Tip: click a paragraph to jump to the exact moment in the video. Artificial Human Intelligence: Brain as Quantum Computer?

1. 00:01 Eton Sachard the originator of the geometric chronon field theory
2. 00:08 has taken my original work in the 1980s and expanded it be and extended it
3. 00:15 beyond recognition. It is definitely 90% his work.
4. 00:21 I’m therefore happy that the chronfield theory is in good hands. a book there’s
5. 00:29 a book published two two months ago sponsored by the vaknin rangeloska foundation which summarizes the state-of-the-art in chronfield theory um as of two months
6. 00:42 ago is hard at work revising the theory daily almost
7. 00:50 so there’s a link in the description if you want to download the book and give
8. 00:56 it a um chron theory. I have moved on into a
9. 01:03 new project and today I would like to discuss this project with you because many of you surprisingly are as interested in my work in physics as you are in my work in
10. 01:16 psychology which never ceases to amaze me. And so I’m in the past few months um as of the beginning of this year I’m
11. 01:27 in the throws of a completely new project. This video that you’re watching is the
12. 01:34 introduction and if you want to watch the full video there’s a link in the description. The
13. 01:41 introduction I hope is a little more accessible than the full video.
14. 01:47 So 40 years ago influenced by my conversations with Yakir Auronov and
15. 01:53 Richard Fineman and other giant giants in physics I was fortunate to spend a lot of time with them. So 40 years ago I suggested that the brain is
16. 02:04 electrochemically built to perceive only collapsed states of the wave function
17. 02:13 only what is known as pointer states. The brain filters out the other states.
18. 02:21 Now those of you who are into physics even minimally
19. 02:27 are aware of um phrases such as the wave function and superposition and so on so
20. 02:33 forth. And you know that the state vector um is a kind of map or kind of list of
21. 02:42 all possible states with attendant probabilities. It’s like a list of states and each state has a probability 5% 1% you know whatever. So the state vector is replete
22. 02:55 with one essentially deterministic collapse state
23. 03:01 and many others which are um probabilistic. The collapse state is
24. 03:07 also probabilistic but the measurement renders it deterministic.
25. 03:13 Anyhow in my work the collapse state is the only one detected by the brain in
26. 03:21 any reduction of the superp position. It’s as if the brain this device inside
27. 03:27 our skulls has a limitation has a constraint.
28. 03:33 The brain can detect only collapsed states. It cannot detect any other states. So when we look around in
29. 03:41 reality, when we measure things in laboratories and when we observe all kinds of processes such as elementary
30. 03:48 particles in in accelerators and so on so forth, we keep saying, “Wow, there’s,
31. 03:55 you know, this is a collapse state. This is a collapse state. This is a collapse state.” And probably our measurements
32. 04:02 are creating this collapse. They’re involved somehow in collapsing the state
33. 04:08 vector, in reducing the state vector. And this is of course the famous Copenhagen interpretation.
34. 04:15 Any attempts to evade or to avoid this conclusion lead to seriously mystical
35. 04:22 and metaphysical interpretations such as the many worlds theories and and so on so forth.
36. 04:28 But what I’m proposing is much simpler. What I’m saying is that the measurement
37. 04:36 devices our brain and by extension our measurement instruments and even inanimate and animate observers which are not human. Any act of observation or
38. 04:47 measurement and especially acts of observation and measurement committed by our brains
39. 04:53 would be subject to the limitations of our brain. And our brains are incapable of
40. 05:00 detecting or perceiving or interacting with states in the state vector which are not
41. 05:08 collapsed collapsed states. We can detect, measure, observe and record only
42. 05:17 collapsed states. If we adopt this point of view, it revolutionizes the the field because it suddenly explains so many conundrums
43. 05:28 and so many philosophical problems that plague have been plaguing the field since the 1920s. Anyhow, this is my point of departure in my work. All the
44. 05:41 states in the state vector in the igen vector all the states are are of equal
45. 05:49 ontological status. All the states are equontological.
