正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Federico Faggin: "Quantum Fields are conscious & have free will" "You cannot create something that can know itself by something that doesn't even know what knowing means." The inventor of the first commercial microprocessor argues that consciousness cannot emerge from non-conscious matter. No mechanism can explain how awareness arises...

InterstellarUAP's profile picture

Interstellar

137,987 subscribers

45,659 次观看 • 7 天前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术新闻政治教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Can AI become conscious? The argument here is that real thinking is not just computation. Understanding, music, love, and awareness may involve something deeper than what a computer can run. The key point is quantum mechanics. Most physics can be turned into algorithms, but the measurement problem still leaves a gap: something happens that our equations do not fully explain. That is where consciousness may live, in a part of reality that cannot simply be coded. If that is true, AI may get smarter, faster, and more convincing, but still miss the one thing that makes understanding human. Source: YourWeeklyCrew (Youtube) / Writer: Sol
2:40

Can AI become conscious? The argument here is that real thinking is not just computation. Understanding, music, love, and awareness may involve something deeper than what a computer can run. The key point is quantum mechanics. Most physics can be turned into algorithms, but the measurement problem still leaves a gap: something happens that our equations do not fully explain. That is where consciousness may live, in a part of reality that cannot simply be coded. If that is true, AI may get smarter, faster, and more convincing, but still miss the one thing that makes understanding human. Source: YourWeeklyCrew (Youtube) / Writer: Sol

Mario Nawfal

21,114 次观看 • 1 个月前

Physicist Federico Faggin reveals his groundbreaking theory of consciousness: "We are going to be taken over by artificial intelligence" "Every single one of us is a field that is both the observer, the observed, and the actor. This field does not exist in space and time. Space time exists within these fields that we are." The inventor of the microprocessor explains that we are part wholes connected to the totality of existence. This is why epigenetics works - Each part accesses the knowledge of the whole. The same pattern repeats across scales. This changes everything about how we understand reality, free will, and our place in the universe.
1:46

Physicist Federico Faggin reveals his groundbreaking theory of consciousness: "We are going to be taken over by artificial intelligence" "Every single one of us is a field that is both the observer, the observed, and the actor. This field does not exist in space and time. Space time exists within these fields that we are." The inventor of the microprocessor explains that we are part wholes connected to the totality of existence. This is why epigenetics works - Each part accesses the knowledge of the whole. The same pattern repeats across scales. This changes everything about how we understand reality, free will, and our place in the universe.

Interstellar

39,837 次观看 • 1 个月前

André Duqum is a wonderful host and guide in this conversation, where we discuss the fundamental nature of reality, quantum and classical physics, self knowing, courage, love, consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence, among other topics listed in the chapter descriptions below. As André shares from my newest book "Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature"... "We are eternal, conscious beings rather than perishable bodies, and we are here to learn crucial aspects of ourselves by interacting with each other in the physical universe that we have co created for this very purpose." It is with great hope that viewers of this conversation may find meaning in the ideas discussed, and encouragement to further your own self learning. - Federico Full Video 🌍👁️ Discussion Chapters👇 Intro His Spontaneous Spiritual Awakening Defining Consciousness: Classical vs Quantum View Can computers be Conscious? How Truth Transcends Theory Idealism vs Monad Theory Our Deepest Desire: To Know Ourselves Seity vs Soul Individuality & What Carries Over After Death We Are All Part of One Whole How Emotion & Meaning Impacts Reality Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth Taking Responsibility for Our Lives & Spiritual Growth The Very Real Force of Love Where Physics & Spirituality Meet Distinguishing Free Will & Unconscious Habits Reincarnation & NDEs Explained How Much We Currently Understand about Reality Shifting From the Mind to the Heart Facing the Future of Artificial Intelligence Collective Consciousness & Evil vs Good Competition vs Collaboration Are Aliens Real? Conclusion Essentia Foundation Mondadori #consciousness #freewill #quantumphysics #spirituality #selfknowing #awakening #Irreducible #federicofaggin #knowthyself #AI #existence #reality #natureofreality #mondadori
1:03

