I like how this video is basically the equivalent of the Aristocrats for quantum physics...

Ah, but if it's "closer" to a deterministic thing, that implies that there's some probability it won't fail, thus creating two possible futures: failed date and successful date. Now, to complete the analogy to the brain-munching zombie-cat, to find out how the date turns out, one would have to embark on said date.

Anyway, applying quantum physics rules to multi-cellular life forms directly is almost never a good idea.

Understanding this thought experiment is key to grasping the edge of Quantum Physics, which is the hardest part of actually studying Quantum Physics.

States of energy, atoms being several places at once and so on are concepts that aren't very intuitive and take a while to actually grasp.

There are, however, practical applications to this thought experiment:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Big-Bang-Theory-Schr-dinger-s-Cat

I haven't made it very far into the video, but I'm assuming the rest of it works under the original premises: We have free will, and the universe is deterministic.

I'm not confident in either of these assumptions. As far as we know, quantum physics is not deterministic (it's all probabilities). It may be deterministic, but we haven't found this to be the case so far. If quantum behavior is used in the brain (which some scientists think) then that could be a source of our inherent unpredictability even without the existence of "free will".

Free will is also suspect. As a notable neural biologist said, the more we learn about the brain, the less room there seems to be for free will (sorry, I forgot his name). Social Psychology has also documented the profound effect that the world around us has on our actions. One conclusion within Social Psychology is that "humans are primarily a product of their situations and genetics".

There is also the problem that the "soul" is currently undefinable. The general argument seems to be that "we do not completely understand human cognition, so there must be a super-physical component". That may very well be the case, but there are also plenty of cognitive models that fit our current understanding of the mind without the need for anything supernatural.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Space, Balls, Mel Brooks, Rick Moranis, Quantum Physics, 80s' to 'Spaceballs, Mel Brooks, Rick Moranis, Quantum Physics, 80s' - edited by radx

>> ^Skeeve:
From the attacks of 9/11 (which have been used as a justification for Iraq) to the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq right now, god/religion is the main killer there too.

I just wanted to point out that it's really misguided to say that religion caused all these conflicts which happened to have religion tacked on to them. The Crusades, for example, were less about religion than they were about halting the advance of a growing empire. Religion is the excuse and the propaganda tool for mobilizing one group of people against another, usually for political reasons or in competition over resources. We'd have plenty of wars still without religion, and the scapegoating is pointless.

>> ^rottenseed:
And as for eastern religions Hinduism, Buddhism, etc; all that spiritual stuff, is BS in my book.

You clearly haven't researched them at all. Some aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism aren't spiritual but pragmatic. Then there's Taoist philosophy which is agnostic when it comes to belief in a soul or an afterlife, but it teaches that ultimately it doesn't matter. I see modern astrophysics and quantum physics making new hypotheses that mirror Eastern philosophical tenets, such as cosmic inflation theory's infinite/eternal field of bubble universes being similar to the Tao. Eastern philosophies can't be lumped in with Western religions, and aren't adequately described as "spiritual stuff."

>> ^Sagemind:
They throw science terms around like frisbees, but they are creating fiction on the back of true science.

Fiction is all it is, true. Trouble is, they don't label it as such.

Hi enoch. Please don't take downvotes personally. I really enjoy your commentary and sifting, so when I downvoted your quantum video I gave some love to your queues. The reason I downvoted the video was because I strongly mislike misrepresentations of science, unless it's done for comedic effect that is. I think my brother sums up my reasons:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Quantum-physics-and-conciousness#comment-777386

No hard feelings?

Curiosity is fine, but it is not wise to take every perspective seriously without checking how sound it is.

Look at what we are dealing with here:

"David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, who according to a Popular Science article, is "outraged at the final product," because the filmmakers interviewed him about quantum mechanics unrelated to consciousness or spirituality, and then edited the material in such a way that he feels misrepresented his views"

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-10/cult-science


You want to learn about quantum physics, then consult with PHYSICISTS, not a woman who thinks she is 3500 years old and makes a film to promote her cult.

You cant stop asking questions? then study real science and philosophy, from actual philosophers, and from reliable science sources. This video and the movie, and the movement behind it, are not reliable.

