I totally agree, although I am just an engineer and PhD student and not a physicist. I think hence the reference to 'gobbledygook' or rather the without part of it!! :)

but that's because Bohr was the most intelligent human alive at that time, no one understood him.

I came here to write the exact same thing. Sabine, you are so funny! Hi from 🇨🇦

Common sense discredited by scientists led by Einstein saying that this is a set of prejudices you had at the age of eighteen has indeed some weaknesses. However, there must be some common core in it that cannot be violated.

Bohr was such a bore.. Magi-matics is all well and good but fundy physics is nowhere near properly physical enough. It's not that statistics and probability aren't important, its just they're not the whole story and point to unknown but proper underlying physics. I don't like the idea of (invented) bosons as force carriers, but if they must be used, an 'alternating current' style connection of bosons moving back and forth in sync, on the spot, could be an 'instant off' force. If one boson gets out of sync, all the rest stop vibrating in the next cycle (or a few ticks, but still many times faster than light)

Who scrutinises the scrutiniser?

Frank Zappa in Joe's garage!

@@edcunion "Turn it down...!!!" 😜

It's actually very easy to scrutinize.

See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.

Oh I heard "bombs" 😅

I was unconscious for 34 years and whilst those years I was a university lecturer and wrote a program that sold over 1000 copies in C/C++. I ask myself how does quantum physics explain this?

Bohr had it right @1:30 Everything that follows is an unnecessary trip down a rabbit hole. Needs a closer look at superposition & wave function.

Loved that one too. Sabine has so many good ones!

Why are you reading crappy sci-fi? ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 it’s about the exploration and film as thought experiment. Isn’t science a what if? Scenario? Don’t you have to provide a narrative in your mind? Carlo Rovelli goes to philosophy lectures because they help him deliver his findings on quantum time.

@@Magic-mushrooms113 Science is the rational description of nature. Please go back to primary school where they tried to explain this to you. ;-) Yes, as a physics PhD I do have a narrative in my mind. It rationally explains most known physical phenomena well. The ones it doesn't explain well are those for which we have insufficient experimental and observational data at this time. ;-) Rovelli is an idiot. Don't listen to him. :-)

Yooooo!!! That sounds so amazing, do you remember what it's called? I'm totally not gonna steal the idea for my own writing or anth, l would never...

I thought it gonna give random greens sometimes indicating there are invisible beings among us

Well said! You've put what I was thinking very succinctly. This is really it, isn't it?

Perfect for people who need quantum mechanics as an unquestioned support for New Age beliefs!

Basically religion at this point.

@@Belti200 which is why physicists don't discuss it much..

@@matthewjonas8952 Or the wishful thinking that we are nothing but dead matter somehow creating consciousness.

There is no consciousness discussion in physics! It's like asking a carpenter on a discussion on the biology of grass. Wrong topic. Look for my posts on this thread as I crack consciousness. It is the opposite of physics - literally. It it a meta-level. What? Meta-physics.

German humor at it's best. Maybe Mundstuhl, the comedian duo, can make us actually laugh.

Her jokes almost always make me audibly laugh

​@TheAmericanBrain you remind of a coworker. When I present him with data he doesn't like, says "no." And he believes that is the end of it. Meanwhile the world keeps moving along and fails to record his opinion.

Thats' an optimistic way of saying 'there's hardly anything we know'.

everyone has some form of bullshit. you should never assume anything, even that they keep it real. everyone has their own bs and tunnel vision. and people of theory are often very stubborn and firm, but often enough they are also wrong. that's the whole profession they do here.

Not really, she’s a shill

@@NuanceOverDogma how so?

@@NuanceOverDogma She wants people to buy her books and help subsidise her videos via deals with sponsors, that is pretty fair, she's not a shill. Sabine isn't out to deceive anyone.

Ok, who led you all here? Just say it so I can watch the video or read whatever they wrote and consider their argument. I’m assuming it’s well stated and convincing to lead to such a consensus in this thread

Hello 👋 How are you doing today??