André Duqum is a wonderful host and guide in this conversation, where we discuss the fundamental nature of reality, quantum and classical physics, self knowing, courage, love, consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence, among other topics listed in the chapter descriptions below. As André shares from my newest book "Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature"... "We are eternal, conscious beings rather than perishable bodies, and we are here to learn crucial aspects of ourselves by interacting with each other in the physical universe that we have co created for this very purpose." It is with great hope that viewers of this conversation may find meaning in the ideas discussed, and encouragement to further your own self learning. - Federico Full Video 🌍👁️ Discussion Chapters👇 Intro His Spontaneous Spiritual Awakening Defining Consciousness: Classical vs Quantum View Can computers be Conscious? How Truth Transcends Theory Idealism vs Monad Theory Our Deepest Desire: To Know Ourselves Seity vs Soul Individuality & What Carries Over After Death We Are All Part of One Whole How Emotion & Meaning Impacts Reality Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth Taking Responsibility for Our Lives & Spiritual Growth The Very Real Force of Love Where Physics & Spirituality Meet Distinguishing Free Will & Unconscious Habits Reincarnation & NDEs Explained How Much We Currently Understand about Reality Shifting From the Mind to the Heart Facing the Future of Artificial Intelligence Collective Consciousness & Evil vs Good Competition vs Collaboration Are Aliens Real? Conclusion Essentia Foundation Mondadori #consciousness #freewill #quantumphysics #spirituality #selfknowing #awakening #Irreducible #federicofaggin #knowthyself #AI #existence #reality #natureofreality #mondadori

Federico Faggin

18,078 次观看 • 1 年前

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.
2:45

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

31,628 次观看 • 3 个月前

John Searle: consciousness cannot be an illusion and here's the argument that makes it undeniable Science has a long track record of overturning our intuitions. The table looks solid, it isn't. The sun appears to set, it doesn't. We've learned to accept that appearances deceive us, and that reality lies beneath. But philosopher John Searle argues there is exactly one domain where this move simply cannot be made: consciousness itself. "Where consciousness is concerned, you can't make the standard appearance/reality distinction that we make for the rest of the world." His logic is simple. When a scientist tells you the table isn't really solid and that it's a cloud of micro-particles, you can accept that. The appearance (solidity) and the reality (particles) are two different things, and you can hold them apart. Same with the sunset. It looks like the sun moves. It doesn't. The rotation of the Earth creates an illusion. Appearance and reality come apart and you understand the gap. Now try applying that same logic to your conscious experience. Someone claims your pain isn't really there, that your awareness is just an illusion. But here, Searle says, the distinction collapses entirely: "Where the existence of consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality. There's no way that some guy can come to me and convince me I'm not conscious if I think I'm conscious, I am conscious." This is a structural point about what consciousness fundamentally is. For every other phenomenon, the appearance can be explained away by pointing to what's "really" happening underneath. But consciousness is the very medium in which all appearances occur. There is no "underneath" to retreat to. To say consciousness is an illusion, you would first need to be conscious of the illusion. The argument defeats itself on contact.
0:50

John Searle: consciousness cannot be an illusion and here's the argument that makes it undeniable Science has a long track record of overturning our intuitions. The table looks solid, it isn't. The sun appears to set, it doesn't. We've learned to accept that appearances deceive us, and that reality lies beneath. But philosopher John Searle argues there is exactly one domain where this move simply cannot be made: consciousness itself. "Where consciousness is concerned, you can't make the standard appearance/reality distinction that we make for the rest of the world." His logic is simple. When a scientist tells you the table isn't really solid and that it's a cloud of micro-particles, you can accept that. The appearance (solidity) and the reality (particles) are two different things, and you can hold them apart. Same with the sunset. It looks like the sun moves. It doesn't. The rotation of the Earth creates an illusion. Appearance and reality come apart and you understand the gap. Now try applying that same logic to your conscious experience. Someone claims your pain isn't really there, that your awareness is just an illusion. But here, Searle says, the distinction collapses entirely: "Where the existence of consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality. There's no way that some guy can come to me and convince me I'm not conscious if I think I'm conscious, I am conscious." This is a structural point about what consciousness fundamentally is. For every other phenomenon, the appearance can be explained away by pointing to what's "really" happening underneath. But consciousness is the very medium in which all appearances occur. There is no "underneath" to retreat to. To say consciousness is an illusion, you would first need to be conscious of the illusion. The argument defeats itself on contact.

Big Brain Philosophy

17,476 次观看 • 3 个月前

Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!
1:34

Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!

