Cliff notes 2: if you use exciting sciency concepts like Quantum, entanglement and microtubules people will miss the fact you are spouting mumbo-jumbo
Athene's Theory of Everything
- Thread starter trojan698
- Start date
Cliff notes 2: if you use exciting sciency concepts like Quantum, entanglement and microtubules people will miss the fact you are spouting mumbo-jumbo
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Overall, it's a troll and clever piece of atheist propaganda. It relies on packing anti-theistic sentiments alongside unconnection physics Mumbo jumbo, obfuscating the division between scientific fact and fiction, and oh and if you disagree, it's because your left brain is so entrenched in its beliefs your right can't get through to accept the absolute truth so your wrong anyway
Well on the same theme as the OP, if you youtube search "tom campbell calgary" there is a long series of vids, but they are literally 3 days long (Fri, Sat, Sun). That guy is a physicist too, but his takes some extreme new agey esoteric liberties with the science. I don't quite buy it but I believe some of it is on the right track.
Also "Johanan Raatz" channel has some interesting bite size vids.
And anything Leonard Susskind has to say is always worth listening to IMO.
Why don't you publish a paper criticizing where they are going wrong? I'm sure Roger Penrose and the Harvard-smithsonian center for astrophysics would love to hear your expert input on the matter.
Here's the paper knock yourself out: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html
I'm familiar with Penrose's work. It's practically the poster child for an expert blundering outside their area of knowledge and embarrassing themselves. While in his area's of true expertise he is undoubtedly brilliant; his ideas on consciousness are totally lacking in evidence and amounts to little more than a gut feeling that computer based approaches can't explain consciousness. His works shows a sad lack of domain relevant knowledge in neuroscience, philosophy and computing.
(Oh, and I note that not all journals are created equal; I refer you to the first sentence of Wikipedia's entry on the Journal of Cosmology whilst wondering why a paper on consciousness would be published there anyway).
Last edited:
I actually don't agree with the video, and his view on consciousness. It's a bottom up representation of reality, that we are brain chemicals, processes, inhuman.
It's also pseudoscience. I think I was stoned when I first watched it. Apologies. Makes ye think though.
It's also pseudoscience. I think I was stoned when I first watched it. Apologies. Makes ye think though.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if anyone can create conscious AI with conventional computing then. Not simulated/mimicked consciousness but consciousness like a live organism.
The idea fits well with the physics, that when an "observation" is made an entanglement is created out of the super-position from the informational quantum layer of the universe. What Susskind calls the holographic horizon. So it makes sense that when a conscious event happens an entanglement is plucked from the super positions and manifests in our classical realm on the macro scale. So you could SIMULATE consciousness by creating a classical computer that corresponds to the neurons in a brain, but it would be just that, a simulation. A truly conscious AI would need to be creating these entanglements which a conventional computer can't do.
That's the basis of quantum computing being able to tap in to the super positions on the meta layer or holographic horizon or whatever you want to call it.
The idea fits well with the physics, that when an "observation" is made an entanglement is created out of the super-position from the informational quantum layer of the universe. What Susskind calls the holographic horizon. So it makes sense that when a conscious event happens an entanglement is plucked from the super positions and manifests in our classical realm on the macro scale. So you could SIMULATE consciousness by creating a classical computer that corresponds to the neurons in a brain, but it would be just that, a simulation. A truly conscious AI would need to be creating these entanglements which a conventional computer can't do.
That's the basis of quantum computing being able to tap in to the super positions on the meta layer or holographic horizon or whatever you want to call it.
Nope.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Damn
Haha! Totally. I think what he means is, if it's observed it must be observed by something else.
Might be totally wrong. Please input kwerk.
Last edited:
I flicked through the video and condensed it to about 10mins. Sounded like absolute nonsense. Who is this guy? Some WOW geek who learned some long physics words and stuck them all together?
Sorry meat sack, i seem to be disagreeing with you a lot recently, nothing personal!
Sorry meat sack, i seem to be disagreeing with you a lot recently, nothing personal!
aye the video's pants. I would like to blame i was stoned which i was.
Athene will do anything that gets his videos hits so he can make $$$. He claims to be doing whatever he does for the Gamer or whatever, but its really all about him. That aspect is fair enough, but he is just a bore fest these days, nobody on my YouTube subscription list spams their videos as much as he does.
Yeah exactly. Until a particle has a relationship to something else it basically doesn't exist in spacetime, there's no way to measure where or when it is without a frame of reference. It exists super-positioned on the "information layer" detached from space and time as a probability wave or interference pattern. That explains why stuff pops in and out of existence in a vacuum and we get things like the Casimir effect.
When it is "observed" or measured, in other words when it has to interact with spacetime, it becomes entangled with everything else and it's probability wave collapses to an outcome that complies with entropy and it pops in to existence. On the micro scale it appears to be random/probabilistic but when you zoom out to the macro scale you get predictable systems that conform to classical physics (like a brain).
ETA: actually all it's probabilities comply with entropy, but one outcome has to be "chosen" in order to make sense with time. Whether it's truly random or not is a different subject.
Last edited: