Roger Penrose on quantum mechanics and consciousness | Full interview
Roger Penrose full interview on quantum physics, consciousness, his career, and his idols.
Could quantum consciousness be the answer?
Watch Roger Penrose debate String Theory with Brian Greene and Eric Weisntein at iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with...
Watch Roger Penrose debate The Multiverse with Sabine Hossenfelder and Michio Kaku at iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-t...
Join Nobel laureate Sir Roger Penrose as he outlines his views on quantum mechanics, Gödel's incompleteness theorem and consciousness. He also provides a glimpse into his visual thought process and scientific idol Galileo Galilei.
#RogerPenrose #QuantumConsciousness #QuantumMechanics
Sir Roger Penrose is a world-renowned physicist, best known for his work on general relativity and sharing the Wolf Prize for Physics with Stephen Hawking for their work on black holes.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
00:00 Intro
00:24 On quantum mechanics and consciousness
14:05 Personal idols and friends
17:37 If you could meet anyone from the field of science, who would it be?
This man is 92! And his mind is so clear!
Hawking was supposed to die young but defied all expectations and reached a respectable 76. Obviously he was in awful physical shape but perhaps there is something about the active mind and longevity.
@@giantpurplebrain he’s 92 right now
@@meows_and_woof I don't think you read his comment properly.
Biden is in negotiations for Penrose' brain
92 wow like John Williams the composer , both still have a clear and healthy mind , hopefully for a long time
I could listen to this man talk for days straight. This is the kind of person we should be idolizing not celebrity garbage.
He's is the Saint of science .
I prefer to idolize you man.
And he did not have sex with a 12 year old child, unlike the 'final prophet' of another religion...
100%
no one should Idolise anyone/anything but for sure if this man would be listened more than the celebrity garbage, we would live in a better world
Roger Penrose is one of my favorite modern mathematicians/thinkers - he's humble, open-minded, curious, and brilliant.
💖💖💖
with huge emphasis on the brilliant
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
To me, it looks like he’s chewed his way through the cheese of math and has fallen out on the other side by now:D
PLEASE - as with 'Closer to Truth' - PLEASE give us the DATE on which the talk was recorded! This is historically significant; without knowing when these talks were recorded, it's hard to follow how a given thinker's thoughts have evolved.
Based on looking through the website, this was during the festival in 2023, Hay or London...
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
May 2023
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
Sir. Penrose, one of the last great Geniuses of the 20th Century. A living Legend.
21st century. It's 2024.
@@genghisgalahad8465 He meant one of the last great geniuses born in the 20th century.
@@genghisgalahad8465 Numpty.
Kip Thorne is still around although he is younger, early 80s. But still very active, mentally and physically.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 He has nowhere near the importance of Penrose.
Sir Penrose is amazing - still incredibly sharp. Thumbs up for this video.
Sir Roger
Razor sharp having practiced for decades now...stays sharp.
Jordan Peterson interviewed him once, I got the impression roger found the questions a little annoying/ignorant. 😂 Peterson wanting to look into Penrose's soul, and Penrose just wants to talk about the physics of souls 😂
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Which they were. Peterson is neither a physicist nor a mathematician yet he was trying to have a specialist discussion on those matters.
@@WinrichNaujoksYeah, off the bat when I read those two names together, I thought"Are they even compatible?" 😂
That chair leg an inch from the edge scares me.
I also felt a bit of... uncertainty
Very observant!
Very observant!
Almost said it. You beat me to it👏👏👏
I read your comment and was on the edge of my seat, worried it might go. Then 18:32 my heart pounded as was the most probable moment that chair leg was going to go, but didn’t thank god 😥
I could listen to Roger Penrose speak for days
So tell me how does understanding help us transcend the rules?
I always feel like I’ve leveled up after listening to Penrose. He’s a treasure
I love the whole M.C. Escher/Penrose Tiles (someone discovered a new one just recently) loop/synchronicity. Imagine influencing one of the world's most beloved artist, penning cosmic inflation & parenting the singularity w/Hawking. He is the best of us w/o doubt.