Dr Maria Violaris

18,259 次观看 • 5 个月前

In this scene from the 2016 movie Arrival, Louise learns that the non-human species perceives time non-linearly as a simultaneous "now" rather than a linear sequence of cause and effect. Contact with an intelligent non-human species that perceives time non-linearly would force humanity to rethink our assumptions about how time and space actually work. Physicists are already finding that the fundamental laws of quantum physics do not distinguish between past and future, suggesting that the forward flow of time we experience may not actually be a fundamental property of reality...
3:30

In this scene from the 2016 movie Arrival, Louise learns that the non-human species perceives time non-linearly as a simultaneous "now" rather than a linear sequence of cause and effect. Contact with an intelligent non-human species that perceives time non-linearly would force humanity to rethink our assumptions about how time and space actually work. Physicists are already finding that the fundamental laws of quantum physics do not distinguish between past and future, suggesting that the forward flow of time we experience may not actually be a fundamental property of reality...

Disclosure Party

1,452,613 次观看 • 6 个月前

Core Memory podcast with Suzanne Gildert on the hunt for AI consciousness in the quantum realm. The theory being that LLMs are too constrained to really get to robots and AIs that are really like us 00:00:00 – Consciousness: The First AI Training Model? 00:02:03 – Exploring the Quantum Mind with AI 00:04:42 – Will Robots Ever Have Rights? 00:07:54 – The AI Paradox: Fear vs. Progress 00:13:20 – Can Language Models Teach Robots? 00:17:29 – Why Today’s AI Feels Like a Zombie 00:23:47 – Quantum Computing Meets Artificial Consciousness 00:29:50 – Free Will, Entanglement, and Decision Making 00:38:21 – Teaching a Robot to Think, Not Just React 00:52:51 – Will Conscious AI Power Space Exploration?
1:10:42

Core Memory podcast with Suzanne Gildert on the hunt for AI consciousness in the quantum realm. The theory being that LLMs are too constrained to really get to robots and AIs that are really like us 00:00:00 – Consciousness: The First AI Training Model? 00:02:03 – Exploring the Quantum Mind with AI 00:04:42 – Will Robots Ever Have Rights? 00:07:54 – The AI Paradox: Fear vs. Progress 00:13:20 – Can Language Models Teach Robots? 00:17:29 – Why Today’s AI Feels Like a Zombie 00:23:47 – Quantum Computing Meets Artificial Consciousness 00:29:50 – Free Will, Entanglement, and Decision Making 00:38:21 – Teaching a Robot to Think, Not Just React 00:52:51 – Will Conscious AI Power Space Exploration?

Ashlee Vance

17,189 次观看 • 1 年前

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?
5:16

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?

Prof. Brian Keating

26,472 次观看 • 2 个月前

It is not useful to ask whether AI has consciousness or not. #kenmogi #QualiaRoom episode 127. Summary The speaker addresses the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) possesses consciousness, firmly stating that current AI, particularly those based on statistical learning models, does not generate consciousness. This stance is based on the speaker’s personal model of consciousness, recognizing that various opinions exist, including some who claim large language models may already be conscious or that embodiment could be crucial for AI consciousness to emerge. The speaker highlights the fundamental challenge in verifying consciousness, noting that even among humans it is impossible to objectively confirm whether another person is conscious. Philosophical thought experiments such as philosophical zombies and inverted qualia illustrate the difficulty but remain unfalsifiable and thus untestable. Consequently, questioning AI consciousness is deemed an intriguing but practically unhelpful inquiry. The speaker suggests that current AI developments demonstrate that many complex computations can be performed without consciousness. Therefore, the primary focus should be on how conscious humans can effectively align with non-conscious AI systems. Understanding the unique computational roles of consciousness might clarify the boundaries of what AI systems can and cannot achieve. This approach offers a meaningful direction for AI alignment and development.
3:25

It is not useful to ask whether AI has consciousness or not. #kenmogi #QualiaRoom episode 127. Summary The speaker addresses the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) possesses consciousness, firmly stating that current AI, particularly those based on statistical learning models, does not generate consciousness. This stance is based on the speaker’s personal model of consciousness, recognizing that various opinions exist, including some who claim large language models may already be conscious or that embodiment could be crucial for AI consciousness to emerge. The speaker highlights the fundamental challenge in verifying consciousness, noting that even among humans it is impossible to objectively confirm whether another person is conscious. Philosophical thought experiments such as philosophical zombies and inverted qualia illustrate the difficulty but remain unfalsifiable and thus untestable. Consequently, questioning AI consciousness is deemed an intriguing but practically unhelpful inquiry. The speaker suggests that current AI developments demonstrate that many complex computations can be performed without consciousness. Therefore, the primary focus should be on how conscious humans can effectively align with non-conscious AI systems. Understanding the unique computational roles of consciousness might clarify the boundaries of what AI systems can and cannot achieve. This approach offers a meaningful direction for AI alignment and development.

