Max Tegmark - Physics of the Observer 

Well, if it's a mystery, then it's not quite part of the science (and thus needn't be eliminated from it). In my view, where mysteries start, science ends and is replaced with poetry. Nothing wrong with that - one needs mystery to drive poetry, to drive the science in turn. Just gotta be mindful that what you're asking and what you're getting, are tightly coupled to the amount and quality of measurements made in a given context. Tegmark seems to be one of the "woo"-est whitecollars out there, but I like him, because his body language, and natural language as well, I think, are telling you rather straight that "yeah, chill, dude, i'm selling you some poetry here, not actual science". Many entertainers (obviously better actors than Tegmark) lack this sense of basic manners. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GzCvlFRISIM.html - Tegmark draws a pretty cute sketch of a model here, that seems to rely on The Measure of those informational aspects, apparently implying that "well if you've got these measures high, it's consciousness. If they're low, it's not consciousness." Now that's world class woo, in a positive sense, as it hints that this particular bit of woo might actually become testable at some point. In this vid here, Tegmark says that he thinks that a rock is not sufficiently conscious to collapse wave functions, "you need something more". "How much more," I ask. What is the "absolute minimum amount of consciousness to do the thing"? Assuming that I agree with the requirement of "something more" (which I don't), here's how I'd go about considering it, applying a hearty amount of woo myself: In computational complexity theory, there's this notion that an algorithm can't analyze itself (predict results, computational costs, etc), because for an algorithm to analyze an algorithm, it must contain that algorithm, plus some additional parts that do the analysis ("understanding," if you will), otherwise it's just the original algorithm doing its original work. Obviously, there's a galaxy-wide gap between quantum mechanics and computational complexity theory, but the magic meme of "something more" triggered this comparison for me. Looking at it this way, it seems intuitive, that IF an observer requires "consciousness" to "do the thing," it requires two capablities (measures of informational aspects): the ability to simulate the wave function correctly, and to understand it - ie. to produce at least some meaningful data about the resulting particle. Ultra-minimally, to collapse an electron's spin, we'd need another electron to simulate it (ie entangle with it), and some third paricle that will implement the so-called "understanding" by interacting with the second one... But wait, if we don't measure the third one, the entire system is still uncollapsed. Hmm, perhaps there is some point to the paradox that "if John opens the box, sees the cat, and doesn't tell Mary whether it is alive or dead, then John is in the superposition of seeing a dead cat and seeing a live cat. As far as Mary is concerned, John wasn't conscious enough, I suppose. Even, John perceives himself as collapsed with the cat, but he sees the uninformed Mary who is still entangled with a John in a superposition... So in order for any wave function ever to be really truly, collapsed, there would need to be a super observer that observed that wave function collapse AND communicated that information to every observer ever, otherwise there would exist an observer observing that "nope, still superposition." A silent god is no god - any uninformed worshipper is still faced with a god in the superposition of existing and not existing. And if such a super observer existed, it'd be 50/50 if humans actually possess consciousness... Your hope of seeing experiments with ants, raptors and dolphins, is moot, I'm afraid - you'd still need to entangle with the animal, putting your own consciousness into the system, to know the result. And you'd end up with a model equivalent to that which we already have with a dumb sensor on the left slit. By my reckoning, considering consciousness for observers is a logical fallacy. The only way to cut your own consciousness out of the system, would be to guarantee that you don't interact with it, and so guaranteeing that you can never know the answer. If ever you know the answer, you needed to interact with something that interacted with something, ..., etc, with the system. And then it always could've been You or some dumb particle in the chain that did the collapse. So, if consciousness is required to turn waves into particles, and You want to measure it, you'd need to define consciousness as "an informational capability that only You can be proven to possess." Turned out to be quite the rant, but let's call it prose, not poetry, as I'm not driving for new science here, but rather, against. I hope some bits were enjoyable, still. P.S. the second that anyone with half a brain hears you use fighting words like "ridicule" and "mainstream science," they'll instantly discount you as a moron, and Never Change Their Mind, even if you turn out to be right later. That wave don't uncollapse, buddy. (Possibly) luckily for you, if there is no super observer, many others will remain handily superpositioned ;)

@@kristjanpeil ... Taking last first, please note that I ridiculed no one. I was merely reporting it as a non-journalist casual observer of events. I disagree that mystery is not part of science. When there are masters and doctoral candidates looking for theses, advising professors tend to have a list of mysteries which they hope or expect can be turned into hard science in the masters or doctoral process. It must be clear by now that we know only a small percentage of what we seek to learn, the rest, for now, being a mystery. The striving to uncover the hidden answers seems essential, even foundational to science. I agree that my picture of science is "big picture", and this is likely not what you were referring to. I understood before you described the difficulty, in testing inon-human observation and its effect, if any, on the collapse of the wave function. I cannot agree that this will never be found. I see nearly boundless determination and creativity in this field today. I did not address every point you made in your very lengthy reply. I did only what my focus and energy allowed.

Eyesight not required to collapse wave function, nor is consciousness.