46. 05:56 They the they ontologically speaking they are equal to each other. There’s no no privileged status
47. 06:04 and all the states are equally available for measurement. And yet the brain or the measurement devices or the observers and so on they select only one state at
48. 06:15 a time and that is the collapse state. Why is that? Why do we select for a
49. 06:21 collapsed state? Why the apparently privileged position of a collapsed or
50. 06:27 pointer state as far as our brain or consciousness or mind or measurements go? Why do we keep
51. 06:34 measuring collapsed states? Why do we have a preference for it? Structural preference, functional preference,
52. 06:41 evolutionary preference. Well, because collapse states are conducive to survival.
53. 06:48 Collapse states are relatively stable and they increase order and structure in
54. 06:55 the universe. They are negotropic. Um it is true that unstable states can
55. 07:04 also collapse but it’s much more rare. The vast majority of collapse states um
56. 07:10 have a longevity which is far greater than the longevity of non-olapse states. So most of the collapse states
57. 07:22 increase order, increase structure, are stable and therefore by definition are
58. 07:28 conducive to survival. All other states are fleeting,
59. 07:34 ephemereral. They immediately decay and degenerate and they end in entropy or
60. 07:40 the increase of entropy. Entropy is the enemy of life. The universe seems to have a preference for negentropy, the opposition of to entropy.
61. 07:52 The universe seems to have a preference for order and structure at least locally in local pockets.
62. 08:01 And all this everything I’ve just said can be captured not only with classical
63. 08:07 tools and not only with quantum mechanical formalisms and so on. It can be captured using um mathematical instruments borrowed from information theory and thermodynamics coupled with dynamics of complex systems mainly
64. 08:24 attractors especially strange attractors both chaotic and non- chaotic we’ll come to it in a minute anyhow
65. 08:32 in my work the collapse state would be a signal it’s a signal because by
66. 08:40 definition it increases order. It enhances or butresses structure. It is negantropic. So it’s a
67. 08:47 signal. It carries information. Whereas the non-colapse states would be the
68. 08:54 noise. They are entropic and they do not convey information. Because they don’t convey information, they cannot be captured by the brain. Whereas the collapse states are signals
69. 09:07 and our brain is the ultimate signal detection system.
70. 09:14 If and this lead le leads me to the crux or the gist of of what I’m doing.
71. 09:22 I said to myself as a gdunkan experiment as a thought experiment if we were to construct an implantable computer chip that or biological chip doesn’t matter
72. 09:34 that would allow the brain to perceive the entire wave function the collapse
73. 09:42 and non-olapsed states the the whole wave function rather than
74. 09:49 merely the ultimately collapsed states. If we if our brain could detect the
75. 09:56 totality of the wave function, all the probabilities, we would be creating a very powerful
76. 10:03 quantum computer with each and every one of the 70 billion neurons, the
77. 10:09 equivalent of a cubit. So this was the the thought experiment
78. 10:16 that started me going more or less in February this year.
79. 10:22 Now, of course, I’m not an engineer and I don’t know how to build such a computer chip or such a device. Nor am I
80. 10:29 implying that such a device is at all achievable or doable.
81. 10:36 This is not an engineering approach. This is a mathematical approach. I’m working on the mathematics of such a
82. 10:44 chip, such a computer chip. And it is clear already that this computer chip
83. 10:50 should serve as a filter. It should somehow differentiate noise from signal.
84. 10:56 It and I’ve chosen to use a PLL a PLL
85. 11:02 mathematic um approach. So I’m using mathematics that describes PLLL chips.
86. 11:11 I’m also using strange attractors for the pointer states and strange
87. 11:17 non-kaultic attractors SNA SNAS for the nonreduced states. I treat the non-reduced states as noise with Sinai Royel Bowen
88. 11:29 probability measures for those of you who want to play a bit with all these um
89. 11:38 with all this new thinking. So there’s a chip and it’s a PLL chip. It’s a filter.
