is enough to collapse the wave function. That's the paradox.

@@tigerpjm Correlation != causation.

@@victorw.3151 Yeah, take your platitudes elsewhere, reality doesn't care about them.

@@tigerpjm Nor does it care about your rationalization.

@@victorw.3151 Yes, because if there's one thing we know it's that there is no place for being "rational" in science, huh? No place for reason and logic in science, it's all about your feelings, isn't it Buttercup? But please, do tell us how the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong and how Einstein and Special Relativity have been completly destroyed by your assertion that correlation doesn't equal causation. Which you clearly have no clue the meaning of. I'll make the popcorn and take an aspirin, I'm pretty sure there is about to be a big split in my side.

Whose reality, yours or mine??

@@dr.jamesolack8504 Mine by a minority but still present view in Quantum Mechanics there is only one observe and everything else a figment of their imagination.

All Cretans are liars - said by a Cretan.

POST 132: Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong [and I have over 130 main posts on Sabine's thread on free will about this]. But ​ like you the reader- this morning a man said and I replied to him BUT TO YOU AS WELL! ​ @Vinx.909 You said "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . You then carried on to give brilliant logical explanation like the other guy above - so huge thanks. Your logic is impeccable but devoid of reason. Therefore you are wrong. Man needs the twin engines: reason and logic to reach valid conclusion. You can write consistent logic and grammar and end up with Harry Potter. It's still fiction . IN MATH you can do that too and end up with STRING THEORY: multi-verse and multi-dimensional reality of at least 9. And that is like DR. STRANGE AND SPIDER-MAN IN THE MOVIES RIGHT NOW. FICTION ! FICTION FICTION ! In physics , you can "solve" the 100 year dilemma as many have done of Schroedinger's cat in quantum physics by saying it's both dead and alive; a quantum is both particle and wave [contrary to all logic] by saying the universe and you split a 1million times per second and we are back to INFINITY WARS/AVENGERS/MARVEL COMICS - Dr. Strange: FICTION FICTION FICTION. SO when physicists say MANYWORLDS is or may be correct they are WRONG [and the word "maybe" does not even apply]. There is only existence. But how do you know ? Let's find out. Let's start at the beginning when you just said -> "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . ___________________________________ But that's like "proving pigs have wings". It's an impossibility. In fact - it is "more possible" to one day prove pigs have wings (or fly) due to prospective genetic engineering or "creative trick like putting artificial glider wings on them" and throwing them off a aircraft THAN materialism (the key suffix being "-ism" which means the totality of reality just like feminism does not mean gender equality but means superiority of women with laws to enforce this faulty false concept or just as worse environmental-ism). 1. All science is dependent upon assuming there is existence and you are a person with free will that can exercise it to generate hypotheses [computers can not do that], separate control from experiment [computers can not design this not even in VR mode as it takes a mind with free will, a spiritual non-mystical quality with potency not impotent]. It needs man's mind to interpret the results and form conclusion then defend the theses [computers can not do any of the above BUT can help collect the results and within narrow limits analyze results if subject to algorithm like gas particle equations or certain sociological things like traffic congestion and smart-city light-traffic control] IF computers could induct you can fire all the coders at trillion dollar tech companies and have a mega computer self code [think about it - it's only coding; surely this limited task can be done by computers? Answer? No. It needs man ! There are "coding tasks" computers CAN do but it is man that must induct and interpret equivalent to science above]. Conclusion? Materialism or variations like modernism, post-modernism etc. are all wrong. The mind of man is NOT physical and NOT the brain. The mind is most likely dependent upon the brain and maybe a self emergent but potent quality from the working of the brain. The words in this paragraph only like "maybe" or "most likely" are concepts of science which always probabilistic AND NEVER the ground floor to grasp reality. Science and math needs to assume there is reality: existence, mind [with free will - a spiritual but non mystical quality] with Aristotle's law of identity [truth and the above is it] to even "do science or math". How to validate you have a mind that is potent and indeed separate spiritual but not-mystical? Pick up a pen. BOOM! If you're a rational man you will know the pen is "in and of existence" as opposed to a no-thing-ness. Therefore - the biggest line in all of human history coming up: consciousness is the identification of the pen! JUST KIDDING! -> Consciousness is the identification of existence. This is the correct line. It therefore means MANY things so pay attention. a. Consciousness can not identify itself (circular logic, error of logic) and therefore must be SEPARATE to existence. b. The fact consciousness is engaging in an act, an action, a verb, the "identification" means it is potent (not impotent, not passive) meaning you exercise free will to make a choice between "no-thing-ness" and existence. c. But it is "you" that makes that choice so consciousness is NOT the universe like Nobelist Wheeler assumed or genius Freeman Dyson or his friend Deepak Chopra. Existence is a separate identity and not conscious. The pen exists in and of existence so the broadest concept of the entire cosmos is existence exists which means it existed, exists and will exist into infinity. You can NEVER ask "how" because that is to presuppose existence-BEFORE-existence , an error of logic. And you can therefore NEVER say "maybe the pen is a simulation and so are all things like in Matrix movies - how'd you know?" Because this is return to God argument: who created the simulation ? And the simulations's simulation ? And their creator's creator's creator? Reductio Ad ABSURDUM is a known error of logic. So you can only validate [like the word proof] - that existence exists by "identifying" the pen is of existence [which only a rational man can do: A.I. can not do it, animals have not done it and mental patients can not do it as irrational]. However people that are prospectively able to learn the methods of reason and logic CAN DENY "FREE WILL " [like you] whilst USING FREE WILL to make that denial. To reach ANY CONCLUSION even if wrong needs a "choice" making capacity in man: free wil. Therefore you always have free will but need to learn, master and use the correct method to reach VALID conclusion and that is is reason and logic. Now let's conclude and summarize! In conclusion : what is the ground floor of reality called "metaphysics"? Existence exists Consciousness with free will [as this identity identifies the above identity: which leads you to the below] Aristotle law of identity [there is truth of the and in the cosmos - i.e. invariant patterns that man can glean using reason and logic to "identify' such "identity"]. Existence, mind and identity. Q.E.D.

