So I think I can get on board with the no hidden variables, everything is now thing. If I go with something like a Brahman-atman, Leibniz's monadism, Indra's net thing where all that exists are minds with some type of radical free will that inner penetrate each other such that one's actions is another's perceptions (action-perception having the same mirror relationship as subject-object, mind-body etc)... but does QBism not even attempt to answer the question of why there are consistent patterns of observation (ie physical laws) or why agents' perceptions generally tend to cohere together? There's something to be said about the precise and consistent way agent decisions are made or perceptions are had. The fact there is consensus (inter subjective?) reality must be from some secret rule(s) shared between all agents before performing/enacting this reality.
And the consistency of physical laws across time is like an extremely engrained habit of behavior and choice but that doesn't actually have an ontic potentiality (am I philosophizing correctly here?) since at any time the agent with radical free will could decide to break from this habitual behavior whenever.
It is the confluence of the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for a shared world. This is something that is experimentally proven, but of course very hard to grasp. We usually see the subjective and the objective as opposites. But in truth they help each other into existence.
Very much appreciated this! I've been looking online for QBism RQM comparisons and none were satisfactory until I found this video! I listened to it on my commute to work and was laughing because I couldn't tell if you guys were were stoned, if it was recorded at 3am, just silly personalities or all 3 at once! You two are in fact an extension of the information processing of my mind as the entire physical world can at once be my greater body and my greater mind, and I the same for you. I will have to ponder these things some more...
Kazakhstan. Let me suggest for schoolchildren and students on one's own to measure the Universe, dark energy, black holes, etc. To do this, I propose two practical devices. «laser tape measure *+reference distance* 1,000,000 m”» and «Michelson-Morley HYBRID Gyroscope». I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 250000 (In a laser tape measure, the length of the optical fiber is fixed at 1000000 ) meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 84/84/84 cm, and the weight is 24 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.
Very peculiar that this video popped up in my recommended. But I HAD to see why. I mean I am interested in Quantum Mechanics, but it makes my brain hurt. Does Self ID, trans persons etc, have a footing in Quantum Mechanics? I know the social sciences Foucault etc. But I can see why theoretical (even so called Hard Science) could have easily fallen even in it's infancy.
I think self identity is interesting here since either in this video or the one before, they were talking about how the system is always split into context and observation or agent-observer and observation and how the quantum state or description of the world always excludes the observer herself (They said something like this). ANYWAY, the reason this is interesting is because self identity itself is like a strange hack to get around this by putting a representation of the observer into the observer's "measured state" or perception. The self identity or representation is never actually the observer itself tho. I might be getting too loosey goosey with these concepts tho
I have read this book by Dr wilchek and found it to be a more than adequate source of information on the topics being discussed. During that time, it never occurred to me that my reading experience would be enhanced if someone were simultameously barking out their own meandering opinions in the background. Now I can see why.
my suggestions for edits: play at 1.75x speed. in editing, removed the long pauses. I mean, even at 2x speed some of the pauses are disturbingly long. otherwise, keep up the good work! :-D
Better to be safe than sorry. I'll take the risk of sounding like a crazy person. More often than not, whenever I bring up my perspective and how it correlates to just about anything, what I say is invalidated, dismissed, even though its something quantum entanglement breadcrumb trails brought right to my forefront. So here it is, I do not consent to any manipulation of my energy, things that directly affect or effect my energy or my choices and options. I absolutely do not consent to any cords or cycles and especially not for the purpose of reincarnate, or replication of my body, consciousness, or situations. I realize that the restrictions on pregnancy termination also removes the reincarnation option, from the perspective of full circles intersecting turned intersecting spirals. And I've become aware of casual information drops, whether comprehended or not, sometimes gets that very thing in motion and once momentum is involved, it's a full fledged emergency to deal with, packed with necessity and misunderstanding. For instance, if someone was carrying a fetus that was linked to me set to yank me into another helpless and dependent on another's mercy and intent and integrity existence, and I found them and demanded they terminated the pregnancy at gun point, I might be known as requiring child sacrifices from there on. Where actually I only wish to retroactively terminate the existence of the beings who violate the freewill and universal laws of others. Big difference, and extreme and seemingly neverending attempts to enslave, control, and violate to a constant state of hyper vigilance and survival mode calls for extreme measures. Please disregard and gaslight if this message is completely off target. Thank you, messie Jessie
Jag har ideer att bolla om du har någon halvtimma. Jag har interagerat med fraktalverkligheren länge och har nått makt och kunskap. Om du vill prata med ett levande exemplar?
