September 28, 2021

47 thoughts on “Does Consciousness Influence Quantum Mechanics?

  1. With communication and internet could one day lead to though create matter or manifestation may be possible but could it be dangerous with so much electrical power and large system are control by automation

  2. What if two electrons reached super position at the exact moment they overlapped along with infinite quantum tunneling. Or a closed quantum super loop?

  3. That was the first explanation that I actually got, I’ve thought long and hard about this-his point, “what was it like being in a superposition”? He’d think you were crazy.
    So THATS IT? The electron on the double slit is in a “Superposition” from OUR STANDPOINT, but actually isn’t, it’s unnecessary complications it’s where it it

  4. maybe the wave function doesnt collapse? we know that the electron is a wave of probability BUT it is existing in all dimensions, and once its measured it becomes a particle in this dimension? that everything exist in all parallel or extra dimension and it becomes a particle when it is existing in one of the dimension?that everything is a wave transcending all dimensions, but for it to exist or be in a dimension it is a particle. like saying there is more than one ME existing in different dimensions, but I am one of all of the ME that exist in this dimension

  5. No matter what anybody thinks about the "mind creates the outcome of the Electron experiment," unless another cohesive explanation surfaces, it is the only one.

  6. Those dark mystical art books you referenced are the only books that make sense to gifted POC learner. All mystical books are encoded within metaphor that primary aim for POC gifted learner who see visually with their mindeyes vision. If you don’t have a mindeye vison and or work just through your ancestor word then saying snobbish remarks about a ancient mathematical culture sounds racist and makes you sound ignorant! Western understanding has been behind for 3 centuries now while the rest of the mystical world we live is seen observing from our cosmic prospectives. Not all our brain are made the same yo and PBS should reflect this fact.

    Non local observer from a different dimension observing here 👁

  7. I'm not the smartest person, but I'm smart enough to not believe in magic. I called BS on this many years ago when some very smart people were claiming it was real.

  8. you don't kow anyting. You just think you do because that's what you've been indoctrinated with. You have no idea what is really going on… or… you are part of the effort to conceal what is really going on.

  9. 97 years of successful experiments proving how a scientist thinks can change the course of a experiment proves consciousness is everything . The materialists are now as close minded as the flat earthers of the dark ages to reality .

  10. This video is very biased and does exactly what it claims to refute. When you ask a question and simply answer it with a "no" and give another "most coherent" interpretation without any real scientific evidence, you're just as close minded as you claimed the other side, interpeting the findings in their own way is.

  11. Wait… so the idea that consciousness collapses the wave function is wrong because we have a coherency problem if two people observing the same measurement? Is that what he is saying?
    How is that a problem? First, there is no way two people can "observe" an event at the exact same time. One person, because of physical position or cognition will observe the measurement first. No question. Even if two people could sync their consciousness to properly view and interpret a measurement or phenomenon at the exact same time, why is it problematic if one consciousness forces the wave function to collapse over another? If a singular consciousness can force the collapse, why not force a collapse over another consciousness? And at it's root, you're saying that you don't like an interpretation because you don't like its implications — not that a theory or math contradict it.
    The arguments against conscious collapse in this video are weak. Many of this channel's other videos are great, but not this one.

  12. Love this content so sorry to be one of these guys, but…It was Niels Bohr who said, "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." Richard Feynman did say, " It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." I can't find a reference to Richard Feynman saying, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." But I do remember in college being told this was a Feynman quote.

  13. Of course, we are quite literally viruses on a 2d surface within a 3D world.

    The virus perceives the 2D as the limits of the world & their perception is limited to that 2d existence. Those observers collapse things into their perception merely because that's all they can see, not because that all there is.

    Assuming this is true, then we are effectively viruses only seeing our 3D world because that's all we can see, regardless of what's actually there.

    We are collapsing the waveform because we are perceiving it. If we wanted to actually see it, we would need to create a 4d+ camera.

    Despite perceiving it as a particular thing, it's just as likely to be in 1 of the other possibilities & only becomes such when all the factors combine in each instance of each moment in all existence.

  14. Lol this is like telling a 2d character to find results that are given in 3d, they dont see or perceive the Z axis no matter how hard they try, but they know it exists.

  15. Someone that thinks that Quantum Mechanics may effect consciousness, is Noble Laureate Sir Roger Penrose. Though the use of some sort of Fractal structure.