@@AmericanBrain these assumption of science are necessary to explain how and what causes a phenomenon . It is entirely possible that the world is contradictory , illogical , or it is impossible for anything at all to understand the universe , but these assumption result in a total of zero understand of how the universe works and thus technological advancement have to happen purely by chance discovery . You think you are making choices but in reality that was predetermined . Electrical impulses in the brain can be seen before you are even aware of " your choice" . Determinism doesn't prevent us from doing science , just as it doesn't prevent a computer from doing facial recognition or calculate 2+2=4 . We don't make decisions , rather we are the decision or the though itself . We are what the molecules and atom does , but we are not the atom , we don't exist , we are a process . People don't exist , the brain is peopling . The brain is performing the function of experience . You aren't aware , the brain is awaring . When It come down to speed and possibly storage , computer got us beat , but the algorithm that has been evolved for millions of years , that or brain is executing is far more complex than any computer .

@@AmericanBrain "existence exist "is wrong . Existence is a concept , concepts don't exist . You have a concept that a concept exist .

Measurements (input) are converted into predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Objective is dual to subjective, absolute is dual to relative, independence is dual to dependence! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non-being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. Duality (energy) creates reality! Energy is duality, duality is energy -- pure energy conforms to wave/particle or quantum duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.

You mean uses words without ever having the faintest idea what she means by them, presumably

Most of the popular YT channels on "da science" ARE gobbledygook and sensationalism.

In many's eyes "quantum physics" seems like made up fantasy magic SO abstract that they can do nothing but believe it. And somehow, that's their job. It must be SO far out to them 😂 But there's a clear difference between pure guesswork, and calculated attempts to improve a theory.... I say this because as my time as a programmer, it's clear who just use trial & error until it works, and those who actually understand what the code they write, does.