Ken Mogi

16,594 次观看 • 1 年前

Ray Kurzweil just said something that gave me pause. He believes AIs will soon be so indistinguishable from conscious beings that we’ll simply accept them as conscious — not because we’ll have definitive proof, but because it will become useless not to. He pointed out that people already have AI therapists, and some users are starting to treat them as genuinely conscious. As the technology improves, that acceptance will only grow. Kurzweil thinks the shift won’t take long: once AIs consistently show all the earmarks of consciousness, most people will just go along with it. It’s a quiet but profound prediction about how quickly our definition of “person” (or at least “mind”) might change. What do you think — how long until we treat AIs as conscious beings?
1:24

Ray Kurzweil just said something that gave me pause. He believes AIs will soon be so indistinguishable from conscious beings that we’ll simply accept them as conscious — not because we’ll have definitive proof, but because it will become useless not to. He pointed out that people already have AI therapists, and some users are starting to treat them as genuinely conscious. As the technology improves, that acceptance will only grow. Kurzweil thinks the shift won’t take long: once AIs consistently show all the earmarks of consciousness, most people will just go along with it. It’s a quiet but profound prediction about how quickly our definition of “person” (or at least “mind”) might change. What do you think — how long until we treat AIs as conscious beings?

Camus

160,474 次观看 • 3 个月前

Danny Goler answers the question that has followed his viral laser experiment: are we living in a simulation? After millions watched people on DMT report seeing the same code on a wall, Goler explains why he believes reality is computational, how every decision may create branching world lines, and why free will may only be something we experience from inside one path. From time travel and parallel realities to quantum computers “borrowing” computation from other worlds, this conversation explores one of the strangest questions in consciousness research. Dan Go
15:27

Danny Goler answers the question that has followed his viral laser experiment: are we living in a simulation? After millions watched people on DMT report seeing the same code on a wall, Goler explains why he believes reality is computational, how every decision may create branching world lines, and why free will may only be something we experience from inside one path. From time travel and parallel realities to quantum computers “borrowing” computation from other worlds, this conversation explores one of the strangest questions in consciousness research. Dan Go

Shawn Ryan

245,435 次观看 • 5 天前

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.
0:54

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 次观看 • 3 个月前

There's a lot of bullshit in the UFO subject but as unbelievable as it may sound, there are things in our skies that can and do respond to human consciousness. Humans who are engaging in peaceful attempts to initiate a form of contact with other intelligences, using the human mind/consciousness as the communicatory medium through which an exchange of information can take place (Quantum Communication / Instantaneously at all points in spacetime) seem to be engaging in a form of bio-hacking and quantum effects scaling. The ancient meditative / mystic practices of our ancestors, who had a far more sophisticated science of consciousness than ourselves, allow the modern day participant to enter into a more receptive state of consciousness which, in a scientific framework, translates to increased intensity/amplitude of bio-energetic effects in the Human body (EM-Field, Biophotonic Output, Piezoelectric Output, Quantum Interactions within Microtubules etc. The orbs are real, whatever they are, and they respond to genuine moments of conscious expansion / heightened reception within human beings who are directing that energy towards the intention/desire to have a form of "contact" It happened to me, it can happen to you.
20:42

There's a lot of bullshit in the UFO subject but as unbelievable as it may sound, there are things in our skies that can and do respond to human consciousness. Humans who are engaging in peaceful attempts to initiate a form of contact with other intelligences, using the human mind/consciousness as the communicatory medium through which an exchange of information can take place (Quantum Communication / Instantaneously at all points in spacetime) seem to be engaging in a form of bio-hacking and quantum effects scaling. The ancient meditative / mystic practices of our ancestors, who had a far more sophisticated science of consciousness than ourselves, allow the modern day participant to enter into a more receptive state of consciousness which, in a scientific framework, translates to increased intensity/amplitude of bio-energetic effects in the Human body (EM-Field, Biophotonic Output, Piezoelectric Output, Quantum Interactions within Microtubules etc. The orbs are real, whatever they are, and they respond to genuine moments of conscious expansion / heightened reception within human beings who are directing that energy towards the intention/desire to have a form of "contact" It happened to me, it can happen to you.