  16. For the double slit experiment it can be easily explained if you assume they responds to gravity or at least a form of it, which ever object happens to have the stronger gravity will draw the photons, to explain how the light splits when the photons are fired at the middle think of it like water particles in a river, during movement they're always shifting slightly in position from side to side, up/down etc, when they hit dead center they bounce back and hit photons from behind them, those photons will be leaning either left or right, up or down etc, that previous photon will go they will it was leaning and the first photon will go the opposite way, however if there is a measurement device they gravitate to it which causes them to go to the device instead of reaching the wall where the interference pattern was supposed to show.

  17. Just a quick question.
    I'm blazing across the firmament in my spaceship travelling at the speed of light.
    Now space is dark, but what happens if I turn on the headlights to main beam?

  18. Video starts off: "Does consciousness influence the quantum world? No."
    Later in video: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. The most confident interpretations tend to be the ones that think consciousness collapses the wavefunction."
    Or in this case, you know, the ones that think it doesn't. 😉

  19. This is quite a beautiful and tragic demonstration of the reason for the avoidance of contradiction. Aristotle created logic — the art of non-contradictory identification — and said, "A is A". The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental metaphysical principle (a philosophic axiom) and, as such, precedes all of the special sciences, including physics, in any valid conceptual hierarchy. To deny such a principle — as the Copenhagen interpretation clearly does — yields cognitive messes of this kind.

    Of course, this opened the door to the corruption of physics by mysticism in the public mind — something we are still dealing with the depredations of today. All these bromides undermining the primacy of existence (as opposed to the primacy of consciousness), objectivity, certainty, etc. are to be expected when it is confidently announced by a society's great thinkers that something need not actually be itself. It is highly dubious that the virtue of "open-minded speculation" can be stretched to subsume a student of the science of natural things (a physicist) declaring that nature doesn't make sense. These men did not (and could not) know everything, but they should have had the conviction of what they did know, i.e. existence exists, logic is valid, reason is an absolute, etc.

    The discovery of blood types and those people holding the same blood type being compatible for transfusions is true. It is true both before and after the discovery that sometimes when A-type blood was given to an A-type patient, an undesirable reaction (hemolysis) occurred. Since it was an established truth that A bloods are compatible under the circumstances that had been so far encountered, researchers were able to infer, when they observed a new reaction, the presence of a new factor. Further investigation revealed another factor at work, the RH factor, which was found in the blood of some individuals but not others. Given this knowledge, the generalization had to be qualified ("A bloods are compatible if their RH factors are matched"). But the initial proposition ("Within the context of the circumstances so far known, A bloods are compatible") represented real knowledge when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, A bloods are and always will be compatible. The appearance of a contradiction between new knowledge and old is an illusion.

    The issue of sub-atormic behavior is far more difficult for humans to tackle than blood types, due to its sheer distance of abstraction from the level of human sense perception. For that reason, we should be encouraging, financing, and otherwise supporting the men and women courageous enough to make the attempt. However, this does not mean accepting it when they make unwarranted, dogmatic claims or give up the cognitive quest in despair. Einstein would not forsake what he already knew in the presence of whatever new factor there is that we do not yet know. He simply, respectably, admitted that he didn't (yet) understand why the experiments yielded the results that they did, but would not concede the things he already did understand. We know a great deal about the nature of reality, but we, apparently, still have at least a few giant leaps ahead of us.

    Feynman's cherry on the top deserves some reply. Whatever his intention, one should not become convinced that the more you learn, the more confused you become and the less you know. When availed of a rational epistemology, you need not fear new data or new ideas. Every new item integrated into the fabric of knowledge will mean that much more fact on your side, that much more weight to your conclusions, that much more conviction to the total of your cognition. Contrary to popular wisdom, that the more you learn, if you learn it properly, the more clear you become and the more you know.

  20. One thing that could affect or cause the change in opinions which favored a certain scientific theory is the reaction of one’s scientific buddies to your theory. For instance the current argument about Covid cures. Where we have had one opinion that has been forced on everyone by politicians, at the expense of other possible cures doctors have actually used, such as the argument over hydro chloroquine based cures, this has driven a divide in the public’s beliefs based purely on their political preferences. A lot of people have come out in favor of other cures only to be brought “back in line” by pressure from their peers or political powers that be. Unfortunately it appears science itself has been contaminated by politics. Even your description of the Copenhagen interpretation as “whacky” seems to be dismissive of the double slit results without your having provided a valid and complete explanation as to why it happens. So why is your opinion better than Copenhagen?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *