Markdown lines 517–559 · Part 11 of 22
[01:59:30] slow to to that game, >> but he couldn't get the math to work. >> No. Well, now you in consciousness, what how is it that you get that something is like this and then it changes? Well, it's easy. It's an if then statement, >> right? >> If this one changes spin, that one changes spin. That's all. It's a computer program. >> It doesn't care about the distance. >> It doesn't care about the [laughter] distance. The distance is irrelevant. If this then that. It's simple, >> right? >> That's all. It's just an if statement.
[02:00:00] >> I It's elegant. So if this one flips, that one flips because it's all part of the same thing and those are the rules that connect it according to the rule set and everything here has to happen according to the rule set. >> Did you address entanglement in your 2017 paper? You didn't. >> No, I didn't go there. I didn't go there. I just was um basically came up with a bunch of experiments that would lend evidence to the fact that this is a virtual reality and two that consciousness was the computer. And I just got actually I couldn't do any of
[02:00:30] them. I started with the first simple one but it turns out that I really in my you I have gdankan experiments you know just thought experiments if you did this this is how it would come out and a lot of physics is done that way and then often years later they end up with an ability to actually do the experiment but in this case the ability to do the experiment didn't exist because I was just saying that I have the which way data. I wasn't saying how I got it. Well, that's a problem, >> right? [laughter] >> That's a problem. I just said, well, you
[02:01:00] have this which way data and it does this and you're going to get that. And if the which way is this way, you get that. But I didn't actually say here's how we're going to get that which way data. And it finds out that that's a much harder problem. And they don't know how to do that without interfering with the experiment itself. Right. >> Every way they do that, they actually change the experiment. So >> why would they change it? By collapsing the way? >> No. No. they they they actually kind of interfere with it. Like if you have, you know, one of the ways that you do it is
[02:01:30] that you have use entangled particles, you know, and you have this going on this to the double slits and this going down to tell you which slit it went through, right? >> Because you got two particles now that hit a went through a, you know, went through one slit or the other and now one's going to the double slit and the other one says I came from that slit. So you you get that one to tell you what slit it went through. Yeah. But the problem is these are entangled. They're not disconnected. So what you do here changes there. What happens there changes here. You know, you you've got
[02:02:00] connection going on there which messes up with the experiment. >> Makes sense. >> It changes things. And they find that like if you have a particle going through and you want to send a a photon to hit it and see which did it go through. Oh, my photon found it there. Oh, well that's a measurement. Now you got a particle. >> Yes. >> It's not a it's not probability anymore. you just measured the particle, you know, and that's all you get, then the particle will go straight and hit the hit, you know, [clears throat] hit the back stop, hit hit the screen right behind a slit. But if you don't measure
[02:02:30] it, it stays probability until it hits the screen. Yes. >> And then it's a random draw from the probability distribution of the possibilities, and that's an interference pattern. >> Mhm. >> And the reason that had to be an interference pattern is because we already had optics shining coherent light through slits and coming up with interference patterns. That's how they came up with the wave theory because they can show that the dots of light and the spaces between them. You can do that with a simple trig problem. >> Sure. You know, so there it is. It's a
[02:03:00] wave. Those waves go in all directions and they interfere with each other. If the distance between this slit and that slit is is an even number of wavelengths and you get, you know, they they add and if they're half some integer half of wavelengths, then they destroy, you know, they they interfere with each other's waves. >> Yep. So, we already knew that if you put coherent light to two slits, you're going to get an interference pattern. Now, that left the larger conscious system
[02:03:30] with no choice. It could do one of one of two things. It could let there be a what do we call it? A a a logical problem with with the physics with the rule set. And that is when you shine the light at him over here in optics and optics was 100 years ahead of quantum physics. So we knew that was the case. Now here if it wasn't the case why not you see there'd be a logical inconsistency between quantum physics
[02:04:00] and optics. One would say the others was wrong and that would say the other's wrong. And science shouldn't have these things. So what the larger conscious system did is it said, "Okay, what it'll do is you'll you'll send a particle through the slit, but it's still probability. When I get to the end where it hits something and I have to put a particle somewhere, I have to render a particle somewhere. I'll take a random draw from a probability distribution that is exactly like an interference pattern. Here's my probability
[02:04:30] distribution. It looks just like an interference pattern." Yes. So randomly I'll take that draw and what we'll see is a particle here and here and here and down there and over here. But if you look at it and collect enough particles, you end up with a probability distribution because that's what it's being drawn out of. And that then says that optics and quantum physics are not mutually incompatible logically. It keeps the science together. >> Yes. So that's why the system chose that