Ha!
Integration
He is 92 years old. Woaahhhh🤯 Looks 15 years younger. Stability in voice, no significant shaking, no spectacles, lot of hair on head, hearing perfectly well, doesn't look physically weak eithr . This man has done wonderfully well in keeping his body & mind healthy at this age also. I know there are genetic factors as well, but you stil need to put in efforts.
People who get to live their lives doing what they love/loving what they do just somehow end up showing that in their entire being.
Freeman Dyson was another such genius.
it's because he thinks a lot of scientific thoughts, there's no room for anxiety or stress
@@kittyhinkle3739 that is generally not true. Many savants look a lot older than they are because their priorities are unhealthy (for physical health)
Such a likable genius. One of the greatest thinkers of our age.
Without God's word of Truth he's just another man with a bunch of doubts
a strong proponent of the importance of philosophy in the scientific method.
Two fundamental different kinds of people: both very important for development: 1. Those who do not allow themselves to be distracted by any alternative hypothetic scenario, not based on what we currently know, when they focus on the matter and hand based on only what we currently know, almost in an autistic way (which is a good thing) 2. The ones who wants to look at the broader picture, wants to include ideas about what could be around the corner. In fact, when modern deep learning algorithms are made, there's often both Type 1 and Type 2 parts of the final AI solution: Type 1 is objective, Type 2 is speculative/creative. Type 2 is a randomness introduced in the algorithm to make sure the Type 1 part of the algorithm doesn't get stuck (in a local minimum/maximum)
@@lasselasse5215 the easy answer is no, I reject both
@@Flum666 based
Because philosophy is the next step after pure science and empiricism. Then, when philosophy is unable to understand and explain reality, the last frontier that comes beyond knowledge and understanding is spirituality, the realm where reality is not understood but believed and accepted.
Yes. A nice proportion of philosophy makes the !!! Into a satisfying ???
Can listen to this man for hours. Hope he is around for a long time! Inspiring person.
The more I look at this man, the more he seems to have God in him. Even at the age of 92, he is still in the world of education. I pray to God to keep him healthy .
To hear Roger explain the Emperor’s mind is a beautiful gift… the book is a very challenging mountain to scale.
mostly just tedious, and probably why many critics did not bother reading it.
@@carlosgaspar8447 If they didn't read it, then they're not legitimate critics. You don't seem to have any critique yourself-- just something negative to say. I wish there was some kind of AI that would just delete all trolls. I don't believe for a second that you know Jack $h!t about who read or didn't read The Emperor's New Mind.
@@donnievance1942 have you read the f'n book. i have for all it's worth. so lick my ass if that's what you call a positive comment on your part.
This is a particularly profound and detailed interview with Sir Penrose. Excellent and thanks for sharing.
Than you sir Roger Penrose. We are all lucky to have him
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.
Brilliant, and also could looking at x-rays to gamma rays be before the particles have decided the state to collapse into!
Interesting theory but I have a different spin on it. I believe the seperating factor is space not time. I believe that the subatomic universe is operating from a dimension of space that is seperated but overlayed and sychronised with the physical universe. Much like the way the physical modem router occupies the same local position as the wifi signal it generates but both exist in different observable spaces while working in sychrony. I believe this is the same reason why we haven't been able to locate dark matter. My theory is that this seperation came about during the big bang. Prior to that I believe there was only a universe that was void of all matter. Through the progression of energy accumulating and colliding lead to the first emergence of matter according to the equation e=mc2. If the universe at the time was abundant in anti-matter it could be this incompatibility that lead to a rapid split purging of its counterpart into a seperate dimension of space. That purging is what I believe was what we know as the big bang. That would explain why there is a lack of anti matter in this observable universe and why we are unable to see dark matter and why there is a seperation between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The answer to all three would be that those events haven't shifted, they've remained in same dimension of space as where they've always been. Off course this is all just a far fetched theory of mine
@@yinyang2385 the modem example makes sense. It could be our visual reality is our local modem, and that’s why we haven’t been able to observe other dimensions either.
I'm not a scientist or mathematician. But I like how the noticing of anything has now seemed to be part of the quest for understanding more than we used to understand.
Looking well roger
19:33 @ejenkins gives the impression that Roger P is likely to be looking at these comments, so I decided that because I have no idea how to contact Roger P, I could leave a message for him right here now. My name is Merrilyne Huxley-Afrazeh and many years ago I was a member of 'Scientific and medical Network', in which Roger P was also a member too. One day , which I believe to be some time in the 90's, Roger P held a conference in London about ' Blackholes', after the conference I met with Roger outside to chat with him. But sometimes a quick little chat is quite insufficient to say what you really need to say , so we said our goodbyes and I left with a comment to him that I would try to put all in writing to him and send to him at his university. Well, this never happened , it was too detailed to just write about an experiential happening and I really needed time with him for expressing my story. This was forever on my mind always. (19:33) I followed Roger P😮 in his talks and research via ' You tube' and put his videos on 'Twitter' with comment but lately I have worried that time may be running out, I am now a few weeks off 80 yrs old and Roger P will be of similar age ...what then? No one will replace Roger Penrose and the truth about 'Quantum Theory' will never be revealed. Merrilyne Afrazeh Messenger (PM)
Yes it's true... QUANTUM THEORY IS INCOMPLETE
We are incredibly fortunate to have Sir Roger with us. A truly original thinker and great scientist.
Roger Penrose is a joy to listen to, I understand almost nothing he talks about, but he seems to enjoy his subject so much that its a pleasure to hear him discuss it.
thanks for making this video, i learned a lot.
"There is something outside computation in human understanding". Contra mathematization of everything including human nature. Thank you Sir.
I like (and appreciate) how he explains things in terms which I can follow. He must have almost infinite patience, or be very comfortable with a way of life which enables his studying. People like him are essential. I wish I knew everything 😊
Wow fantastic. . I could listen to Professor Penrose all day. . Thank you.
This has serious rewatch value! Thanks!
Sir Penrose- An epitome of humility and intelligence!! Always fond of hearing him.
Thank you Sir Roger for that.
Just amazing to be accurate to listen to this mini lectures! I just hope Sir Roger Penrose get to live at least another 20 more years 💪😁
"accurate to listen"? 🤔
I read Emporer's New Mind and it made me obsessed with Turinv Machines which led to me becoming obsessed with 6502 assembly programming! Thanks Sir Penrose
Love the interview. Love Rogers insights. It echoes my understanding of some of the problems not being dealt with, ie the inability of a machine to prove concepts that rely on infinite continuity of logical conclusions. For example, using real numbers, the infinite series of x+1 will always be consistent without limit into infinity. Or, 2 parallel lines, using a fixed system of geometry will never touch, ever. Although a computer in theory could run forever, it still relies on finite bits and therefore could never finish calculating a real number. If quantum systems are truly indeterminate and probablilistic curves and wave functions actually link reality to a ‘Real’ foundation then logic alone, and intuition in particular, should admit to the impossibility of machine solutions ever modeling comprehensive truth. Maybe quantum computing has a chance since its foundational qbits can be ‘Real’ components. Now we just have to figure out how to make ‘Real’ measurements. Since we’ll never be able to verify that a qbit’s ‘Real’ value is correct with a deterministic classic computer, it will take a quantum leap of faith to accept that the real values/real States are true at the infinite scale.
Or as they say in Italian "issa verry comlicayted"!
Please, please keep Roger Penrose’s innovative thinking going. We need someone to pick up the ball in ten years or so, as Sir Roger is obviously defeating time. He’s the best of the visionaries in the modern age.
I love this interview. Sir roger penrose sitting in what I’m guessing is his back garden, discussing science, the river in the background with the canoe slowly passing by… There’s something so quintessentially english about the whole thing. Makes me proud to know that intelligence and peaceful tranquility can still be found in this country
That was inspiring. Wow, my mind is blown. Thank you
Love this man
i enjoy him sharing his passion so much .. would love to be his translator to gallileo -- even if i surely wont understand half of what sir PENROSE is saying if they get down into the meaty stuff 😅
Excellent interview, so nice to see Mr Penrose is doing well, I have read a few of his books.
What an insightful and articulated view!!
one of the greats
glad he finally gets the recognition he deserves and we need. it's good that he is there to witness it all.
Sadly the better voices are cyclically drowned out by loud mouth intellectuals like Jordan Peterson who offer actually very little outside of an emotional appeal.
I mean, be won a Nobel prize. Doesn't get much more recognized than that.
yes, including that. he was being belittled and completely ignored long before that.@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718
It’s an enormous privilege to have access to such an engaging person with a brilliant ,lucid mind.
Wouldn't it be delightful to be able to sit and talk to such a charming profound thinker? He seems to be completely without condescension and have such intriguing thoughts.
This is a lovely and timely record of a great thinker. But, for me, science and physics are missing the foundational reality of consciousness. It just cannot be excluded from physics, because it is an integrated aspect of all perception and consciousness is like the quantum level of reality and for me, is the very nature of God and is what reality is!
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry. Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung.
A good answer always generates 10 new questions
Questions are dual to answers. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
@@hyperduality2838 Stop spamming, troll. Reported.
Simply excellent !!
I am in awe how people can be so smart. I couldnt follow most of what he was saying and had to rewind... great stuff, cant stop watching though
Take heart that he's also saying he doesn't understand it 😊 That's the starting point of all science. What I got from it was that our description of what counting is, leads to what we currently accept as rules as conditions, but those standards don't seem to behave as they were expected to, under certain conditions. He's changing the philosophy towards certain mathematical situations, and trying other approaches, to find a repeatable theory and method of mathematics prediction or confirmation. The basis of prediction, using maths. I like it because it's deeply philosophical. It moves from basic counting 1,2,3 which is using words to explain physical amounts, to mathematical prediction based on a similar mind set, then finding out that all of a sudden, 1+1 isn't necessarily 2 anymore. And nobody knows why. That's my understanding of it anyway. I might be well off. My favourite book is Science a History. And I always give up in the quantum theory section, and the superstring part. I just can't understand it. I love the thought that in maybe 100 years, even children will have the understanding and think "how don't you know that?". That's human progression...... The passing of knowledge. Science.
Dr. Michael Levin has shown that the electric field about a cell can be manipulated which changes the signaling in the micrutubules. Maybe the collapse of the wave function happens within the electric field of the cell.
I find the questions, very childish, but this guy keeps on coming up with fantastic answers Absolutely amazing, I could listen to him for hours
Questions are dual to answers. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
@@hyperduality2838 You've now been reported for a second time.
Why? He has a point!
He sealed the deal for me when he described himself as a visual thinker. I used to think everyone was. My heart pauses at the thought of having an in-depth conversation with Sir Roger. Not only is this far out of reach, but the time needed to establish thoughts understandable to both would make it even more impossible.🐦 🐦 🐦
Bless you ❤❤❤❤❤ we need you
I think Dirac is his most favourite physicist 🙌🏻
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
I think an interesting collateral aspect of "the understanding" being able to transcend the rules is that it gives Evolution a reason to favour consciousness development. Even if an advanced non conscious specie (or even an artificial neural network for the case ) could solve very complex tasks they could never get the advantage provided by "understanding". To me this can explain the devopment of conscoiusnes by Evolution. If there is an unknown resource in nature that somehow can permit to build self awareness and consciousnes with it, then Evolution will find the way to create it sooner or later, because it provides an advantage. Logically this doesn't explain how consciousness emerges, but at least it could explain why.
Or may be matter emerges from consciousness, which is fundamental? Matter being ideas of the consciousness, useful for systematic, logic thought. Look up Donald Hoffman, who has many wonderful videos on KZhead about this.
Merci merci. Plus on réalise et moins on comprend. Une contradiction il semblerait mais ensuite tout prend place. La confiance est aussi une valeur importante. Il faut ce courage pour se lancer dans le vide, sans garantie mais poussé par une curiosité inébranlable, une foi certaine en la vie.