@@adaeptzulander2928 What I love about Sabine is that she IS in fact a physicist! She isn't just an enthusiast who just read up on it!

Can you elaborate more on this? I have always kind of thought this way but never had any information to back it up

But this is what has always been my problem with quantum theory: at what threshold of reactions (or interactions) can a "measurement" be said to have been made, and the superposition to have collapsed? Does the measurement have to be observed by something having "consciousness"? Does it have to have a "soul"? Are photons conscious? is a silver halide crystal that reacts to a photon conscious? Does it achieve consciousness when you develop it and it is either converted to metallic silver or not? Or cats? Can a cat observe the metallic silver in a photograph, or the onset of its own death? It would be hard to find anyone who has ever met a cat, who would argue that the cat is not conscious, but maybe the same can be said for photons...

Just because an electron is a particle outside of an atom, it doesn't automatically imply that it is a particle inside an atom. There were physicists in the past who interpreted the density functions as the solution of the differential equations as physical densities, meaning that an electron does not behave as a single particle inside an atom. Instead, an electron becomes "spread out" when it goes back into an atom.

@@BrightBlueJim I never understood what made anyone think that observer must be conscious. None of the experiments afaik suggested it beyond phrasing "observer" which some interpreted that "well its an observer so it must be conscious" instead of simply stating that its an interaction. Just using the word "to observe" prompted ppl to anthropomorphisation of objects based on NOTHING

​@@BrightBlueJim I'd say the point of measurement literally moves. It's at the atomic level when two atoms bump, or at the human level when a human observes it, or at the galactic level when a chain reaction of events has let to the birth of a star. It's only collapsed from the perspective of anything that's already interacted with it. No consciousness is necessary at all, just interactions. It's possible, in the example given in this video, that the wavefunction IS collapsed for the woman in the room and NOT for the man outside at the same time, because the interaction hasn't yet reached him. Once he learns of the result, he is now inside the reach of the interaction, and so the wavefunction collapses for him. But for anyone who hasn't read the paper about his results, it's possible that same wavefunction is not yet collapsed, since they haven't yet interacted with it in any way. It's the complex web of interactions and entanglement that leads to what we perceive as a single, uniform reality, but that doesn't mean such a uniform reality exists. Only overlapping bubbles like a Venn diagram.

@@trumplostlol3007 I don't think that matters in this case. Particle or only a wave, it's still SOMETHING that interacts. I see what we perceive as a uniform reality to be nothing more than the compelx web woven of uncountably many interactions between waves, particles, fields, etc, much like a giant Venn Diagram. Our perception that there is a single reality might be very much the same as an electron acting different inside an atom.

Love her sarcasm.

Sabine is a fraud. How about when a group of people who have been profiting from an old theory, which was wrong, are excluded from creating the new theory? Sabine is like a rat leaving a burning ship, not for the good of anyone else but because she wants to make a new theory. The theories in modern physics have been verifiable absurd since the time of Tesla and there are people who have the correct theories but the truth is always hidden first the initial deception and then the secondary deception. Sabine is just part of the next set of lies which are going to be rolled out to make sure the truth is hidden. The truth is we don't know much about much, technology is very different from understanding and technology works based on the laws of the universe not based on mankind's theories about the laws of the universe. The theory can be completely wrong yet the technology works perfectly well, academia clings desperately to the notion that "the technology works so we must be correct" this is a logical fallacy.

Shades of Godel

That’s simply a definition issue. If you define sound as waves in the air (which I think is the best definition) then yes there is a sound, If you define it as a human perception of those waves then there is no sound. Like a lot of philosophic paradoxes, it’s only a paradox due to imprecise definitions

​@@michaeldebellis4202 Perhaps I should have been clearer. It's not a question of definitions. As far as I can see there's no ambiguity here. Pressure waves caused by a falling tree exist outside of human perception. And when those pressure waves are perceived they become sound. The waves and their perception are separate. Pressure waves in the air are merely a physical phenomenon. Those waves are assigned meaning, as sound, when heard. So until there's a person (or arguably any sentient life) around to hear them, there is no sound. So the falling tree in Berkeley's thought experiment does not make a 'sound'. Cheers.

Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves.. "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992)

Uncommon sense 🤣 , so weird .

With how you chose to word your comment you proved the statement that nothing is real. If sound can only exist if we are near the source of the sound then it isn't real to begin with and we certaintly aren't real either. Problematic. A sound is independent of and whether we have an observer or not. But we do not know that this sound exists until we subjectively experience it - is it then real? A lot of problems with this.

It tends to be that the person who gets the equations down seems to be relied on to build the visualization of it. The equations scientists have produced work great to make predictions, but, we can be way off on our explanations for WHY. Current explanations are sounding a lot more how I imagined Quantum physics to be -- the earlier explanations sounded very wrong and I wondered how they got the math right. I think the people using the "uncertainty principle" or "the observer" concepts as principles of existence I think keeps people from real understanding. We know the Universe exists, and, if it doesn't, well, it's real enough to keep us busy. We have cause and effect, and we ASSUME there are laws to physics. Not that what we witness isn't appearing to behave in consistent ways and that physics isn't very good at predictions; it's just that we are assuming that physics creates reality, rather than, reality is physics -- or in other words; "equal and opposite forces in predictable states." Everything we witness, sums to zero -- what we don't see, is things that get something from nothing or are irrational. One of the many "chills on my spine" moments was when I thought about the concept that there are no rules at all forcing physics. That perhaps, existence is ONLY where things are equal and opposite. We do not witness consistent anomalies so therefore, we are never in the "universe with the lesser probability" and what are the chances of that? There would be local phenomena where pockets would not behave if every random chance were played out. Things move in predictable ways because all the possible states where they don't -- are not part of existence. The point is, that the truth, whatever it is, will not have contradictions -- at least based on our observations, assuming we are not in a unique state of physics in our part of the Universe. If we think things are not rational, then, we are most likely looking at it from the wrong perspective. In our 4D perspective, we can ONLY interact in 4D. It's like a flat universe witnessing a ball pass through it. It would be a circle that starts small, grows larger, then shrinks and disappears. From their perspective, it fluctuates--it comes from nothing, becomes massive and disappears, from our perspective with one more dimension in the Z plane, it is a stable sphere that merely moved perpendicular to the flat world. A star-shaped solid object, would appear as multiple points that converged and then split again. The flat Universe is actually 3D when you consider time - and, extra dimensional interactions would seem random. In our Universe, we seem to not notice such randomness, so, the other dimensions we are interacting with are perhaps tied with ours on a fundamental level. Perhaps a 5D Universe would have more randomness -- or, more likely, reality is 4D with 16 dimensional groups entangled. Because it appears rational. And, if there were 5D or 3D Universes arbitrarily, then they'd at some point interact with ours.

@@mpjstuff can we even imagine a 5th or 6th etc dimension? and as far as why....are you hinting at intelligent design...or some other explanation. maybe the is no why. and i did not leave this commet.

@@williammintz4367 I figure the dimensions may be unlimited and the Big Bang continuous with a "new layer" each moment -- but not really time-travel. When you look at a river, it seems from a distance it's the same pattern -- but, not the same water. And, likely every 16 dimensions clumps into a Universe -- that allows for 4 quantum fields with slightly different values of Time -- which is what creates the curvature of space and distance. All forces are based on time and space and there is no LAW to physics that enforces it -- only, anything that is not summing to zero does not exist, or at least, is not part of our "frame" of reality. Ultimately in the higher dimensions, there is no TIME or DISTANCE, so the experience of time is resolving an affinity between closer branches that allow this static to achieve a zero pont (take some time to explain) -- and, it's crazy that what I envisioned is how AI is currently creating original art from static with Gaussian functions. This structure is below what we'd call "quantum" but, it's how I see that everything is created from one wave or point. And, there are a few models I see at the same time to try and describe it.

