Reality, Physics, Consciousness ... and everything else.

By Synesthesiac · Nov 21, 2010 · ·
  1. Synesthesiac
    *Deep highly subjective philosophical content to follow disclaimer*


    Found this awesome video on youtube. I think that most fundamentalist scientists would consider it mere unprovable speculation, but most of what the people say in it is in fact perfectly scientifically sound, although maybe what the video implies overall is not. Its basically a series of clips from many scientists, philosophers and other well known people about the nature of reality and consciousness and what science tells us about this.

    Either way, its very well made and put together, and makes you think about some of the mysteries of science. And I dont have a clue why its called the quantum appocalypse, seems a highly irrelevant name for the material in the clip.

    To quote:

    "The Quantum Apocalypse: lifting of the veil, to uncover the true nature of one's self, to penetrate the surface of reality, the disclosure of hidden information, the evolution of consciousness, awakening of perception to the mysteries which lie beyond the ordinary range of human knowledge

    Featuring Noted Experts - Fred Alan Wolf, Peter Russell, Professor Al-Khalili, York Dobyns, Robert Anton Wilson, Dean Radin, Richard Alan Miller, Michael Talbot, Gregg Braden, Professor David Deutsch, David Wilcock, Khemp Yurmed Tinly, Nassim Naramein, John Hagelin, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, David Bohm, Bill Hicks

    And finishes with a quote from the great comedian Bill Hicks. Who is a hero of mine. And that sort of won me over.


    Share This Article


  1. Crazy Insane Sanity
    Hmm...Why does it require consciousness to make a measurement? A conscious entity collides a particle with another particle to gather information about it, but what collapses the wave function is the particles interacting with one another. The confusion arises from the term 'observer effect', but what people don't understand is that a single electron, independent from any conscious entity, can constitute an observer.

    They made some important points in the video, but they also kind of jumble their theories and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Like I heard them touch on the multiple universes theory, string theory, Copenhagen interpretation, and probably others.

    Quantum mechanics is incredibly strange. You have quantum entanglement, non-locality, wave-particle duality, Bell's Theorem, matter made of's all very bizarre, but in actuality we don't really know what it all means. We don't know if there are other universes, or if matter is made up of multi-dimensional folds in the fabric of space/time, or even if the universe started off as a pea size ball. All we have are guesses. But on the flip side, there are a lot of things in quantum mechanics that demonstrate to us that the view of reality we hold is more than likely completely off.

    I hope you don't think I'm dogging your video. It's very interesting stuff, and I'm glad you find it interesting. It just seems to me that they packed in as much information as they could into a little video in order to inspire awe. I really find this stuff interesting and I wish more people would take the time to read about it, because it truly is changing the way we understand the universe around us. I hope one day I will actually understand the math that underlies all of it...but as of yet, my math skill are fairly poor.

    I have to agree with you about Bill Hicks...great man, awesome comedian.
  2. Joe-(5-HTP)
    This stuff about observation creating reality is an absurd distortion of quantum mechanics.

    The act of observation involves hitting an object with photons, and these obviously affect the particle. There is nothing 'mystical' about observation.
  3. NeuroChi
    I'm under the impression that the fact that one electron is entirely dependent on other electrons to exist would only concern us, if we were not macroscopic beings, but electrons ourselves. This video is painting a romantically elegant veil over the concept by taking quantum physics entirely out of context.

    I was once fascinated by such concepts; movies like 'What the Bleep do we Know?'. But after failing time and time again to comprehend exactly what they were trying to get at and how it applied to my life I gave up on trying to do so and decided it leave it as it is - abstract.
  4. Wanderer
    Actually, it's not the act of observing which creates reality, but the fact that one must add or take away from what they are observing in order t make an observation.

    Shining photons, while they have a very small impact, on an object will indeed exert a force on the object and change it from its previous unobserved state.

    This is what's stated in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and illustrated usually with the example of "Schrodinger's Cat."

    Especially at the quantum level where particle energies, mass, velocity, and size vary so greatly, it is almost nearly impossible to observe without producing some effect on the particles being observed. A large particle needs to be struck with waves, or other particles which are smaller than it is in order to create a shadow, the particles or waves which strike the object being observed can add energy, be absorbed, change the trajectory of, or influence the observed particle in many other ways, maybe even annihilating it. Not to mention the relativistic nature of things, and that mass, time scales and more could be completely different from what we think we are observing.

    Scientists go to great lengths to eliminate as many of the "uncertainties" from their observations and conduct many experiments to validate their assumptions and their observations.

    It's not that we create something through the act of observing it in this case, however, if one wanted to discuss phenomenology or solipsism, then that's a whole other area and gets into philosophy as to whether anything exists outside of ourselves.
  5. Synesthesiac
    There is though, really.

    Its like schrodingers cat. Or the good old if a tree falls with no one there does it make a sound?

    So if you dont observe something did it happen? We will never know. The paradox comes in where the very act of observation (our subjective interpretation of it, or the actual physical act of observing) effects the actual thing we are observing. Linking us (somehow) into the deterministic and mechanistic material world.

    Unanswerable. In my opinion.