Brilliant! 🔥
Only now do I think I understand what he means by consciousness transcends computation.
I think I see what he means, but I'm definitely not convinced by his argumentation so far
is rationalized avoidance of quantum mechanic's proof of clairvoyance between us, aware or not, imo. -a
Nailed it. I don't think we will be able to divorce consciousness and how it works from QM and WFC.
as he said there is zero progress on what the word even means. and it will continue being that was for so long as the magical thinking of physicalism persists. even in the age where we know the curvature of space affects mass-energy without 1870s physics interaction, and mass-energy affects space without 1870s interaction, they cannot understand this means physicalism doesnt exist since awareness affects mass-energy without the need for appealing to 1870s interactions either.
I appreciate his clarification on his position on physicalism because i hear people come to the wrong conclusion after hearing him speak almost any time that comes up.
This is great ! :) I just wish that Roger Penrose heard , or spoke to , Bruce Lipton and his amazement with discovery how do our cells behave, what goes on micro level that we didnt know before . I am sure that would broaden the road towards some real realizations . :) Thank you for this interview , I have utterly enjoyed it ! :)
Would like to hear more on his visual thinking approach, doesn't feel like the question was answered.
I would've wanted to know more too. He's very meticulous in his explanations. Though he crams a lot of data in as few words as possible without compromising the explanation, it's still going to take more time than you have in a casual interview. Can't really fit a proper answer in a few minutes of video. Guess I'm going to have to download the Emperors new Mind:)
I think Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were visual thinkers as well.
That's a wonderful and super insightful monologue. I regret that the interviewer changed the subject
Penrose has given talks on this many times. I recommend looking up some lectures here on KZhead where he goes deeper into his arguments.
You said that you have a lot more questions at the end of that talk, than what you had in the beginning. That is knowledge, as I se it, Not make answers, make the questions. Best whishes from Sweden.
You are so right!!!
Hes a sweetheart, but that thumbnail reminds me of Palpatine in the prequels 😂 POWAAAAH
UNLIMITED POWAAAHHHHHH
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two, Darth Bane, Sith lord. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
I want a Schrödingers Cake. Have it, and eat it too. Any chance for that? As a former construction worker, i can with high probability say: NEVER ignore gravity and Geometry. We build upon it. Schrödinger just shows us, that without a possibility for confirmations, our Toolset is incomplete.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
A brilliant man 👏👏
I love this guy!
What Sir Penrose said is that we have no brains structured in a way that we can fully understand quantum mechanics!
Not sure. I do count 3 sets: computable rules, QM reality, and human understandings. How much the latter 2 intersect is unclear. Discovering that rules are distinct from human thought may lead to human understanding of real QM, for all we know.
I also came up with the idea, some 20 years ago, without too much research, purely logically, that consciousness must, unquestionably, come from the subatomic “size scale” but I never actually mentioned it outside, probably, a blog nobody ever read. I remember, however, how excited I was when I heard in the news, many years later, when I had already forgotten about my own idea, that scientists also started to suspect, animals might probably be able to sense things (position, direction?) based on quantum level events. I knew, many years earlier, that they will eventually discover something like that, without ever hearing about people researching things like that at all. I also came up with the idea, without knowing that others are ever considering this, that our declared and of course proven set of rules (including fundamental forces, elemental particles, standard models) effect and shape, without valid appeal, the exact scope of things we are allowed to scientifically consider true or even existing. I think I even could somehow explain the collapse of the wave function which is the same problem as the superposition of two, mutually exclusive state (like cat alive AND dead) and the same as the source of our consciousness. I’m currently working on designing a computer based experiment (an attempted strong AI) that might substantially surpass the intelligence level of the current “weak” AI as they call it. I’m using my philosophical and logical universe I built from the obvious signs I face with in life while listening to the nature with a little more humble enthusiasm. Time will tell. I did not hear about Roger Penrose, though, until one or two years ago to be honest.
Lol.