Jay Anderson

29,118 次观看 • 22 天前

What is the Spacetime Aether? Conventional physics would claim that space is an empty vacuum. It discounts the 'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) constantly fluctuating in and out of existence. The Casimir force shows us there is a latent negative energy pressure when we put two parallel plates close to one another. They suddenly attract. There must be quantum fluctuations we can't see. We invented 'dark matter' to explain why there appears to be more stickiness with stars that orbit their galaxies. We invented 'dark energy' to explain how the universe can expand faster than the speed of light. What if we add up all the quantum fluctuations across the cosmos? That would be a massive amount of energy. Could that account for 'dark matter?' What if we take it a step further and assume the quantum fluctuations are just the energy seeping through from a vast ocean of potential energy? Could that account for 'dark energy?' That ocean of energy is Spacetime Aether. Tapping into it represents a new source of practically unlimited power for humanity.
1:52

What is the Spacetime Aether? Conventional physics would claim that space is an empty vacuum. It discounts the 'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) constantly fluctuating in and out of existence. The Casimir force shows us there is a latent negative energy pressure when we put two parallel plates close to one another. They suddenly attract. There must be quantum fluctuations we can't see. We invented 'dark matter' to explain why there appears to be more stickiness with stars that orbit their galaxies. We invented 'dark energy' to explain how the universe can expand faster than the speed of light. What if we add up all the quantum fluctuations across the cosmos? That would be a massive amount of energy. Could that account for 'dark matter?' What if we take it a step further and assume the quantum fluctuations are just the energy seeping through from a vast ocean of potential energy? Could that account for 'dark energy?' That ocean of energy is Spacetime Aether. Tapping into it represents a new source of practically unlimited power for humanity.

Ashton Forbes

92,416 次观看 • 2 年前

A new scientific understanding of human intuition: 1) We know the body engages in quantum processes despite being “warm, wet and noisy”, conditions for quantum decoherence. Quantum biology is a growing field encapsulating enzyme creation, bird navigation via avian cryptochromes and photosynthesis 2) In science and epistemology we have a problem: why do we see reality in its discrete, macroscopic form and not its probabilistic quantum form? 3) Roger Penrose hypothesized that the brain is a room temperature quantum system collapsing quantum reality into macroscopic reality. Hameroff followed up with a physical candidate for the “collapser”: the microtubules 4) Quantum systems engage in temporal non-locality (along with spatial non-locality). Some hypothesize that in a working quantum computer, we’ll be able to send information back in time. We already can reverse qubit positions in quantum computations! 5) So can the brain also engages in time travel? Why do humans need less information to make snap judgments (than, say, large language models)? Maybe because our brains can access the future. This would might explain remote viewing data as studied by the CIA’s stargate program and validated by President of the American Statistical Society, Jessica Utts (in a more physical model) *I think this this an interesting, generative theory but likely incomplete
1:34

A new scientific understanding of human intuition: 1) We know the body engages in quantum processes despite being “warm, wet and noisy”, conditions for quantum decoherence. Quantum biology is a growing field encapsulating enzyme creation, bird navigation via avian cryptochromes and photosynthesis 2) In science and epistemology we have a problem: why do we see reality in its discrete, macroscopic form and not its probabilistic quantum form? 3) Roger Penrose hypothesized that the brain is a room temperature quantum system collapsing quantum reality into macroscopic reality. Hameroff followed up with a physical candidate for the “collapser”: the microtubules 4) Quantum systems engage in temporal non-locality (along with spatial non-locality). Some hypothesize that in a working quantum computer, we’ll be able to send information back in time. We already can reverse qubit positions in quantum computations! 5) So can the brain also engages in time travel? Why do humans need less information to make snap judgments (than, say, large language models)? Maybe because our brains can access the future. This would might explain remote viewing data as studied by the CIA’s stargate program and validated by President of the American Statistical Society, Jessica Utts (in a more physical model) *I think this this an interesting, generative theory but likely incomplete