@@mpjstuff Yes, i agree with you, in our universe everything has a propose, it's not like a game where you gonna find a lot bugs and see objects dissapearing or bugged npc's and so on.... hahaha Despite the fact that we can proove how we interphret, how we construct the reality in our brains and we don't see as it is 100%. Whenever i watch videos like this i really get confused. For what i've seen before, unfortunatelly life is not like Matrix, but it could be. But if you look closely into any object, you'll see those tiny particles. Reality is made of it and not of a bigger objects like a box, which os only the result of those particles togheter. So, why would i be wrong to say that our reality doesn't exists, at least the way we think about it?

@@a.thiago3842 I've heard some musings that since the Universe is infinite (well the Cosmos is), that everything is possible. But - if there are some basics to how the Universe and all Universes function, then, not everything we can imagine is possible. However, if advanced species create virtual spaces that are so complex they can evolve their own life -- then, the rules can be manipulated such that anything is possible -- however, to introduce nonsensical rules would require more complexity to "fudge" the results, such that physics operates by different rules than are possible with "equal on opposite" and conservation of energy. "Reality" has to exist -- if only that we have observed our rational framework of cause and effect and our finite existence has permanent consequences -- as far as we know. And, by our definition of a reality, the conditions we live in might as well be real, even if they are virtual. We will eventually "grow" via machine learning, the next generation of AI. And at some point, their complexity and adaptation to challenges, will result in something that seems conscious for all intents and purposes. And much of that growth will be simulations -- virtual models, that challenge each other allow the machine to learn. If they achieve consciousness -- it will be BECAUSE of a simulation in their 'minds". Similar to how humans dream and anticipate challenges. So, I can definitely see the question (by a real AI of reality -- not these chatbots that have learned well to give answers those based on sampling the Web that results in acceptable answers to humans. You reduce a consciousness to it's discrete parts and by themselves, they do not seem to be capable of that. It's only a complex interaction that results in Cognition . We have yet to find things that cease to be when we stop looking. Our consciousness is not truly complete, and so when we question reality, the simple answer is; "What we experience might as well be reality." We only can understand and witness a small part of it.

My favourite series of volumes on explicating philosophy.

Well Einstein sayd this to, to bad he was proven wrong. See EPR paradox and especially Bells inqualuty. Fannilg tree makes noise, the question is what is the probability of there is a tree for me if it is there for you.

@@tex1297 has anyone seen any images of Quantum field?(example:photon-field,up-quark field) ,the closest thing i got is this video @1:30 ukposts.info/have/v-deo/aaF7ZKVrjGxkwqs.html. In this video there is an image/GIF it is called as Gluon-field(which is one of quantum field) other than that i am not able to find any other image(simulated or animated) image of quantum field