@@BeatPoet67 I didn’t mean to make you go lol but I like that the dry facts I stated has the hidden potential to entertain:D
Penrose's proposal has been ruled out already. The fact that he keeps pumping it out shows what a sufferer of Nobel Disease he is -- he's gone from a brilliant mind to a fraud caught up in his own ego refusing to adapt when experiment proves him wrong.
I suspect we're only scratching the surface in terms of understanding consciousness.
@@toby9999 Consciousness, beyond the obvious ingredient of intelligence and a flexible data storage capability, probably would require AUTONOMY, which is free choice and actual independency (from the creator) and probably even tangible (not just emulated) NEEDS that could start the procedure of forming hopes and fears, however esoteric it might sound: I have autonomy and needs (and, of course, thoughts) therefore I am. Time will tell.
How many scientists does it take to mischaracterize the Schrodinger's Cat problem? Just about every one. Penrose never gets muddled. He's my go to for reality checking physics and cosmology and anything else he wants to weigh in on.
It's not a problem its a story.
Yeah it’s really strange when people quote it at face value without knowing the backstory.
I like his CCC theory, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. I see it as the serial equivalent of the parallel multiverse. The universes are not separated by distance or dimension or whatever, but by simple time.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
@@hyperduality2838 What is your point?
We need more great thinkers working on the mystery of consciousness. I believe it'll open the door to a realization that we, humans, and our minds, are embedded into the universe itself in a way that consciousness is preserved.
I wish there is more people like Penrose and Chomsky
Galileo is fascinating, but what about Archimedes?
And Democritus? None of his works survived but the idea of atoms. Archimedes is just too earthbound not to mention Galileo!
Well it was Rogers personal choice . we are all free to choose our own , i think it was more to do with understanding fundamental aspects of reality than inventions , but that was my guess , personally i would choose Feynman because he seemed to be a good laugh as well as being rather clever .
Dirac 👍👍👍👍
4:48 Imagine paddling along in a canoe on a nice day, randomly passing by Roger Penrose sitting on a deck talking about the transcendental qualities of understanding
Understanding is direct experience of the thing.
Interviewer: Enough with the “right”, “yeah”, “yeah yeah yeah”, “right”, “yeah”, “right right”, “yeah yeah”. Just nod your head next time, please.
Got it, yeah, right, hm, hm, ahuh
Git, right, yeah
The aaaaaaaaah...that was the climax...Anyway, Penrose is amazing!
I accidently read your comment while still watching, and couldn't concentrate anymore Damn you 😁
@@DrSalahAhmed You would have experienced the same epiphany on your own! Fortunately Penrose tends to provide similar substance in interviews, so find another recent one and you’ll be able to hear him a bit better.
We can say that the rules dont give us truths but guide us to truths. If you follow a map to get you from point A to point B; when you arrive at point B the map is meaningless if you hand it to somebody. Unless the person is smart enough to reverse the directions to go to point A.
Though in physics, you can’t always get from B to A by doing the reverse of A to B… for example hysteresis loop
4) Einstein's phrase "spooky action at a distance" was euphemistic for asserting non local hidden variables are TRUE. The incompleteness is based on the entangled hidden variables. 5) Wave collapse requires inner and outer i, so to speak, its an i/o feature of entangled root access. think of it like Admin permission on a Unix shell.
There are so few physicists who display the kind of curiosity and determination to seriously question accepted solutions and willing to posit new ideas even at the age of 92.