90. 11:45 And the question then arises. My good friend and and collaborator Eton
91. 11:51 Satched asked me last night, but how would such a chip interact with non-olapsed states? Well, the answer is it doesn’t have to. It definitely would
92. 12:02 not interact with non-olapse states in the Newtonian sense like reaction action reaction or detection or whatever. There would not be real world interaction.
93. 12:13 There’s no need for it. All the en states are already specified very accurately by the equation. There is no need to interact with them. There’s no need to detect them because
94. 12:25 we already know where they are and we already have all the information about
95. 12:31 these states. One of them would collapse but the collapse as I said is is a
96. 12:39 reflection of the limitation of our brains and measurement devices not a feature of reality. The collapse state
97. 12:47 is not a feature of reality. It’s a reflection of limitations.
98. 12:53 Um, theoretically, if we were to have a god-like brain, we would probably see
99. 12:59 the entire universe in a state of collapse, immediate collapse of every single possibility.
100. 13:06 Anyhow, coming back to us and to to the chip, there’s no need to detect the igen
101. 13:13 states. We know exactly where where they are. We have all the information about them. We have the probabilities and so
102. 13:19 on so forth. What we do need to do, we need to construct a chip that would
103. 13:25 cause the brain to perceive all states as if they were collapsed states,
104. 13:32 pointer states. In other words, we need to deceive the brain, deceive the brain by constructing a virtual reality in which all the states are collapsed.
105. 13:45 all the igen state that the whole state vector is reduced not only a single element.
106. 13:52 In other words, the brain will not reduce the igen vector to a single collapse state but to multiple collapsed
107. 14:00 measurable states. At least that’s what we want the brain to think.
108. 14:06 That’s how we want the brain to perceive reality. This would require of course um
109. 14:13 deterministic formalism of quantum mechanics but I don’t think it’s much of a problem because the wave function is
110. 14:19 already deterministic actually. Okay. What would we achieve by doing
111. 14:25 this? The brain suddenly would be open to an infinite number of
112. 14:32 realities all of them as real as the next one. Such a multiplication of
113. 14:38 collapsed states will exponentially explode the brain’s computing prowess.
114. 14:46 The brain would be able to calculate weigh scenarios and zero in on solutions along an infinite number of branches. The brain would be rendered a quantum
115. 14:57 computer of immense literally infinite power with 70 to 80 billion cubits at
116. 15:04 its disposal. Just to remind you, the current record is 6,000.
117. 15:10 So that’s where I’m going. This is my my new focus and new concentration nowadays when I’m not dabbling in narcissism and psychopathy and other cheerful subjects.
118. 15:22 And I’m focused on the mathematics. I just want to create a mathematical spec
119. 15:28 specification of a possible chip which would allow the
120. 15:34 brain to actually inter interact with the state vector as if the state vector
121. 15:41 is 100% deterministic and not probabilistic. In other words, a brain
122. 15:47 that would regard every possible state as having already existed or as existing
123. 15:54 would a brain which would endow and bestow an ontological status on what in
124. 16:02 the current formalism are probabilities and I think that’s the bridge that would
125. 16:08 lead to leveraging the brain as the next stage
126. 16:14 in artificial articial intelligence or at least the next stage in in quantum computing leveraging the brain brain as
127. 16:21 a quantum machine. I’m saying artificial intelligence because this kind of brain
128. 16:27 with this kind of calc uh uh computational power um would no longer be recognizable to us and in this sense would be of course carbon-based artificial intelligence.
129. 17:00 It’s um the question of artificial intelligence. I first of all seek to expand the
130. 17:07 meaning of artificial intelligence and suggest that artificial intelligence
131. 17:13 uh is not only the use of devices siliconbased or otherwise uh devices to affect or effectuate or imitate intelligence.