POST 132: Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong [and I have over 130 main posts on Sabine's thread on free will about this]. But ​ like you the reader- this morning a man said and I replied to him BUT TO YOU AS WELL! ​ @Vinx.909 You said "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . You then carried on to give brilliant logical explanation like the other guy above - so huge thanks. Your logic is impeccable but devoid of reason. Therefore you are wrong. Man needs the twin engines: reason and logic to reach valid conclusion. You can write consistent logic and grammar and end up with Harry Potter. It's still fiction . IN MATH you can do that too and end up with STRING THEORY: multi-verse and multi-dimensional reality of at least 9. And that is like DR. STRANGE AND SPIDER-MAN IN THE MOVIES RIGHT NOW. FICTION ! FICTION FICTION ! In physics , you can "solve" the 100 year dilemma as many have done of Schroedinger's cat in quantum physics by saying it's both dead and alive; a quantum is both particle and wave [contrary to all logic] by saying the universe and you split a 1million times per second and we are back to INFINITY WARS/AVENGERS/MARVEL COMICS - Dr. Strange: FICTION FICTION FICTION. SO when physicists say MANYWORLDS is or may be correct they are WRONG [and the word "maybe" does not even apply]. There is only existence. But how do you know ? Let's find out. Let's start at the beginning when you just said -> "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . ___________________________________ But that's like "proving pigs have wings". It's an impossibility. In fact - it is "more possible" to one day prove pigs have wings (or fly) due to prospective genetic engineering or "creative trick like putting artificial glider wings on them" and throwing them off a aircraft THAN materialism (the key suffix being "-ism" which means the totality of reality just like feminism does not mean gender equality but means superiority of women with laws to enforce this faulty false concept or just as worse environmental-ism). 1. All science is dependent upon assuming there is existence and you are a person with free will that can exercise it to generate hypotheses [computers can not do that], separate control from experiment [computers can not design this not even in VR mode as it takes a mind with free will, a spiritual non-mystical quality with potency not impotent]. It needs man's mind to interpret the results and form conclusion then defend the theses [computers can not do any of the above BUT can help collect the results and within narrow limits analyze results if subject to algorithm like gas particle equations or certain sociological things like traffic congestion and smart-city light-traffic control] IF computers could induct you can fire all the coders at trillion dollar tech companies and have a mega computer self code [think about it - it's only coding; surely this limited task can be done by computers? Answer? No. It needs man ! There are "coding tasks" computers CAN do but it is man that must induct and interpret equivalent to science above]. Conclusion? Materialism or variations like modernism, post-modernism etc. are all wrong. The mind of man is NOT physical and NOT the brain. The mind is most likely dependent upon the brain and maybe a self emergent but potent quality from the working of the brain. The words in this paragraph only like "maybe" or "most likely" are concepts of science which always probabilistic AND NEVER the ground floor to grasp reality. Science and math needs to assume there is reality: existence, mind [with free will - a spiritual but non mystical quality] with Aristotle's law of identity [truth and the above is it] to even "do science or math". How to validate you have a mind that is potent and indeed separate spiritual but not-mystical? Pick up a pen. BOOM! If you're a rational man you will know the pen is "in and of existence" as opposed to a no-thing-ness. Therefore - the biggest line in all of human history coming up: consciousness is the identification of the pen! JUST KIDDING! -> Consciousness is the identification of existence. This is the correct line. It therefore means MANY things so pay attention. a. Consciousness can not identify itself (circular logic, error of logic) and therefore must be SEPARATE to existence. b. The fact consciousness is engaging in an act, an action, a verb, the "identification" means it is potent (not impotent, not passive) meaning you exercise free will to make a choice between "no-thing-ness" and existence. c. But it is "you" that makes that choice so consciousness is NOT the universe like Nobelist Wheeler assumed or genius Freeman Dyson or his friend Deepak Chopra. Existence is a separate identity and not conscious. The pen exists in and of existence so the broadest concept of the entire cosmos is existence exists which means it existed, exists and will exist into infinity. You can NEVER ask "how" because that is to presuppose existence-BEFORE-existence , an error of logic. And you can therefore NEVER say "maybe the pen is a simulation and so are all things like in Matrix movies - how'd you know?" Because this is return to God argument: who created the simulation ? And the simulations's simulation ? And their creator's creator's creator? Reductio Ad ABSURDUM is a known error of logic. So you can only validate [like the word proof] - that existence exists by "identifying" the pen is of existence [which only a rational man can do: A.I. can not do it, animals have not done it and mental patients can not do it as irrational]. However people that are prospectively able to learn the methods of reason and logic CAN DENY "FREE WILL " [like you] whilst USING FREE WILL to make that denial. To reach ANY CONCLUSION even if wrong needs a "choice" making capacity in man: free wil. Therefore you always have free will but need to learn, master and use the correct method to reach VALID conclusion and that is is reason and logic. Now let's conclude and summarize! In conclusion : what is the ground floor of reality called "metaphysics"? Existence exists Consciousness with free will [as this identity identifies the above identity: which leads you to the below] Aristotle law of identity [there is truth of the and in the cosmos - i.e. invariant patterns that man can glean using reason and logic to "identify' such "identity"]. Existence, mind and identity. Q.E.D.