Orch OR or not it is definitely quantum
+ Anirban Bandyopadhyay and Stuart Hameroff
The interviewer has no patience with Sir. Roger Penrose. Ya Ya Ya haha okay ya right right ya ya ya (now wrap it up old man)!!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🐈 Schrödinger's cat thought experiment aimed to show the absurdity of quantum superposition applied to macroscopic objects.* 00:29 *🎓 As a graduate student, Penrose took courses by influential thinkers like Bondi, Dirac, and Steen, sparking his interest in physics and computation.* 01:24 *🧩 Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that our understanding transcends any fixed set of rules for proving mathematical statements.* 04:11 *🧠 Penrose argues that consciousness, not just following computational rules, enables humans to transcend formal systems.* 06:05 *⚛️ As a physicalist, Penrose consciousness must arise from known physics, suggesting quantum mechanics as a possibility.* 10:22 *⌛ Penrose theorizes that the quantum measurement problem, involving wave function collapse, cannot be computed and requires a new physical theory.* 12:26 *🧵 Hamerhoff's suggestion about microtubules led to Penrose's orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) model of consciousness.* 14:14 *🌍 Dennis Sciama greatly influenced Penrose's understanding of physics, especially cosmology, despite Penrose's mathematics background.* 15:23 *🖼️ Penrose describes himself as a visual thinker, which posed challenges in algebra-focused math courses requiring written explanations.* 17:40 *🌌 If he could meet anyone from history, Penrose would choose Galileo for his groundbreaking physical insights and principled stand against authority.* Made with HARPA AI
More. Please.
7:21 - "I don't think that's the answer, but I prepare to look at some suggestions that goes in the other direction" That's what difference a scientist from a politician: a politician is 100% convinced of his own ideas, a scientist not.
Only a very poor politician is 100% convinced of his own ideas. A good politician is only concerned with whether others are convinced of his ideas.
I think that's apples and oranges. Ideally politicians compromise with other politicians. There may be several valid ways to organise politically but only one solution to a physics question. I agree that Mr Penrose displays great clarity in his thinking and careful choice of words.
It’s like the difference between what we are and who we are. Classical physics tell us who we are; our properties, mass, inertia, how we react to forces, etc., as an assembly. Quantum mechanics describes what we are, how a waveform collapsed to determine the stability of atomic level forces that create the platform. We are related, connected, who and what we are, but we are not sure how.
What a way to end the interview. Thank you
Gibberish. The interviewer's responses were akin to the public reaction to the emperor's lack of clothes.
To the dude doing the interview: STOP saying "yeah" every two seconds specially OVER someone's speach. Other than that thanks for the vid.
The dude is probably inadvertently doing this to everyone he has a conversation with. Yeah. Yep. Ok. Right. Uh huh. Yes. I have a friend who does this. I know he means well, but it does come off as kinda rude. Just let people speak. It really helps with the whole listening thing.
Would love to see a discussion between Penrose and Wolfram!
12:38 - All gases, despite their chemical diversity, more or less induce anesthesia if the partial pressure is high enough in the air mix you breathe, including the noble gases. Nerve cell axons are surrounded by myelin, mainly consisting of fatty compounds, or lipids, acting as electric insulators. It is a well known fact that there is a correlation between the solubility of a gas in a lipid and its narcotic efficacy (Moore, Basic Physical Chemistry). The mechanism is not yet fully understood, but the similarity with a simple electrical short-cut analogy due to a failing insulator is striking. In my point of view, anesthesia CAN be explained by means of chemistry, or physical chemistry to be precise. The anesthetic principle can be tested and measured. By lowering the partial pressure of the anesthetic gas, the gas molecules diffuse out the myelin and consciousness comes back. It is chemistry in its simplest form.
I try to follow and be civilized and respectful but i wonder how the interviewer didn't annoy Mr Penrose. "Ja ja ja, right, right, ja ja ja ja ja, riiiiight, ja, ok" I mean....?!?
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The laws of physics describe in principle all the physical processes of which brain processes consist, without defining the system "brain". The brain does not physically exist as a single entity but is only a subjective cognitive construct that refers to a set of arbitrarily chosen quantum particles; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Marco Biagini
I'm a mathematician rather than a physicist. We specialize in proof as physicists specialize in the material world, and I don't think your "proof" qualifies as such. Consciousness is a mystery to me, but whatever its relationship to the physical world, I see no reason to believe that it's immortal. Even if you have proven that consciousness, or the soul, does not emerge from the brain, you haven't proven that it survives disintegration of the brain. Maybe parapsychology can address this question scientifically, but any empirical evidence in favor of a disembodied or immortal soul is highly controversial at best. We know well enough how objective images (the sort of "image" that can appear on a photographic plate) become electro-chemical signals in my brain, but we don't know so well how these signals become subjective images in my consciousness, insofar as we distinguish my consciousness from something emerging from my brain. If you can prove something along these lines, you're getting somewhere. Ghosts are supposed somehow to see without eyes, but if my soul can see without eyes, why did eyes evolve?