@@cbskwkdnslwhanznamdm2849 ... As I understand the current evidence, your statement represents belief but not proof.

Dumb people will never go away and neither will the bullshit they like to talk about. ;-)

So one guy was asking bullshit and the other guy was giving bullshit answers. :-)

Right on!

Nonsense, the adjective doesn't solve anything. Being conscious is no less mysterious than being in a state of consciousness.

@@cube2fox that's not what he's saying. It's going from activity/process to thing that's at issue

@@kvaka009 That's not an issue. A process is no less mysterious than a thing.

@@cube2fox a process has different ontological features than a thing does. If you think that a magnetic field is a thing you will (mis)understand it differently than if you think of it as a process. This argument is not new. Whiteheads process and reality, as well a Nietzsches point about will, Cassirer substance and function. Thinking about emergent phenomena as emergence of things rather than processes will take you to two very different ontological models.

Sure, and i think i know why. But won't say it in this channel

@nils4545 Tegmark does not seem like an exceptional thinker. He seems like another wacky physicist who might be competent but also has a lot of absurd, non-starting ideas. Observation does NOT refer to interaction, that's a popularized quantum bullshit meme. Consciousness is unecessary to a physics discussion. Awareness/aka consciousness is a biological product with a cognitive mechanism. You don't need physics, or even really absolutely need neurology, to attempt to discuss the mechanics of cognition. Cognition is a thorny thing to try to imagine. Cognition is the capacity to imagine. What we might call 'conscious' as in waking consciousness, is when you connect sense to a cognitive agent. Only biological things are cognitive agents. A.I. is NOT a cognitive agent, or any kind of agent. The field of A.I. the cesspool of word-choices that contribute to a widespread delusion that A.I. has any intelligence. It has zero.

@@eltouristoduo what does observation refer to if not interaction?

​@@eltouristoduo You clearly don't understand what's going on here. The whole reason Tegmark isn't answering his question is precisely because consciousness isn't relevant to a discussion about individual particle interactions. However, consciousness is very relevant to a physics discussion. The reason that consciousness is very relevant to a physics discussion is because I am conscious, and this universe is my observed universe. You might think this is silly, but this is very real, you can measure it, and I have measured it. It also makes perfect sense and is the only possibility. It's a very obvious tautology. This is what he's talking about when Tegmark is discussing consciousness and the observer. He's talking about measuring a discrepancy between what we would expect probabilities to be and what we measure them to be -- on the large scale. The difference is precisely because probabilities in the universe I observe are (obviously) conditioned on my observations. For instance, I will never observe my own death (unless you define death weirdly as something I can observe, but don't do that). So, forever, I will continue observing, and as time passes you should increase your belief that the world you live in is conditioned on my existence. When he's talking about dark energy predictions, he's talking about precisely these kinds of observations. We're getting the "right answer" when we assume more and more things which are true about me. I live in a galaxy, I am conscious, and so on. This is just the anthropic principle -- the recognition that the only universe I can ever interact with is the universe I observe -- plus the mathematical multiverse (which, again, is obvious and the only possibility).

@@talonward2494 The idea that world we live in is somehow ‘conditioned’ at a subatomic level is mind boggling.

It would look the same. The universe is not a narcissist. It doesn't care if somebody is looking at it or not.

Only for the people who weren't paying any attention in science class. Those who did don't need this bullshit. ;-)

It is hilarious in fact. I think science should be done by committee in youtube comments. This is where all the genius experts hang out after all.

@@kvaka009 Whoooosh

Collapsing the inquiry function…🤔

A black piece of cardboard can act as an "observer". So what do you think? ;-)

You need to start a church around that. It's a good religion. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 - or starting a fan club (fan of the observer).

What does that mean ?

Ontology is informational (Wheeler).

Isn’t essentially the same thing as a tree falling in a forest? Don’t you also think that this is how Trump weasels is way out of every situation. Things happen but he’s not quite aware of it?

The universe IS conscious! Because I am conscious, and I am the universe. In fact, the universe I observe is the universe observable by me, and I only know about myself through my observations, so the definition of me is only well-defined up to my observable universe. This means there is a natural bijection between observers and observed universes, which encompasses everything I could ever interact with, including you. So, you could claim the universe inherits consciousness via the canonical mapping =D

What does that mean "observation can behave retroactively"?

But ultimately you must also explain how the observer is able to give an explanation of themselves as well. And whether it is, in a sense, a complete explanation.

You're a low IQ reject, stop embarrassing yourself.

you can't stump the Trump

There is no proof of God

can you prove that?

What evidence is there for God? None of it passes any scientific test.

Well do we have a test that would be suitable? That's part of the problem. Do we have any tests that prove there are multiple universes or show how gravity really works? What if they're wrong and the LHC actually breaks something on the QM level that results in blowing us all up and creating a super black hole? That would really suck, don't you think?

Multiple Universes have solid scientific hypothesis. There is none for God. How do you know if God is a Hindu God, or Zeus, or Allah?