Tarthug Tulku's TSK series and Steven's work are very complimentary. They both focus on the experiential aspects..Thanks for this thoughtful conversation.
You should call the video "H1885 Wittgenstein" and not "H Wittgenstein 1885". Observe Wittgenstein's sarcastic remark against private language: "I sometimes without any particular reason write the word 'red' in my diary."
The title of the video, "H 1855 Revelation," is better than the previous titles because it does not try to mislead the viewer. However, it is not the best possible one. Say, "H 1855 the lamb and the lion in the Book of Revelation," would be better. But you are on the right path, Hans.
I find this channel rubbish. Its two speakers, Hans and Kalle, speak rubbish. What is most rubbish of the channel are its boring titles. I require that you rebaptize this video into, "Karl Marx and the end of RU-vid, H1850".
The title of the video, H Wittgenstein Revelation 1850, is misleading because it is not about Wittgenstein. I propose H1850 and then perhaps the title of the paper and the name of its author, Jorunn Okland.
You're exceptionally attentive to language. But.. I'm not principally mentioning this to praise you. I just noticed it. And it is not at all a quality of every Dasein. Which is very problimatic and opens many questions. Perhaps it is an evil accident...
Please retitle the video. I don't like "Heidegger Wittgenstein Goldfarb 1822," because "Heidegger" only indicates the name of the series. My proposal for the title is: "Wittgenstein Goldfarb H1822".
Are theorists distinguishing recollection from thinking? I remember in the Paul Johnston reading an account of thinking as silently sitting and then producing the answer to a difficult question. It seems to as well fit directing the mind towards something one knows one has in there and waiting for recollection to yield it up.
Why a very good point. Thanks If put in the way that thinking is deeply ingrained in our actions. And not something separable. Then recollection would a part of the life world and all the interacting that is. But still the words have different grammer. So directing your thinking towards a certain part of memory and then get a response of a recollection is well within the grammer of language as I see it.
It naturally sounds favourable to speak of a "level" at which Wittgenstein moves when doing something other than (merely )criticizing other pictures of science without being quite wholly above the suspicion that Wittgenstein himself is producing a picture.
What do you think about the relation between picture "Bild" and education, Bildung? The English word "education" (etymologically) has to do with physical rearing or raising as of livestock or the breeding/husbandry of beings. Which seems quite different than mental effort.
Very interesting.. Thanks There is a clear connection.. In my language it is "bild" and "bildning". There is no real equivalence in English. It meant create from the beginning, then creation. An example is "God created man in his av-bild". So creativity and to create is all in there I would say. I do courses for a company called Bilda. It has several meanings, one is to educate (and to be educated).
But, "the observer" is an apparatus in physics. It seems to me Shrodenger had in mind his electron microscope (idea). The point being that you have to "bump" little things against other little things. So that instead of a "Beobachter" or outside observer your measuring apparatus or method of measuring alters the experiment.
That is right.. It is most definetely the machine that decides weather you get as a result that the world is a wave or if it is made of particles. The observer chooses which world we get, the difference is enormous since particle and wave are absolutely contradictory.
@@hansjohansson66 If I cut myself, being flesh and blood, I bleed. If an apparatus perturbs a photon, being a delicate system, it acts more rustically or rudely than had it not been perturbed. This is a mystery? It seems to me all the fuss stems from two sources. 1. People aren't habituated to the way things happen at the level of electron clouds. 2. One can't take two measurements of a singular or unrepeatable event. So that it's impossible to get a straightforward idea of the velocity (requiring both position and momentum). The result of 2 is different attempts to mathematically intuit the motion as a prediction. Ergo, Bayesian approaches such as the Schrodinger and Born approaches and standard approaches (eg, "multi worlds"). These "approaches" are matters of mathematical intuition rather than physical datum.
Why Kalle, are you never yourself, in interests, in way of thinking, fully programmed and pre-educated in behavior. Think about your future Kalle , work or study according to your own interests. God will not save you from poverty and humans become to poor to give.
Recently been enjoying your videos you're criminally underrated. I found you through being a huge fan of this other Heidegger scholar his name is Esse Delendam. Have you heard of him? he does content on youtube as well. I would be interested in your thoughts about his work.
Why thank you very much, that is way too kind. Yes, I have seen his channel, it is very good indeed, and we have also been exchanging comments in connection to the video clips. So a very pleasant conversation has been going on for a while.