132. 17:26 But artificial intelligence is also when we coax and and reprogram and rewire our
133. 17:34 brains to work in ways which they haven’t before and I mean fundamentally
134. 17:41 not teaching a new skill not enhancing general the general fund
135. 17:48 of knowledge but forcing the brain to solve problems in in ways which are
136. 17:57 unprecedented and have never happened before. I suggest that any technology
137. 18:03 that can make use of the brain as a platform, can make use of the wet wear as a hardware
138. 18:09 is artificial intelligence. I suggest that there is no difference or
139. 18:15 distinction in principle between a siliconbased platform and a carbon-based platform if they are both doing the same thing. And what they are doing these platforms
140. 18:27 is solving problems. Solving problems either at increasing
141. 18:33 increasing speeds that would be quantum computing or in novel ways and that
142. 18:39 would be in my view artificial intelligence. So the brain is capable of artificial intelligence if we find a way
143. 18:47 to reprogram it. Not only that, but the brain has the potential to become the
144. 18:53 most potent, powerful, mighty quantum computer.
145. 19:00 Because of the trillions upon trillions of synapses and billions upon billions of neurons, the brain is actually even now the biggest computer ever in terms of computing power. Nothing nothing comes close to the brain. And if we were to
146. 19:19 find a way to change the way to change them the the the path the method that
147. 19:25 the brain uses to think and to solve problems then we will have a double yummy. We will have artificial
148. 19:32 intelligence that resides on a quantum computer and this quantum computer will be the biggest ever in principle. There could be no bigger more powerful quantum
149. 19:44 computer. Should we be able to convert the brain into one? Eton told me the other day
150. 19:52 um that the aron of bomb effect supposedly affects the wave function of
151. 19:58 an electron even before the collapse of the wave. And that triggered me um in
152. 20:05 some ways to think and so on so forth. And I would I I would like to uh
153. 20:11 describe to you today what I’ve been doing in the past few months and whatever triggered uh such response.
154. 20:20 Um a bit of a historical background. I have spent many hours with Yakir Aonov
155. 20:26 and with Richard Fineman and their work has influenced has had a
156. 20:32 profound influence on my chronfield theory which I postulated in 1982 1984.
157. 20:38 The chronfield theory of course is a potentials theory though without any gauge. It’s not a gauge theory but it’s
158. 20:45 is definitely a potentials theory. So while I was working on chron theory
159. 20:52 and debating the physicality of potentials, are they physical or just mathematical constructs? and um rewriting physics using a new
160. 21:04 language with a single word time and considering that there are no
161. 21:11 actually there’s no such thing as particles or mass or of of or motion or velocity or these are all manifestations
162. 21:18 of uh potentials that eventuate that become events. So it it in my mind there
163. 21:25 was there were there was a a revolution going on. Um and then it occurred to me
164. 21:31 as a as a sideline and it it’s not even in my original uh work. It’s in um a few notes and
165. 21:40 articles and later YouTubes that I’ve made, YouTube videos that I made. But 40 years ago, I suggested that the brain is
166. 21:49 electrochemically constructed to perceive only collapsed states, the
167. 21:56 collapsed states of the wave function, the pointer states.
168. 22:02 What I suggested is the the brain filters out the other states.
169. 22:09 You remember that there is a superposition as the wave function evolves. There’s a superposition of a
170. 22:16 variety of possible states. Each state has its own probability function. And so
171. 22:22 we what we get is a a vector, the state vector. And what the brain does, it filters out some of the states,
172. 22:35 actually all of the states included in the state vector with the exception of the state that would later prove to be the collapse state. The state vector is
173. 22:47 replete with a deterministic collapse state, which is the only one detected by the brain. Now that’s a bit of a a bit of a revolution in thinking
174. 22:59 because to this very day we tend to believe that um measurement
175. 23:06 the measurement the act of measurement is the one which either determines in
176. 23:12 the Copenhagen Copenhagen interpretation or at the very least detects the collapse state. Whereas what I’m saying is that we are incapable in principle of apprehending or perceiving any other state except the
177. 23:29 collapse state. So we walk around, we traverse the universe, we stride our
178. 23:37 planet, we go through our lives all the time detecting only collapsed states and
179. 23:46 of course by implication ignoring or filtering out. It’s like a membrane filtering out states in the state vector which are not collapse or are not likely
180. 23:59 to collapse. That led me to the next um Gdunkan
181. 24:08 experiment to the next thought experiment. What if we were to construct an implantable computer chip? computer
182. 24:16 chip that would allow the brain to perceive the entire wave function, the entire state vector, all the states, the total superposition,
183. 24:27 everything, not only the collapsed states, but all the states.
184. 24:34 Um, we would be actually creating a very powerful quantum computer with each
185. 24:42 neuron serving as a cubit. Now imagine we right now the state-of-the-art is 6,000 cubits. The brain has 70 to 80 billion neurons.
186. 24:55 Imagine a quantum computer with 70 to 80 billion cubits.
187. 25:01 It’s you can’t imagine it. No one can not even a quantum computer. This is
188. 25:07 this is it. This is the ultimate. This cannot be exceeded and will never be. How can we convert the brain which is
189. 25:15 essentially perceived wrongly or rightly as an analog machine? It has there are
190. 25:21 quantum effects in the neurons. There’s no debate about this. But all in all, the brain is perceived as a non-quantum machine. How we c can we convert the brain into a quantum computer? By allowing the brain to detect superp
191. 25:37 positions. By allowing the brain to gain access to all the probabilities, all the
192. 25:44 probable states, all the possibilities, all the en states, all the all the
193. 25:50 totality of the state vector including of course the collapse state, but not only the collapse state.
194. 25:58 There is of course a debate um proponents of the many worlds theory and so on would say that all the states in the state vector are actually collapse states but in different universes and so
195. 26:09 on so forth. I will not go into into all this. This is too metaphysical metaphysical for my case. The fact is
196. 26:16 that we end up measuring and perceiving a single state and we call it the collapse state because there is a reduction of the state vector and what I’m proposing is to find a way to coax or persuade the brain or rewire
197. 26:33 or reframe the brain or do something to the brain to force it to suddenly
198. 26:41 apprehend suddenly perceive all the states, all of them,
199. 26:48 all the parts of the wave function, all the states in the state vector, anything that could have happened, all probabilities simultaneously to perceive all these.
200. 27:00 And this of course would open enormous avenues for super speedy and super
201. 27:06 complex computations which are at this stage totally impossible with analog
202. 27:14 regular computers and even with the quantum computers that we have today which are pity pitable pitiful. Yeah.
203. 27:24 So the first stage I’m not an engineer. I’m a very poor engineer if any. I’m an
204. 27:30 even poorer um geomet I I I think mathematics. My thinking is algebraic
205. 27:36 and so an arithmetic and and logic. I I I’m
206. 27:42 good at these things. So the first thing of course I I I’m not capable of designing uh such a computer chip that will be implanted in the brain and converted mysteriously and and and magically into a quantum computer.
207. 27:58 changed the the programming of the brain to apprehend and perceive uh superp positions not only collapse states I I’m
208. 28:06 very far I’m very unlikely to come up with such a chip but what I can do and I can do pretty efficaciously um is I can work on the mathematics of
209. 28:19 such a chip in other words I can create a mathematical construct would which would be the equivalent of such a a chip U the chip has to be a PL PLL chip. It’s
210. 28:31 a filter chip filtering chip and I would need to use um mathematical techniques
211. 28:40 which are borrowed from far-flung outliers in mathematics such as chaos
212. 28:47 theory. So I started a few months ago I started my work on this trying to design
213. 28:55 u computer chip in in the form of a mathematical construct or mathematical theory if you wish and I I was I’m using
214. 29:03 now strange attractors uh for the pointer states and um SNAs for the
215. 29:13 nonreduced states and I treat the nonreduced igen
216. 29:19 states I treat the states which are not collapsed the I treat the parts of the superposition which don’t end up being
217. 29:27 measured yeah I treat them as noise with Sinai ruel bowen probability measures so
218. 29:33 I’m telling you all these things those of you who are adept at mathematics and
219. 29:39 and physics would have a field day and enjoy themselves I hope
220. 29:46 So at this stage my focus I think the right
221. 29:52 trajectory or path mathematically speaking would have to involve something like um chaos theory
222. 30:02 uh and non- chaotic non- chaotic attractors um strange but non- chaotic
223. 30:09 attractors um because I what I propose is to treat the the state vector or the superposition to treat them as
224. 30:21 um noise noise to signal as as a kind of to use information theory to introduce
225. 30:28 information theory and to treat the whole situation as as a noise and sign as noise and signal. The signal is the
226. 30:35 collapse state. The noise are the non-reducible non-olapsed uh states, the
227. 30:41 non-reduced states. And then u we have already probability measures and
228. 30:47 mathematics to deal with this. And what determines the collapse state? Here here
229. 30:54 comes chaos theory with uh or complex dynamics
230. 31:00 um dynamics of complex systems where we where we have the use of attractors
231. 31:06 and of all the attractors I found strange attractors chaotic and non- chaotic to be the most useful where non- chaotic ones uh apply to the noise and
232. 31:18 chaotic ones apply to the signal which is the collapsed state. I’m just at the
233. 31:24 very beginning of this and it would take a few years I think but I will end up
234. 31:32 with a mathematical specification of a PLL filter chip
235. 31:40 that would be able to open up the vista of the igen of the state vector. open up
236. 31:48 the vista of the superp positions to the brain to render them accessible to the brain. Of course, this immediately those of you who are so inclined immediately
237. 31:59 you can see that this has predictable similarities to the math to the mathematics in my chron theory and also
238. 32:07 to the math in the geometric chronfield theory which is aan such’s work not mine.
239. 32:14 So I said that the the cheap at this stage. May I remind you I’m not building a chip. I’m not capable of it. I don’t
240. 32:22 have the capacity financially and I don’t have the capacity intellectually. I’m not a good engineer. I’m not an
241. 32:28 engineer at all actually. But when so when I say the chip, I mean the mathematical construct that represents a chip. So the chip in in my nesscent work and this work that I’ve just started is
242. 32:39 a PLL. It’s a it’s a filter. And this raises the question, how will this chip interact with non-olapsed s uh states? And this leads
243. 32:51 me to what Eton uh such wrote to me yesterday. He said uh he said he he
244. 32:57 mentioned the uh one of bomb bomb effect. Um
245. 33:03 well, I think it’s the wrong way to look at it. I don’t think there’s a need for an interaction. Sometimes the filter will interact with non-olapse states definitely not in the Newtonian sense
246. 33:15 you know action reaction and all this all the states all the the totality of the state vector all these states are already um provided predicted described very
247. 33:29 accurately by the wave function by the equation shreddinger and and later so
248. 33:37 it’s not like we don’t know anything about these states and we need to kind of meas measure them, investigate them, interact with them, pro them or that’s
249. 33:48 completely untrue. We know everything there is to know about each and every component of the superposition each and
250. 33:54 every state in the state vector. We have full information. So it’s not about the filter. The filter
251. 34:00 is not about obtaining information from the let’s say from the superposition or from the state vector.
252. 34:06 It’s not it’s not a process of interrogation. We have a very accurate description
253. 34:14 mathematical probability everything. Um so no need to interact
254. 34:20 with these states. But what the chip needs to do is to force or to cause the
255. 34:26 brain to perceive these states and to perceive them as if they were collapsed
256. 34:34 as if they were a reduced part of the state vector as if they were pointer
257. 34:41 states. In other words, the aim of the filter, the PLL filter would be if you wish to deceive the brain into believing
258. 34:49 that every portion of the superposition and every state in the state vector is actually collapsed
259. 34:55 is actually reduced that the reduction is total. The whole superposition collapses if you wish. All the states become equally real, equally measurable,
260. 35:08 equally accessible. Now that’s not true in reality.