And yet I get endless disrespect for calling myself ' Science Troll '.

theorys can't be DEBUNKED only Disproven untill proven otherwise. which is a faithless science way of looking at things

@@sciencetroll6304 Trolling is a subtle science not many understand 👹

@@arcadealchemist hm nah I would say an experimental falsification of the hypothesis debunks a theory. And on the contrary I would say that experimental confirmation of theoretical predictions validates a theory by failing to debunk it, but no experiment can "prove" a theory. Only confirm or deny it.

​@@haniamritdas4725 nothing is impossible. hence why debunking is always temporary on some theories.

I‘ve been watching videos about QM for about 8 years now. When I watch videos like this now I understand even less than before.

She's very good at how she presents this stuff, its very difficult to communicate these concepts in a lecture, let alone in a youtube video.

Don´t fool yourself. :-). You may be able to follow more, but you can easily check your real progress by trying to explain, what you think you understood, to a third person. Once you are able to correctly do that, only then you actually understood.

@@charles.e.g. Wow, politeness all over the place. Or have i touched a nerve? Have a nice day.

She is dead set in her old academical establishment. Authoritative and pretentious. When she says something doesn't make sense, she doesn't say for which scientist, implying that SHE doesn't think it makes sense...

True!

Please explain the quantum eraser.

@@ronaldreagan5981 She debunked the DCQE experiment & the whole of QM & is awaiting the UKposts Nobel prize atm.

@@jjtompson5914 yeah,I've been less than impressed since she told us how worried she was about climate change. Propaganda+physics equals propaganda.

@@ronaldreagan5981 Cause & effect experimentation is King,not words.

But we might all be hallucinations imagining each other hallucinating us hallucinating them... 😱

@@things_leftunsaid they may contain unrealized knowledge and inperceivable or inconceivable information. A book contains information without the book knowing the information. Sabrine though is not a hallucination, that would be a different situation. 😁

@@seriousmaran9414, Random numbers creating data. A, B, C, D all could be true until the wave goes boink. When it does, C becomes the reality and suddenly it always was. (That's not how reality works. That's how some people think reality works.)

See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.

@@things_leftunsaid turtles all the way down if you think about it. Who is hallucinating whom?

She refers to the wave function as a mathematical model. Einstein didn't like the idea of "spooky action at a distance" so he didn't really buy into it, but Bohr just emphasized that the wavefunction is a model that is not necessarily wrong but rather incomplete/lack of updates, the best model available to date to explain the phenomenon you describe.

I think all physical fenomena derive from a non physical realm or at least by a deeper physical reality not yet understood.

Actualy,Einstein deep down "bought into it."This is why one of Einstein's famous quotes is "Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one."@@_Egon

PBS does touch on those topics as well, but they don't have the same kind of grounded/pragmatic approach to physics. Still many great watches there, but I prefer the presentation style here.

What's PBS? The only one I know of is the polarizing beam splitter, but that's obviously the wrong guess.

@@romank.6813 PBS is a similar channel about physics. One of the best.

@@TheMelnTeam Sabine does not treat inflation, string theory, dark matter and multiverse theory as revealed truth. I like that attitude. For many physicists, these theories have become a new faith, although they have not been unequivocally confirmed and confirmation of some of them is not possible at all. The same is true of general relativity. For many physicists, it has become a dogma when astronomical observations blatantly contradict it. Dark matter was only invented to save general relativity. Instead of trying to modify this theory to be consistent with observations on a larger scale, most of the resources and time are spent searching for dark matter particles. Probably in vain.

@@romank.6813, Public Broadcasting System. It's the educational TV network in the United States.

Exactly. The hand-waving is insane, especially when we know quantum biology has been proven in photosynthesis. Her glossed over explanation of Orch OR dismisses how the aromatic rings, hydrophobic pockets and water molecules in a lattice alignment allows for coherence at much greater distances, but they don’t even pretend to have the full and complete model yet, it still needs work. There’s been an argument put forth recently that it could have something to do with spin, but either way, considering how Hameroff showed years ago that at the very least microtubules act as cellular automata, like a cellular computer, and how Penrose showed how you’d need some type of effect at the Plank scale of space time geometry to explain qualia, the very nature of consciousness, then regardless if the theory is a perfect working model, it’s far closer than anything else the reductionists and classicalists have put forth. Until these people can simulate a paramecium, which has been shown to have some kind of learning, or until they can show exactly how anesthesia actually works, which they can’t, why bother? These people aren’t being scientific. Bottom line, most of these people are conflating consciousness with intelligence, inductive and deductive reasoning.