Jesse Michels

40,517 次观看 • 1 年前

Physicist Yakir Aharonov argues that the standard story of quantum mechanics is wrong, proposing a time-symmetric “two-state vector” view in which reality is defined by wavefunctions from both past and future. He explains weak measurements (information without collapse), nonlocal dynamics behind interference, and phenomena like the “quantum Cheshire Cat.” Aharonov recounts the birth of the Aharonov–Bohm effect, why gauge potentials mislead about locality, and how pre and post-selection restore causal insight without determinism. He shares memories of Bohm, Heisenberg, and Feynman, touches on gravitational and non-Abelian AB analogs, and lays out why a clear narrative—not just math—is essential to understanding quantum theory.
1:59

Physicist Yakir Aharonov argues that the standard story of quantum mechanics is wrong, proposing a time-symmetric “two-state vector” view in which reality is defined by wavefunctions from both past and future. He explains weak measurements (information without collapse), nonlocal dynamics behind interference, and phenomena like the “quantum Cheshire Cat.” Aharonov recounts the birth of the Aharonov–Bohm effect, why gauge potentials mislead about locality, and how pre and post-selection restore causal insight without determinism. He shares memories of Bohm, Heisenberg, and Feynman, touches on gravitational and non-Abelian AB analogs, and lays out why a clear narrative—not just math—is essential to understanding quantum theory.

Curt Jaimungal

106,273 次观看 • 9 个月前

According to Bentov, consciousness evolves to the 'absolute' which is the source of all consciousness. Matter, composed of quanta of energy, is the vibrating, changing component of pure consciousness. The absolute is fixed, manifest and invisible. Bentov proposed that the brain acts as a transducer, converting the energy of consciousness into the electrical and chemical signals that are used to communicate information within the body. He also believed that the brain has the ability to tune into different frequencies of consciousness, allowing individuals to experience different states of awareness. Bentov's theory is based on the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is not limited to the brain or the body. He argued that consciousness is non-local, meaning it is not bound by space and time and can exist independently of the physical body. Bentov's theory has been influential in the field of consciousness studies, but it remains a subject of debate and is not widely accepted by mainstream science.
2:39

According to Bentov, consciousness evolves to the 'absolute' which is the source of all consciousness. Matter, composed of quanta of energy, is the vibrating, changing component of pure consciousness. The absolute is fixed, manifest and invisible. Bentov proposed that the brain acts as a transducer, converting the energy of consciousness into the electrical and chemical signals that are used to communicate information within the body. He also believed that the brain has the ability to tune into different frequencies of consciousness, allowing individuals to experience different states of awareness. Bentov's theory is based on the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is not limited to the brain or the body. He argued that consciousness is non-local, meaning it is not bound by space and time and can exist independently of the physical body. Bentov's theory has been influential in the field of consciousness studies, but it remains a subject of debate and is not widely accepted by mainstream science.

Vicky Verma

390,472 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨 PhD Theologian just proved God is actually a UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS SYSTEM - and we’re all pieces of it! Thomas Campbell, PhD told the Danny Jones Podcast: “We are all also God… we’re pieces of that larger conscious system.” “Consciousness is awareness with a choice. Free will is necessary for consciousness.” “If the future is a done deal, then there are no choices… no free will, no consciousness.” This science meets spirituality breakthrough flips everything we thought we knew about reality, divinity, and our own power. What if you’re not separate from God but you’re an evolving fragment of the same system? Have you ever felt that universal connection in meditation or a moment of pure awareness? Does knowing free will is baked into existence change how you live? Drop your thoughts! Mind-blown or still skeptical? 👇
11:23

🚨 PhD Theologian just proved God is actually a UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS SYSTEM - and we’re all pieces of it! Thomas Campbell, PhD told the Danny Jones Podcast: “We are all also God… we’re pieces of that larger conscious system.” “Consciousness is awareness with a choice. Free will is necessary for consciousness.” “If the future is a done deal, then there are no choices… no free will, no consciousness.” This science meets spirituality breakthrough flips everything we thought we knew about reality, divinity, and our own power. What if you’re not separate from God but you’re an evolving fragment of the same system? Have you ever felt that universal connection in meditation or a moment of pure awareness? Does knowing free will is baked into existence change how you live? Drop your thoughts! Mind-blown or still skeptical? 👇

