Quantum physics and the first-person perspective, an introduction to the conference 

Which Nobel Prize are you talking about?

You are confused Marks Müllers has not won the Nobel prize.

😮Oliver BMW 😮🤣🤣🤣🤣1000y back to school with small baby and then came back to lern with BaD Girl Nazi Electric Hiller Technick Volk

😮more 20000 Engeineering BMW area 😮,,,VT not more 10 😮OMG Oliver BMW Is too What tell you 🤣🤣🤣😮more 20000 Eric vs 10 Eric Volk area by VT

Those is fight'n words ! 👊🤪

@@NOCOMPLYE A the reason you use the word supersetermindes her favorite word

@@NOCOMPLYE Agree although my metaphysics are Reductive physicalism

​@@gamingfan197 I used to hold a reductive atomistic view of the world since I have memory, it was grown as something intuitive as I started reasoning as a kid... With time and as new experimental information, data and other kinds of considerations about our nature came to me, it brought incredibly untenable inconsistencies and paradoxes into my reasoning, creating a lot of complex blockages, and even with all of that it was hard as hell to "step out" of that view. It was almost impossible for me to truly understand how the universe may not be reducible at all, and how it may not be made of "fundamental parts". It was clear to me that under all those patterns and abstractions there should be a fundamental layer of "stuff" that accounted for everything. Quantum fields seemed a nice explanation, but it still felt very abstract. So quantum field theory shaked my head and said "hey, under this botton layers there's still another fundamental entity of "void" wich performs spontaneous and completely random fluctuations". And then I suddenly realized, "hey, that's all we really have, "patterns", all the way down to the bottom level of reality where reduction is supposed to lead, reality must be about patterns that build up over patterns that build up over fluctuations". At that point I still held a reductionist view, but it wasn't atomistic anymore, and I started to consider that some top layers of abstraction, even if their behaviour is at some extent statistically determined by lower layers, it's not fully determined because of the primordial "randomness", and I accepted the idea that those top layers can indeed have its own causal power over the lower layers in some way making for the possibility of "self-engineering". And because of that I started to entertain the idea of a fundamentally mental existence. Then somehow, a few years ago I fully switched the perspective, and guess what, all the inconsistencies, paradoxes, "hard problems" and cognitive blockages just disappeared. There's still a lot of mystery, but in a sane way, because now I realize that I was all the time just trying to force an understanding under a very biased set of assumptions. Now I can see the data with naked eyes and try to understand it in new and completely different ways, which allows for a more transparent and clean reasoning. My current metaphysics are about an holistic, irreducible universe where everything is truly interconnected. What are the objects which are connected if there's no "parts"? None, interconnectivity is just a way of framing how patterns and interferences happen within their own relativistic frames of being. Agnosticism and skepticism should be on top of our biases and ideas, not of the data. I strongly recommend you the interview with Dr. Iain McGilchrist in this channel, it's splitted in 2 parts and it's about 1 hour and 20 minutes.

@@MeRetroGamer I am familiar with Iain McGilchrist I only read The Matter With Things vol 1-2 but I still hesitate to adopt a non-materialist view I'm going to make a video for a reductive physicalist approach to consciousness (including self, personal identity and qualia) but these new studies of Bell's Theorem and Wingers friend only disprove local realism not Realism in its entirely this is why most physicist are adopting nonlocal realism and other forms of realism are still on the table like common sense realism and participatory realism let's hope in the next 70 years which the problem of consciousness can be solved and let's see if realism is rejected.

@@gamingfan197 Common sense is usually unconsciously biased and it also makes for a huge wall over analytics. I think it is our biggest barrier when we're trying to understand the deeper layers of reality. We need to be careful about it and try to scrutiny everything, every thought, in its most intimate details. About common sense realism. _"If there are certain principles, as I think there are, which the constitution of our nature leads us to believe, and which we are under a necessity to take for granted in the common concerns of life, without being able to give a reason for them - these are what we call the principles of common sense; and what is manifestly contrary to them, is what we call absurd."_ It is a manifest of faith in our human bias.

If your simple answer is that this is all intuitive in non-dualism and just all falls into place as an observable when one is a non-dualist in the process of realization, and is cemented in place upon realization, then I agree with you 100%.

😮What King Philip 😮sit only Tolet 🤣🤣🤣PhP go same way with Pony and then 😮Water 💦 died 🤣🤣🤣

Meine Pony Meine Pony 😭😭much look Meine Pony and back to DE 😢and then Finish School 😊