@@hipreference I believe most people in here have open minds. I don't believe they are assuming that consciousness is intelligence, but I have argued with those who only view consciousness as awareness of one's surroundings. But, to me, this isn't about "them" ... if you understand what is offered, then you benefit regardless of whether anyone else does. Focus on the subject instead of the audience unless you're the one teaching and I think you'll gain a lot more than being witness to the flaws in the thinking of others.

@@lifecloud2 sure, I don’t think I’m going at the audience so much as the nebulous aether of classicalist physicists and “journalists” writing early moratoriums of Orch OR for over a decade, but sure that in and of itself it biased… admittedly I’m a bit of an armchair on-looker, but I think the theory has merit, even if it’s not perfect yet! But yeah, not throwing shade at the audience, just kinda talking out loud about the shade-throwers, and I felt like her attitude was indicative of that same attitude, kind of dismissive, didn’t seem to really grapple with many of the explanations the current version of the theory provides.

@@hipreference I think you're correct. Some ideas are easier to attach oneself to than others - insufficiently studied ideas are everywhere - some good, some bad. But it may not only be that there haven't been sufficient studies - making a living as a physicist can't be that easy for researchers with unusual ideas. I think we should strive to keep an open mind - and take care we are correctly observing, whether someone calls it scientific or not. Also, if the main problem someone has with Quantum Healing is truly that it makes ill people guilty (in her mind) of their causing their illness, then that seems like prejudice influencing what one can entertain. I MAY NOT WANT to suspect that people's mental states can influence their health. I MAY NOT WANT TO. But scientific inquiry has only succeeded to the extant it has, because we keep looking regardless of prejudices. For me consciousness is still not well understood. And I don't buy that it necessarily only takes place in the brain - there's still a history of research that's accessible in libraries around the world; popularity is not a factor in what's more true.

@@hipreference I disagree with your conclusion here ... that's all. Keep in mind that this is a youtube video, relatively short and geared towards an audience that isn't c generally composed of "classicalist physicists." I don't hear this as dismissive but as informative. She speaks to those who likely aren't interested in pursuing a hard-core career in physics but still hold an interest in the subject. She's taken 17 minutes to communicate ideas that could be broken down in detail over the course of weeks. I think she's done a fine job. And as an "armchair on-looker," who are you looking at?

How so?

@@ungratefulingrate1268 oh man this was a while ago. I think it’s the fact that consciousness can be part of an equation essentially and that equation can lead to different realities? Like the thought of a world where something didn’t happen is as likely as a world where it did turns “what’s the point of anything” into “what if” and “why bother” turns into “why not”

@@Blisscent That's a very positive point of view, I wish to share it one day Thank you for taking the time to respond

"Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex" -- Binmöller et al No idea what it all about except that there is little if any evidence for Orch OR

But Sabine is incorrect! 1/ Firstly, reality is knowable. It is existence. Consciousness is the identity that identifies existence in the nature of existence. You can identify the nature of existence, using reason and logic. Secondly, using science and mathematics as auxiliaries, you can extend man’s perspective, knowledge, just like a telescope or microscope, extends man senses. However, it is always consciousness that was interpret the data. Existence comes first and consciousness belongs to you and it identifies existence. And because one identity identifies the other identity, consciousness, identifies existence, this means Aristotle‘s law of identity. This means there is truth. And you can know the truth using reason and logic. It’s not about guesswork. It’s not about the superiority of physics. Physics is dependent upon metaphysics, meta-level. Metaphysics is simply: existence, exist, consciousness, with free, well, and Aristotle’s law of identity, which means truth. ---- 2/ reality is neither a deterministic, nor indeterministic, if by any indeterminism you mean - quantum or chaos theory indeterminism. There is no way chaos a randomness can lead to consciousness. Instead, consciousness is a causal property and you cause it. You are the cause and effect is thinking or doing some thing like raise your right hand up right now. You are the cause. It’s not your brain, but the “special Novel unique quality,”an emergent function of your brain. You cannot ask, how old is Consciousness arise in the brain because to ask that is to look for an emergent property in the parts, which is impossible. You can ask where is the wetness of water, because when you look for it in H2O molecules, what will you find? More H2O molecules which are the very concept called :wetness . So witness is an emergent quality of H2O molecules, interacting at room temperature. In analogy, but something completely unique in the universe, consciousness is an emergent function of your brain with volition , which means free will, and self-awareness. ----- Conventional science creates a “model, map” of reality. -> It doesn’t give you the background territory, the actuality reality. Above, I’ve giving you the actuality reality, which is called metaphysics.