This is the same thing as that movie called the Secret. you gain absolutely nothing from it. Just because these films make you wonder and feel good, does not mean you have gained any truth or have expanded your perspectives. How can you expand it form something that is false and misleading?

Admitting one's ignorance about reality is great and should be applauded, but there is a reason why philosophers use the Socratic method, and scientists use the scientific method whenever a new idea comes along. The ideas presented here do not pass either of those tests.

Don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to show you that this is not the content to stimulate your curiosity of things.

i would never say the scientist is close minded.a close minded person is a close minded person...period.
to me science is the observation of the physical universe,and through testing of theories,results and predictable outcomes there is a concensus(sp?).i find that fascinating.we would not have the computers we are all playing on without quantum physics.
i applaud the insatiable curiosity to know,to ask questions that every scientists asks.they are attempting to decipher the very creation of this universe,and i for one wait with baited breath as they find more and more about this universe.
the one thing i wont do is be so arrogant to think i know everything.i did not post this vid,nor others, to promote a personal agenda or view,but more because they intrigue me,i find them interesting and i thought others might also.
everyday we are learning more about the universe,and everytime we discover something new..the rabbit hole gets deeper.that is exciting to me and quantum physics is the most exciting of all and that particular hole keeps getting deeper and deeper.
we live in exciting times my friends.i apologize if this vid upsets some of you,but speaking only for myself,i love new and different perspectives,because i cant stop asking the questions.
just take a quick look at history.how many times were people told..you cant do this or that?
cant?impossible?
and then some innovative person comes along to shout "i DID it"!
i cant WAIT until some ingenious person comes along next to break every known barrier.the one thing i really liked in this video was the talk about "potential",can anyone really gauge potential?...fantastic!
so my apologies to those who i guess i poked at their tender sensibilities,i assure you,it was not intentional.i just thought this was an interesting video.

^Oh please, spare me this same old tripe about close-minded scientists. We attack this shameless stealing of quantum mechanical jargon for new age purposes not because it challenges our authority(*), but because it only serves to spread misinformation about a field that is immensly important for your everyday life. The one who is close-minded is not the one who demands falsifiable hypotheses and evidence to accept something as true, but rather the one who accepts any sufficiently advanced obfuspeak without checking the claims or even verifying whether the claims are internally consistent, re http://www.videosift.com/video/Open-mindedness .

I apologize if I sound overly aggressive here, but I am very tired of being labeled close-minded and cold just for saving my wonder for real physical phenomena, as I have explained here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-Quantum-Visits-a-2-Dimensional-World#comment-716269

(*)And what authority would that be really? All scientists I've ever met are perfectly happy to slave away in their laboratory and/or office just for the thrill of discovery, and don't care to go around asserting their non-selflabeled intellectual superiority to all and everything.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:
having taking 8 courses in quantum mechanics I assure you this is bullshit.

Ditto. And throwing out buzzwords from quantum physics does not grant you status as science, hence *nochannel *philosophy *cinema *controversy

"three downvotes for my vid quantum physics and consciousness?
i figured some would not be..receptive shall we say..
but to DOWNvote?
i dont understand the rationale...
if i dont like,or disagree with a vid..i just dont vote.
was it THAT offensive?
sighs...just needed to vent that.thanks =)"

lol. It seems that when one person downvotes a video it becomes easier for the next viewer to do the same. Check out this video btw. http://www.videosift.com/video/Fred-Goes-to-The-Doctor-downvoting-is-cool

Tags for this video have been changed from 'quantum physics, conciousness, enlightenment, science, what the bleep do we know' to 'quantum physics, consciousness, enlightenment, science, what the bleep do we know' - edited by EndAll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'quantum physics, conciousness, enlightenment, science, kaballistic' to 'quantum physics, conciousness, enlightenment, science, what the bleep do we know' - edited by MycroftHomlz

>> ^charliem:
This video is an excerpt from a psudeo-science bullshit film, where the writers are trying to somehow mesh actual physics with some meta-physical mind-controlling spirituallity garbage to change the outcome of the universe.
Total bunk science, its just as crazy as scientology, only leaning quite heavily on existing science to try to push its point across.
It would be nice if just thinking could change the universe, but it has zero basis in any established scientific journal. Dont let the real confusing, real science get in the way of the garbage this video is trying to push.


What he said...