Interstellar

30,434 次观看 • 3 个月前

6,100-Qubit Processor Shatters Quantum Computing Record | David Nield, ScienceAlert Another major quantum computing record has been broken, and by a considerable margin: physicists have now built an array containing 6,100 qubits, the largest of its type and way above the thousand or so qubits previous systems contained. It's the work of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, who used cesium atoms as their qubits, trapping them in place with a complex system of lasers that acted as tweezers to keep the atoms as stable as possible. Qubits differ from the classical bits of traditional computers by exploiting what's known as a superposition: not just binary states of 1 or 0, but a spread of probabilities that allows for algorithms that can solve problems considered out of reach of conventional computing methods. Related: Quantum Advantage: A Physicist Explains The Future of Computers A lot of qubits will be needed to make quantum algorithms practical, however. One reason for these large arrays is error correction, which helps overcome the inherent fragility of the qubit by providing a surplus to double-check the machine's operation. "This is an exciting moment for neutral-atom quantum computing," says physicist Manuel Endres. "We can now see a pathway to large error-corrected quantum computers. The building blocks are in place." There was no single breakthrough that enabled this jump in qubit numbers, but rather a series of engineering advancements in many key areas – from the laser tweezers to the ultra-high (very low pressure) vacuum chamber. Stability has also been a problem for quantum computing systems. The innovations in this latest array kept qubits in a superposition state for almost 13 seconds – almost ten times longer than previous configurations had managed. What's more, individual qubits could be manipulated with 99.98 percent accuracy, establishing a significant benchmark in the programmability of quantum technology. "Large scale, with more atoms, is often thought to come at the expense of accuracy, but our results show that we can do both," says physicist Gyohei Nomura. "Qubits aren't useful without quality. Now we have quantity and quality." To make quantum computers a practical alternative to modern supercomputers, more qubits and even greater levels of stability will be required. Experts are tackling the problem from several different angles, which is why records for some types of quantum computer don't necessarily apply to others. Next, the researchers need to work on exploiting entanglement, which will enable the system to make the leap from storing information to actually processing it. Not too far in the future, we could be using these computers to discover new materials, matter, and fundamental laws of physics. "It's exciting that we are creating machines to help us learn about the Universe in ways that only quantum mechanics can teach us," says physicist Hannah Manetsch. Read more:
1:54

6,100-Qubit Processor Shatters Quantum Computing Record | David Nield, ScienceAlert Another major quantum computing record has been broken, and by a considerable margin: physicists have now built an array containing 6,100 qubits, the largest of its type and way above the thousand or so qubits previous systems contained. It's the work of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, who used cesium atoms as their qubits, trapping them in place with a complex system of lasers that acted as tweezers to keep the atoms as stable as possible. Qubits differ from the classical bits of traditional computers by exploiting what's known as a superposition: not just binary states of 1 or 0, but a spread of probabilities that allows for algorithms that can solve problems considered out of reach of conventional computing methods. Related: Quantum Advantage: A Physicist Explains The Future of Computers A lot of qubits will be needed to make quantum algorithms practical, however. One reason for these large arrays is error correction, which helps overcome the inherent fragility of the qubit by providing a surplus to double-check the machine's operation. "This is an exciting moment for neutral-atom quantum computing," says physicist Manuel Endres. "We can now see a pathway to large error-corrected quantum computers. The building blocks are in place." There was no single breakthrough that enabled this jump in qubit numbers, but rather a series of engineering advancements in many key areas – from the laser tweezers to the ultra-high (very low pressure) vacuum chamber. Stability has also been a problem for quantum computing systems. The innovations in this latest array kept qubits in a superposition state for almost 13 seconds – almost ten times longer than previous configurations had managed. What's more, individual qubits could be manipulated with 99.98 percent accuracy, establishing a significant benchmark in the programmability of quantum technology. "Large scale, with more atoms, is often thought to come at the expense of accuracy, but our results show that we can do both," says physicist Gyohei Nomura. "Qubits aren't useful without quality. Now we have quantity and quality." To make quantum computers a practical alternative to modern supercomputers, more qubits and even greater levels of stability will be required. Experts are tackling the problem from several different angles, which is why records for some types of quantum computer don't necessarily apply to others. Next, the researchers need to work on exploiting entanglement, which will enable the system to make the leap from storing information to actually processing it. Not too far in the future, we could be using these computers to discover new materials, matter, and fundamental laws of physics. "It's exciting that we are creating machines to help us learn about the Universe in ways that only quantum mechanics can teach us," says physicist Hannah Manetsch. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

43,078 次观看 • 9 个月前