I would assume a protein cascade but... I really like hameroff and Penrose's work. I'll have to find the answer to this and come back. 😅 If it is not explained yet... That would be cool 😊

Ditto. My undergrad degree was in the 70s but am starting to take courses again! I Always look forward to these!

@@katg-gk5ox Congratulations on returning to educating yourself further. I'm proud of your putting yourself back in the game.

@𝔴𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔞𝔭𝔭 𝔪𝔢👉+1③⓪①⑨⑥⓪⑤②⑦④ I’m sorry Sabine. I don’t understand this fragment of your reply. Nor do I understand how we can “talk”. Sorry, I’m a literalist. I’d like to understand your to me cryptic message.

I agree with you, but I think that sometimes is a way tomi troduce her own bias and personal opinions, making, for example, a theory sound more nonsense or more serious.

Sabine is awesome period! Finally a UKposts channel worthy of spending inordinate amounts of time on.🎉❤

@a.s.t yes! Thank You! Agree with you 💯 👍 Hope you are having an awesome holiday season!

Yes great job. The greatest physicists couldn't figure out for a century, what's inside the black box called "measurement". It's simply not possible to see inside the box. Unless you're Sabine of course.

Same here her video popped up in my recommendation side list.

Why is she always so angry?

@@residentfelon Probably because as a female physicist she gets called emotional by others who are far less dispassionate than she is.

@@residentfelon Her angriness makes her more attractive🥰 You can find more angry Sabines on UKposts by searching the keywords "free will", "determinism", "multiverse"

@@residentfelon you see angry,,, I see passion. And I love her presentation, and heart.

I heartedly laughed at the double slit side eye observation monkey meme. I wanna put it as my desktop background

I did not realize Jerry Seinfeld had a sister in science.

Really?

Wave function has nothing to do with consciousness. Why would you even conjoin them?

@@AmericanBrain Clearly you haven't watched the video or read the book.

@@sslaia It's not that conciousness affects "the existence of other objects" if you mean that, it's just that in a range of possible results, you discover which one has occurred and therefore you complete the result of the equation -> therefore, you can say that your conciousness affected the result, but just in a theoretical way. The result will be the same whether you look at it or not, but you'll never know till you do it.

@@AmericanBrain You've a lot to say for yourself haven't you, little man.

@@rokasb6907 the fact you have to insult suggests you believe in total mysticism and feel upset . Stop this mysticism . Stop it now ! Read what I said and grasp the science

Intend. You intend. Not intent. I'm sure just auto correct but I couldn't let it go

I just plan on placing my quantum text under my pillow at night so that I can absorb the information though osmosis.

@@joebaby739 Thick Russian accent, like that of Boris the Blade.

@@RobertBartlettBaron try opening up the floodgates of your perception first, if you want to access it consciously later on.

I was unconscious for 34 years and whilst those years I was a university lecturer and wrote a program that sold over 1000 copies in C/C++. I ask myself how does quantum physics explain this?

@@jesusbermudez6775 You you have to elaborate a bit more on your experience for a definitive answer, but the most plausible explanation is that you weren't unconscious during that time, you just don't remember it.

@@Livinghighandwise Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes sadly I was unconscious for a good 47 years. It means that I lost all my youth something I am not happy about. What happened is that at the age of 14 I observed life in the following manner 1. Why do I need information if I can do mathematics and solve problems from scratch 2. Adults are like children who play with other things 3. I should be fine because I can do mathematics and play football; I can outdo the children who do better mathematics than me because I can play football better than them; and I can outdo the children who play football better than me because I can do mathematics better than them. As a consequence of these observations I did not develop a mind and was not conscious. I am not going to say I was completely unconscious; however, I was only 2 % conscious. The one that took most of my consciousness away was observation 2. As a consequence of this the emotion of compassion fed on me. So for 34 years that is from the age of 14 to 47, the emotion of compassion saw for me, spoke for me, heard for me. I was able to gradually regain consciousness when at 47 my sister mistreated me and as a consequence the emotion of compassion released me and from there onwards I worked nearly 24 per day to get the emotion to release me and thus I was able to gain consciousness. So what we learn from this is that the emotions take away people's consciousness. The emotions that feed into the mind and cause problems are the emotions of anger, envy and the heart.