    [edit: I see wanderer kinda made a similar point above, read it after my reply!]
  6. Synesthesiac
    Thats also why I said "I dont have a clue why its called the quantum appocalypse" as the idea all the video is about quantum physics, role of the observer, the copenhagen interpretation, etc, gives a very misleading impression.
  7. Crazy Insane Sanity
    We will never know, but there is no reason to just assume it didn't happen. Like I said, there is some very strange stuff in quantum mechanics, but the whole, "quantum physics shows us that consciousness creates reality" concept is out dated, and absurd. We can demonstrate that the interaction of particles collapses the wave function by creating experiments to collide and measure particles in various ways, but saying that it's the conscious observation that collapses the wave function is just a silly assumption, that has no basis.
  8. Willyzh
    Read "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. Consciousness does create reality indeed. In fact, consciousness is all there is.
  9. Willyzh
    Science and math will never explain the unfathomable: the infinite vastness that is our universe, limited in scope that it doesnt immediately reveal its true nature as a multiverse. We are mere children learning to survive in infinite. There is no outer space, no death, and much of what appears "physical" is merely an illusion that the great mystics of past and present have learned to disbelieve.
  10. Euthanatos93420
    Apocolypse is the 'end of the world as we know it' or 'Revelation'. Death is but change; Every end is a beginning etc. Maybe that helps put the title into perspective.

    This is truely nothing new. The video is indeed quite misleading if you don't already understand it. "Anything can be an observer" is both true and untrue. Th paradox of reality is not understanding that nothing is solid until we look at it and the moment we do it fades into nothing more than a memory, or as I construe it...a meme-o-ray. The paradox is that while this is true, understanding that we are not the only observer.

    This reality, these bodies, are a shared experience that observers choose to connect with each other in to experience the multitude of possibilities and ideas in order to determine what sort of place might be a better construct.

    Self awareness to greater dimensions is a self destructive process. In order to understand what we are we must acknowledge each other and subsequently have faith in each other that we can enter a better place. When observers fail to recognize this and choose to observe a different reality we have to enter an equally fucked up version of reality in order to communicate ideas that bring them out of that.

    Once again we enter the paradox of defining what is right and what is wrong and that these things are always judgments of the observer.

    Or more quintessentially: We are all one but We are not Alone (ALL-ONE) because we have each other. The difference is merely a chosen perspective by the observer. Entering into higher dimensions creates an awareness of a larger multitude of choices. In this the observer becomes confronted with a multitude of choices. Going too high results in a paralyzing number of choices that bring us back down into a more concrete and predetermined reality. Predetermined by choices the observer has made via it's construction of faith in what reality is and/or should be.

    We know that this isn't true because we cannot simply control reality with a singlethought. We can rationalize three explinations for this paradox:

    1)We chose this path at time beyond our ability to 'remember' (or 'read compressed information') in order to have a certain experience via what must necessarily appear to be chaos in order for the observer to believe (validate its own experience - Suspension of Disbelief) that it is a genuine experience because we know that it is not but must forget that in order to have the experience.

    2) Someone else chose for us. This is the METHOD for achieving the above.
    3) A single thought is not enough. We must measure more in order to assimilate a consciousness great enough to evoke the true form of that which we desire to experience because we have forget that that is all we are capable of as observers: Experiences we do not posses tools but rather have access to them and are but navigators.

    Even when we have measured enough and accumulated great consciousness in order to create with our tools and measured knowledge we do not actually create, but navigate. Creation is an illusion for the purpose of having an experience.

    This is the paradox that arises from believing in a 'creator'. Not that one does not exist but that we have obfuscated the meaning of this and even moreso by attatching masculinity to the concept while reality spits in the face of this delusion and mocks us for our absurdly irrational delusion by constantly reminding us that the matrix is inescapably feminine. "Something within which something else originates."
  11. Heretic.Ape.
    Have you per chance uploaded this video to the file archive?
  12. Routemaster Flash
    For anyone able to get BBC2, there's a Horizon programme on right now about quantum computing, holographic principle, 'reality' etc... :)
  13. Routemaster Flash
    I'll maybe make a longer post when I've had a chance to digest what people have said already, but one thing that's worth saying straight away: the supposedly radical importance of consciousness and observation in quantum is a bit of red herring. The idea that an observer "collapses the wave-function" of a quantum system in a mixed state is the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation and is rather old-fashioned. A more recent and rather more 'mature' (certainly less anthropocentric) interpretation is called decoherence, whereby the tiniest possible perturbation to a system - perhaps the impact of a single photon, which nonetheless could, in principle, be used to extract some information from the system - performs an equivalent role to wave-function collapse, selecting one possible history for the system out of a set of possible histories.

    It's important that when people use the words 'quantum' and 'consciousness' in the same sentence, it's a warning sign that all bets are off and there could be any sort wacko brainwibble about to come next. Bear in mind that no-one really understands quantum mechanics by itself yet, and our understanding of consciousness is far murkier still, so anyone claiming to have a theory of how one of them impinges on the other should be taken with a pinch of salt (yes, Roger Penrose, I'm looking at you!).
  14. Synesthesiac
    Haha, I'm not looking at him, but im looking at his many "quantum consciousness" publications with a very skeptical, yet interested, eye. Same goes for Mr Hameroffs work.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!