[02:05:00] as the way to do that particular [clears throat] thing. So it kind of got it out of a problem. >> You're making it sound like it was a that consciousness made had intention. >> Sure. Consciousness is conscious. It has intention. >> So what's collapsing the wave functions? Is it the measurement or is it consciousness? >> No, nothing. It's just it's information. You have information and the information doesn't have to get into the physical world until it hits something and you make a measurement. When you make a measurement, then it's in the physical world. You don't make a measurement,
[02:05:30] it's still in the world of probability. So, you have these particles and they're going to hit somewhere. Well, if you send one particle at a time through, that's no different than sending a billion particles at a time through because the photons don't interact with each other, >> right? >> They're totally non-interactive. So whether you send one or you send a billion, you need to get the same answer. Otherwise, you've got a logical problem between quantum physics and
[02:06:00] optics. Right? >> So, it basically says, well, I can fix that problem. I can make that random draw from the probability distribution be a probability distribution. Looks just like an interference pattern. No logical inconsistency. But now you if you make a measurement, okay, I'm going to watch those. I'm going to watch these slits and when a when something goes through there, I'm going to say, "Ah, there's there's a particle. Just went through slit A." Well, that's a measurement. I have to
[02:06:30] make a measurement. Soon as I make a measurement, the system has to create a particle there because you measured it. So now it just goes in a straight line and hits the backdrop because now it's a particle. >> How did it know it was measured? >> This the system's rendering it. [laughter] >> If the system gives you a machine that says >> I'm not arguing with you, by the way. The system gives you a machine. >> Yeah. >> That can tell when a particle goes through there, then you've made a measurement. >> Why is it messing with us like this? >> It's not messing with us. [laughter] It's just being consistent. >> Is it? >> Yeah. If you can measure something, you
[02:07:00] know, physicists will tell you that are materialists that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. >> Well, sorry. Right. >> Then explain that. >> They say it's non-interactive. >> Right. >> If you can't measure it, you can't see it, you can't feel it, you can't smell it. If you if it's not interactive, then it doesn't really exist. Or if it does exist, it doesn't make any difference. It's irrelevant. So that's a definition of reality based on measurement. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Well, that's the way the physical world works. So when they measure, oh, a
[02:07:30] particle just went through the slit. Well, they measured it. Then it has to be a particle. They've measured the particle that makes a particle there. That particle can't do anything but go in a straight line. That's why I love it. because that's what particles do now. They don't measure it >> and we don't know. >> We don't know. >> We don't know what slit it went through. So, I'll just take that make that interference pattern be my probability pattern. And I'm going to have those little particles. even though they're
[02:08:00] just going through one slit or another, they're going to end up on the screen in an interference pattern because then I don't have a problem between optics and quantum physics because the little electron the little photons are all non-interactive. It doesn't matter how many you send through it. Whether you're shining a laser light on the two slits over here in optics or whether you're going one at a time, >> doesn't matter. >> Doesn't matter. >> Um, you see, >> we talked about um John Wheeler before. How do we make retrocausality fit into
[02:08:30] this? >> Well, there is no retrocausality. >> Wait, what? >> There is no retrocausality. >> You measure photons from a light year away. >> They're you're it's going to collapse the wave function, but the light is a >> is a million years old. >> Yeah. And they have little experiments with this called delayed eraser experiments. So, you have experiment goes through the little slits, and this is one they did with with um particles that were uh >> that were entangled. And one goes here and goes through the slits, but it does it right away. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now it's done. It's hit.
[02:09:00] >> Yes. >> It's gone through the slits and it's hit the screen on the other side. Experiment over. Now this other one comes down here and bounces here and bounces there and goes through this and that. But at the very end, they can decide whether to collect that particle and know which which lit it went through, collect the which way data, or they can let these particles interact in a way that erases the which way data. But it's both of those happen after it's already hit the screen over here and we've already got a
[02:09:30] measurement. And what they find that later on after that screen's already been hit by the particle goes through those two slits. They take this other particle, the entangled particle, and they decide to collect it. And now we know the which way data. Then they'll find out that that particle to hit the screen is hitting just behind the slit. But if they don't do that, if they let it go on and and erase that information then that particle land in a interference pattern.