Sabine's proving to the world that Germans do in fact have a sense of humor. They just don't share it much because it's rather biting and they want to be nice - so it's mostly reserved for friends.

Another process is "lying".

This is completely different from the idea of quantum healing or an extra-physical brain however. Vim Hoff (and other breathing techniques or meditation for that matter) works exactly through physiological and thus physical routes. Changing your brain state affects your body - and we all know that: Just noticed that you forgot your key inside and now you will have to call your ex flatmate you fell out with? See how quickly your physiology changes - sweaty palms, a hot head, rise in heart rate, etc.

It also has been proved in many clinical studies that happiness and optimist mindest has zero effect on wether a patient is gonna heal or not. Placebo is not well understood

@@macaque791 That is substantially true, but there are studies that support differential recovery rates purely based on whether the patient has a view of external natural environment, or concrete vistas. This may not be classified strictly as "happiness", but in my book, that distinction is splitting linguistic hairs.

@@MichaelKingsfordGray link of the paper ?

Hm? Being smart and funny go hand-in-hand.

I was unconscious for 34 years and whilst those years I was a university lecturer and wrote a program that sold over 1000 copies in C/C++. I ask myself how does quantum physics explain this?

There is a real breakthrough - In the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe", this subject is explained in easy and plain language.

@@marcosolo6491 Some people first read before making a judgment. Others make judgments before reading. I am in the first category, in which one you are?

Hello 👋 How are you doing today??

nah

That even the universe itself is lazy. And they mocked those who naturally assumed laziness.

Personally I think it has to to with energy states, and being in the lowest energy state. A collapsed wave might be a higher energy state, so it would have to be forced into it, like forcing atoms to collide to create chemical reactions. It could also be an emergent phenomenon, like temperature, where at a lower level it's really just about statistical probabilities, rather than hard rules. The theory about conserving computational power also has one major issue for me, quantum equations require huge computational power, which is why we are only able to simulate fairly simple scenarios. If someone designed it that way, that would be a strange choice when you would get an almost identical universe (from our point of view) with classical physics. Of course the "computer" isn't necessarily restricted by the same physical laws, but there are also other reasons I doubt our universe was designed.

So you're saying that a video game will only show the user what is necessary based upon his position in that map/location?

in reality there is no collapse taking place, the wavefunction was always left, or right all along. Math is only an interpretation of reality. Reality exists without the tool(maths) we use to measure it.

@@mgntstr Then explain the double slit experiment...

@@An_Escaped_Mind That is a perfect example.

Not if analysed with Q.E.D. it is not.

@MichaelKingsfordGray can you elaborate please? What is QED and how does analysis differ between using that and not using that?

​@@hunterlavish 1) To answer comprehensively takes at least 5 year University course. I cannot fit it in to UKposts margins, (to loosely paraphrase Fermat). 2) QED=Quantum Electrodynamics. Crudely speaking, it deals with the theory of light and matter. (Gravity is nowhere to appear in the theory.) Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga were given the Nobel prize for its practical solution. 3) QED differs from other approaches in that it (so far) always produces results that agree precisely with experiment, whereas no other testable approaches do.

@@MichaelKingsfordGray Thanks for the reply! I will definitely start looking into QED and try to get a grasp on that concept, thanks!

There is no multiverse and there is no decision.

The Quantum phenomena that might play a role in Brain function is likely a lot more subtle than we all think it is. No Neurons in a superposition of firing and not firing, but rather something along the lines of Quantum phenomena determining when and how Neurons fire, maybe throw in some entanglement between Neurons for some indirect communication (Neurons can already communicate remotely, see Ephatic coupling), and Quantum effects of light passing through Neuronal Axons (there is some proof of that last point actually!)

