Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

21 thoughts on “Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism”

1. I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments proving that consciousness cannot be
   generated by the brain. Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is. In other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes.
   Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, as well as subjectivity, implies the existence of a conscious mind, who can choose a specific point of view and arbitrary criteria. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
   Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it moment by moment, and in every moment consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes.
   Here comes my third argument: It must also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.

   Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to hyotehsize that such system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore is nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics.

   Based on these considerations, it would be completely unreasonable to assume that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain

2. I’m not all that smart but this video and the concept that it presents recalls a famous philosophers exclamation. “MONKEY MUFFINS!”

3. I think I understood 10% of this 😳

4. lol what makes u think waves are immaterial?

5. I can see no other logical explanation other than an all knowing consciousness. Call that all knowing consciousness what you will, but the presence of such is undeniable. Great video. Thanks:)

6. Basically this is proof that we live in a simulation!!

7. Your analysis of 'reality', and how it might work, with an actual, Creator/Designer, (God), is absolutely fascinating. You seem to really grasp the concepts of science…and how God can fit into a reality He created. Quite interesting. Quite logical. Quite plausible. Keep up the good work. I share your videos with friends who are like minded…and they too, are dumbfounded by your insight. I am impressed for sure. Keep it up…your work intrigues me.

8. Still didn't debunk dialectical materialism

9. If god sees all things at all times then there would be no wave form only particles. How would you explain this?

10. I don't entirely agree with the entire with the non-objective existence of reality because despite the fact that there is variation and dependency on observation the relation of state between two things where the attributes are similar bring about a similar result that is shared and comprehensible.

    Example: despite the variation of potentiality based on a thing's being observed, we as observers often end up observing the same thing if not close to the same thing without variation (that is an objectively true statement or else there would be no real ability to relate to each other and our understanding of the world). The scientists in the experiment wouldn't be able to come to a mutual agreement as to what was occurring based on their OBSERVATION (they would only be able to arrive at their conclusion by reasoning out that they were observing different things and not base it off what they were observing themselves) if this was NOT true. They were admittedly all able to see the waves as well as the particles at the end too meaning that that objective reality still exists (and it is also interesting that despite the light behaving differently in both situations the end result was solid to where they could observe it and come to this conclusion at all without THAT changing). These are concrete realities- that the light operated in two different ways depending on whether there was an observer- but it behaved in TWO different ways that maintained an order based on a condition that occurred regardless of there being an observer (their observing the change afterward didn't change the end results).

    Does this mean that a tree is no longer in a forest when nobody is there or that it's the observations of the birds and bees of an isolated uninhabited part of the Amazon that help maintain the order of the world and the existence of the trees? I don't think so. God and miracles requires the ability of reality to be malleable (which it is) and this suggests that flexibility (almost in an alchemical way) but in no way does that mean that there isn't a reasonable conditional relationship instilled in the world to where that objective state of a thing isn't possible at least to some degree.

    What this ultimately makes me think of is if God is an observer of these things that and has no affect on them (because God is an observer of the experiment as much as we are), then this means that He has no effect on them but we do (because it only acts like a wave when we or another physical object that can absorb light are removed from the situation). I do believe there is a strong relationship between the fact that a material thing is the thing observing based on this consideration, but then again this is all George Berkeley as far as I'm concerned.

11. So magic is real

12. Since materialists/atheists have the highest suicide rate in the world, 🌍 then I'd say it's going out of style!

13. 🤯

14. Bullshit. Just bc our entire universe might be a simulation, doesn't mean our current reality isn't based on materialism.

    Does your hand go through your kitchen table? Or only on top?

    Stop with this nonsensical metaphysics

15. This is the part where we sit down, eat the chocolate chip cookie. And then realize it’s all an illusion. And it’s going to be ok. As soon as we finish the cookie. We will feel right as rain.

16. Lol, so it's there because I think it is there. Lol that is where my tax dollars are going. They have potatoes for brain. I can see it. Lol

17. Hey! So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is.
    
    I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats.
    
    It's your choice whether you want to accept it.
    
    So, a question: Do you think you are a good person?
    
    If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God´s standard).
    
    You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law.
    
    Since God is just, He can not let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a
    
    sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned.
    
    The reason why blood must be spilled for remission of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the
    
    sacrifice of animals were enough for remission of some sins, not all. It wasn't infinite, unlike Jesus's. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is
    
    enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. The Old Testament sacrifice of animals, the spilled blood of those animals could cleanse people from some
    
    sins but not ALL, unlike Jesus's. He was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins.Jesus paid our
    
    penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our salvation. And then your
    
    sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved.
    
    See: Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:8-9, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16, Leviticus 17:11, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:20,
    
    1 Corinthians 15:1-4. https://youtu.be/lbb4xwYj19g
    
    Evidence for God´s existence: Kalam cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity, check out InspiringPhilosophy´s videos
    
    about the Ressurection of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.d

18. Michio Kaku retelling the philosophy of George Berkeley

19. To interact is to observe, apparently. We should therefore consider observation as a dimension in physics.

20. Thats it my balls are gonna fall off

21. It seems misleading to say that reality is a mental construct when I remember Kant's transcendental idealism. That's because Kant believes that though there's a way the external world is in itself, no one can know what it is in itself.

Comments are closed.