Marco mi dispiace tu stia attraversando un brutto periodo (zero ironia, son 100% serio). Sono sicuro che le cose miglioreranmo, al punto che non sentirai più il bisogno di condividere muri di testo sotto un video random di youtube. Ci sono passato anch'io, in certi momenti della vita urlare le proprie idee nel vuoto dei social media può sembrare uno sfogo salutare, ma non lo è. Essere uno scienziato antifisicalista in un mondo positivista e riduzionista deve farti sentire incompreso, ma combattere mulini a vento nella sezione commenti non t'aiuterà, credimi. Anche gli scienziati che vivono nell' iperuranio hanno bisogno di benessere psicofisico, e anche se i tuoi colleghi non credono all'esistenza dell'anima chissene...
@@marcodallolio9746 Ti assicuro che non sto passando affatto un brutto periodo, anzi sono una persona molto felice e realizzata. Scrivo questi messaggi perchè penso sia giusto che qualcuno dica la verità in mezzo a tutte le menzogne che inondano internet. Sto solo facendo il mio dovere. Ciao
@@restonthewind My arguments are not meant to prove the immortality of the soul. My arguments prove that our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain excludes the possibility that such physical processes could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Best regards.
@@marcobiagini1878 meglio così, solitamente i muri di testo nei commenti sono espressione di malessere. Quelli che chiami "menzogne su internet" temo siano solo espressione dell'ideologia dominante di questo momento storico (riduzionismo materialista, fisicalismo, positivismo, scientismo, etc etc). Consolati del fatto che, come ogni altra espressione della storia, sono tendenze cicliche. Non staranno con noi per sempre
How can we know the rest mass of an electron or other particles when we have Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? (i.e. at rest mass the momentum is zero and thus we have lost information about the particle's position)
excellent
The interviewer " yeah ... yeah ... yeah... " bothers me.
right.. right, right... right..
The number one barrier to progress has always been authoritarianism. In medieval times, churches were too authoritative. In modern times, secularism has become too authoritative. Authoritarian systems needlessly restrict the ways in which people are permitted to think and speak. It should never be a crime to express a deeply held religious belief. The most socially toxic attitude is "I want it all now." That attitude is a direct result of the rejection of all religious belief. Drug dependencies, extreme perversions, depression, and more are direct results of rejecting all religion.
No one is restricting your right to be wrong.
@@AlexanderShamovYou imply that there can exist a human authoritative judge who is never themself wrong.
Point well taken on authoritarianism but your medieval history is a little off if you think that the church was holding back technological progress via an all encompassing and powerful regime. The church founded universities, sponsored translations and preservations of texts, and lacked the authority to control the nobility who did as they pleased and constantly meddled in the affairs of the church. Not that kings could hardly control their own subjects either for that 1000 years. Power was fairly decentralized and the medieval people were technologically quite innovative, much more so than their counterparts from earlier antiquity. Their metallurgy, chemistry, and agronomy are just a few of the areas where they really excelled. In fact, it wouldn’t be well into the Industrial Revolution that significant improvements were made in these fields again. Many people date the end of the period to 1492, but that means that the Portuguese trade routes and the discovery of the New World can really be placed as achievements of the Medieval system and it was these disruptive discoveries which eventually led to it’s social underpinnings begin to come apart and be replaced with Enlightenment and the age of centralized despotism and violent republican revolution.
Reading the authorities passing judgment on your statement. These pseudointellects are the court jesters.
@@mrniceguystylehigh outstanding comment
I’ve always thought that consciousness and sense of self was as a result of our brains interaction with fields permeating the universe. Similar to our eyes evolving to interact with the electromagnetic field
Interesting idea.
My favorite person ever.
This is a really nice video. What a British treasure 😊