​@@ralphmacchiato3761ok b list actor who can't even play gutar

Yes, that roughly matches with my understanding. I think you'll find that confirmed in my interview with him.

See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.

@@SabineHossenfelder I'm glad you made me up in your head too singularity... there was a study done on cab drivers in England they all developed similar brain structure once they were able to be called masters of their craft memorizing all of the roads and routes... every single one of these cab drivers all developed the same exact brain structure all of the ones that were the best. If you think about this this is your brain changing three dimensional structures you are changing fundamental reality with your thought. Granite it's only changing the structure of your own brain but it proves the concept scientifically.

@@SabineHossenfelder you're liver is conscious... if you get stabbed in the liver then it's going to hurt, it's conscious enough to know that it was stabbed... scientifically speaking everything is one it all came from The Big Bang which is the ultimate metaphor for the singularity aka god... it is all encompassing and completely alone... just like you. Coming into these bodies is what it does to forget the fact that it is completely alone... understand other version of WE‽ watch my latest video... i tagged you. All existence is conscious because it is all part of the singularity... not just carrots but all and even the periodic table of elements... you know im always right when i go out of the way to comment with you... lu other version of we... it's all pointless and just existing and not ending it brings forth more suffering... Live=eviL... singularity is evil too. Fear not.

Roger is correct that there is a gap in our understanding that's why we are facing too many puzzles and mysteries in QM. The missing part in our knowledge can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

Quantum mechanics is the ensemble theory of reversible and irreversible energy transfer. All you have to do to understand it is a) understand energy as a system property, b) understand the characteristics of physical ensembles and c) learn the difference between reversible and irreversible processes. a) and b) are basically high school level physics and math. c) requires a little more thought, but not much more so.

That's not oregano..

Is this DNA computing going to be reversible? And are you proposing using DNA for storage like an SSD or for computation like a CPU?

m.ukposts.info/have/v-deo/f5eBmIiCqJmDtXk.html I don't know about DNA bud. But we are able to build a giant brain now, so maybe there'a that. If you dont mind the moral implications of that ........

Uiii, let's hope we'll be on this planet for another 50 years..!

@@markaberer That is way too much to ask for. Maybe 3 or 4 at the most.

People perform DNA computing all the time. It’s very resource intensive, the result of every computation is another human being. Starting the computation is very pleasurable though.

What would physics give you? It gave her error - for you to buy into Sabine -is just wrong. You have consciousness with free will. Sabine is wrong to say you do not . She is practicing mysticism called scientism which is not science , neither is Scientology. This is the wrong philosophy of post-modernism, like modernism, logical positivism , Kant, Plato and all the errors of western philosophy as bad as eastern philosophy. So what is true? Let's find out by the end. First, wetness and liquidity are properties of water that are emergent from mere H20 molecules at room temperature. If you zoom in , you will not find these properties. They are macro level properties. However, the brain is wholly different to mere water [a different substrate]. The brain therefore has different emergent property with causal power called free will. You can glean it because you would not be able to form any conclusion that is valid without it [how would you - magic?] Secondly, the first emergence you experience is life itself. The laws of physics ordinarily turns order into chaos - entropy . However "aliveness" is turning chaos into order: like you break down your food but it fuels the process of turning items into order to maintain your life vis a vis the raging power of thermodynamics, of entropy. 4 billion years ago mere matter auto-catalyticaly become self organizing and ended up duplicating itself. The first proto-cell that complexified into the first life forms: bacteria and archea (Which are still in the same form today 4 billion years later!) It took another 2.5 billion years before a black swan event (not an emergence per se) as bacteria and archea merged into mitochrondria. Now Eukaryotes were born and were far better by magnitudes at energy efficiency per gene. These organisms exploding in the Cambrian (and 99% of them went extinct at the end of that period). Speciation is due to Darwinian evolution which is about complexification. From primates to hominoids - many different types in parallel roamed the earth until there was only one. You . The last one had only one invention for 1 million years - the axe. But about 70,000 years ago culture exploded . Sentient man was here. All other animals have consciousness (crudely means awareness as per dictionary definition) starting with first brains: worms. Higher up the chain , there is a wider range of cognition. So the first strong emergence - 'mind from matter' was worms as the neuronal trellis (possessed by pre-worm species like jelly fish) complexified into a brain (worm). After aeons (550 million years) , hominoids appeared but still not human consciousness. With modern man, there is a distinct trackable difference compared to all other species throughout earth history: another level of emergence. Thirdly, on top of free will (a given) you need the right method to reach conclusion. That is the method of reason and logic. Like reading, writing, math - it must be learned, practiced (a lot) to get to mastery. But you are not using reason and logic. You are deliberating omitting "induction" as a method of science. I showed you above how to induct consciousness using science: grab things now, point to thing , smell things - your sense organs take in sensory datum and it self organizes into percepts (units of perception) so you can validate "existence" really does exist [as in "really" - of reality]. Go ahead point to things. Smell things. Or grab things and ask and answer: does it really exist? Point to yourself too! This is an ostensive definition. You can abstract from all things and answer - if rational man - that all things that are real exist. In other words existence exists. But wait! How do you know that? ->> Because consciousness is an emergent causal power , distinct to the brain. So consciousness is not your "non-strong emergence" - what you call an "effect' of the brain- otherwise the blazing fast computers of today would be able to do what you do or ask this. Computers are precise , great deductive machines following rules. It can not induct. It is not consciousness. You are not a computer. Even the Nobelist Sir Roger Penrose shows you your mind/brain is not a algorithmic mechanism otherwise Nobels like him would not be able to have "outside the box" insights - he says. I do better than him: fully identifying what is this "Consciousness". So metaphysics - what Sabine misses out on and upon which all physics and science depend is "existence exists; consciousness with free will is exercised to identify this earlier identity exists and because of that you also know all this to be fully true: Aristotle's law of identity. So metaphysics : existence, consciousness and identity. But how to know any truth, any identity? The methods of reason and logic; such as using induction above. This is science.