Perhaps a better question is to ask why lies are paraded as "facts"? Ultimately we live in a world where the truth doesn't matter any longer.

Truth is the nature of how all 'things' exist.. "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) "Denying realism amounts to megalomania" (Karl Popper, 1975) "Hell is truth seen too late" Thomas Hobbes

Attempts have been made.

Run forward. Hit a wall. The pain? That's real.

@@bogusphone8000 What is "real"? After all, what you can tell as "real" is ultimately a series of electrical and chemical signals, interpreted by your brain. If those signals were faithfully recreated, you'd experience something that does not exists in "reality", but such experience would be as "real" for you as the real deal. Holy cow... now we need to define "real" and "reality"!!!

@@mako9579 No we don't. What is a shared experience amongst all life is easily defined as real. Attempting to deconstruct that is a waste of time. Similar to the tree in a forest question, it is real even if there are no observers. We consume the oxygen of plant life we rarely (if ever) see. The really tough question is - are we prepared to grasp how little individual impact and importance we have in the vast universe while still being the greatest of all created things?

@@bogusphone8000 Go ahead and provide us with a solid definition of real and reality. 😉

You don't understand quantum mechanics, either (and neither does Sabine Hossenfelder, which becomes clear if you read her articles about it). So what's your point? That everybody who doesn't know anything about it, with exception of you, is wrong? ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 I’m assuming, based on your wink, you’re being sarcastic. Assuming not though, yes, I do seem to be seeking the opinion of someone who has a doctorate in Physics and who agrees with me. However, this is not confirmation that me, or Dr. Hossenfelder, are wrong. Just because we all seek confirmation of our views doesn’t mean we are in fact wrong. In fact, the consensus among scientists is that it is NOT clear what Quantum Mechanics, and QFT by extension, means for reality, which further reinforces why I dislike it when bad popular science commentators rush to the conclusion that scientists have proven either reality is some hallucination confined to your brain or we are very clearly in a multiverse. To add, there is scientific precedent to reject both conclusions referenced above. For starters, none have actually been tested on their own merits. Thus, they are still just hypotheses as far as science is concerned. To add, several noteworthy scientists then and now have rejected at least one of the conclusions above, several of whom were among the founders of Quantum Mechanics. Even Niels Bohr, who accepted and pushed the idea of observer-dependent variables in Quantum Mechanics, tried to distance himself from the implication that QM meant that reality was in your mind when Einstein later accused him of, “introducing mysticism to science.” Thus, while my comment does give off my bias against consciousness’ role, or lack thereof, in Quantum Mechanics, it should be clear, if you have studied the subject at all, that it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that QM proves reality is confined to your mind; a conclusion explicitly pushed by the articles referenced in the video and that, at least at the time of their publication in 2018, dominated the first page of search results for the subject. You can criticize mine or Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder’s views on the subject, but to say these articles accurately described the results, conclusions, and implications of the experiment discussed in the video or that Dr. Hossenfelder doesn’t understand Quantum Mechanics is definitely a poor argument at best.

@@tuckervaughan9622 I am pointing out the obvious: the less people know about QM, the more bullshit they are writing about it. Thanks for giving all of us another data point. :-)

Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves.. "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992)

@@fluentpiffle Why are you telling us that you failed high school science, kid? ;-)

Yes, philosophy was bullshit since 500BC. ;-)

Can you scientifically prove that you must exist to be the doubter

@@goyonman9655 Are you for real? Science must be based on truth for it to be real science. It is truth, and logic via truth, that proves something to be right and pertaining to the real world.. Otherwise, the question makes no sense

@@wprandall2452 That's not a scientific proof

@@goyonman9655 What is a scientific proof? Will that proof be right or will it be wrong? Sure, a scientist should conclude his opinion based on facts. But facts must have an interrelated consistency with truth. Scientists aren't the only people who can calculate facts. I'm a scientist, and I don't need a degree to discern facts and comprehend truth.