@@AmericanBrain my goodness it says you’ve left 1000+ comments on just this channel! I am both impressed and concerned

@@AmericanBrain no free will

​@@AmericanBrain you're wrong, seek psychiatric help

​@@qwerfy34567894749it's not like he has a choice

Why do you need somebody on the internet to put bullshit to rest? Is your own bullshit detector broken? ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 Are you aware of something called public opinion? Have you heard the expression "the devil is in the details"? If each individual bullshit detector was reliable, we wouldn't need Sabine or any other science communicator to explain anything. And if you think we don't need it, what are you doing here on UKposts? Go watch cartoons, troll. ;)

@@Hitchpster Dude, there is no greater bullshit than the opinion of the uninformed public. Sabine is also bullshitting you, by the way. The algorithm is designed to give John Q. Public what appeals to it, which is bullshit. Sabine wouldn't get as many as three views per month if she would give you the real deal. ;-)

Not everything Sabine says is correct, as much as I respect her. Don't treat everything she says as gospel. While I'm not as extreme as the guy above me, I will point out what is factual

@@theshermantanker7043 Absolutely nothing about consciousness and quantum mechanics is "factual". Sabine is simply trolling her infatuated male audience with bullshit.

@@priapulida huh? Got a problem with liking her style of humor? Smh

@@priapulida haha sounds more like *I* hit a nerve or "pushed a button" lmao.

See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.

Why would she mention a fraud? ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 You didn't get it but that was my point - a silly old man who did some whacky stuff and expected people to listen simply because of his name. I thought Sabine would have made a good joke or two from the 'work' he did.

@@ckyeung4286 Sabine, I am afraid, is a troll who has a strong desire to look credible no matter how much of her own bullshit she sells. ;-)

To my (quite limited) experience and knowledge it matters less what people try to think. It matters much more what they actually believe is happening. If they sit there "Well, can't work, but let's try anyways", it won't work. If the experimenter comes in and says "look, it's bent to the left!" and they believe him, chances are good it actually does bend.

@@traumflug maybe, but definitely atleast one group should not be told what is happening.

I think that's purely a wording issue. If you replaced the word consciousness with information processing, the theory would make sense. If you use improper wording you typically lead many people into mystical thinking.

@@wiczus6102 but what's the evidence that information processing affects it? That's all consciousness is anyways. I tend to believe that the wave function is merely a useful way to predict things, but it is not the actual state of reality. Things have a location speed spin etc always whether they're measured or not. We just don't have sensitive or sophisticated enough equipment to see them