261. 35:16 And because it’s not true in reality, I’m using the loaded phrase deceive the brain. This is not true in reality. But if we were to convince the brain to
262. 35:28 access this virtual reality where superp positions are actually positions,
263. 35:35 everything happens simultaneously. Everything happens simultaneously regardless of of the probability
264. 35:43 and the whole wave function collapses and is the whole state vector is reduced
265. 35:49 and every single possibility becomes real in this virtual space not in
266. 35:57 reality you know tangible reality out there but in this virtual space. So the
267. 36:03 role of the filter would be to construct a virtual environment and we know how to do that by now. Construct a virtual environment within which superpositions
268. 36:16 lose their probabilistic nature and become deterministic.
269. 36:23 Every single state, every single iggon state, every single state in the state vector
270. 36:29 comes to be regardless of the probability attributed to it in the wave
271. 36:35 function comes to be because everything is reduced and in effect the superposition cancels itself. The state vector collapses. The
272. 36:47 state vector collapses. Not the states, not any specific state, but the whole
273. 36:53 state vector collapses. In this virtual reality, anyone who has experienced
274. 36:59 virtual reality knows it’s easy to deceive the brain. You believe that you are falling from a to from a high
275. 37:05 building or you believe that you are drowning easily in virtual in or you believe that you’re in the middle ages.
276. 37:11 It’s very easy to deceive the brain and I want to deceive the brain using this
277. 37:17 PLL chip to actually perceive mispersceive non-olapse states
278. 37:24 as collapse states. That minute the total computational capacity of the
279. 37:30 brain will be at the disposal of each and every state. And that is a great definition of quantum computing.
280. 37:41 At that point 70 80 billion cubits would be available to process every
281. 37:49 single state in the state vector, every single iggon state, every single element in the superposition as if they were all 100% real, 100% probable.
282. 38:02 And of course the computing power here is is uh mindboggling.
283. 38:08 We um in other words we don’t need to reduce the igen vector to a single
284. 38:14 collap collapsed state but we need to reduce the igen vector to multiple
285. 38:21 collapsed measurable state. Measurable by by whom? Measurable by what? Measurable by the brain. Is the
286. 38:27 measurement real? No, it’s not. It is simulated by the chip.
287. 38:34 But it doesn’t matter as far as the brain is concerned. So the chip would need to calculate the
288. 38:40 wave function you know create the state vector and then simply to convey
289. 38:48 to the brain that all the states in the state vector are equally real and have
290. 38:54 been measured and 100% probability wise 100% probable that would grant the brain access to all these states and all these states are
291. 39:05 essentially computational states. Although the brain neurons are binary,
292. 39:11 they are like yes no basically they fire or they don’t fire. The the the capacity of the brain this 70 billion uh elements when they would be placed in um a
293. 39:27 quantum space then they would become essentially
294. 39:33 cubits. Now, one of the objections that I’ve heard is that if I were to convince the brain, if I were to deceive the brain into believing that all the states are
295. 39:44 collapsible, all the states are reducible and that the state vector uh collapses in totality and the superposition is actually deterministically um 100% uh reducible and so all the states become equally equal collapses
296. 40:01 and all the states are 100% probable and so on so forth. then I would not be in a quantum space. So the the objection is that in this scenario
297. 40:12 we would actually be in a deterministic space in a classical space I could even
298. 40:18 say post Newtonian space you know between Newton and Einstein but that is not true of course because when you have a state vector
299. 40:30 and all the probabilities of all its components are 100 you don’t end up in a
300. 40:37 Newtonian Einsteinian uh universe. You don’t end up in a Newtonian instinian space. you end up in
301. 40:45 a highly specific, highly unique quantum space which is where chaos theory comes
302. 40:52 to the rescue and more generally um the dynamics of complex systems and
303. 40:58 especially attractor attractor theories and
304. 41:04 the ability to relate to all this as noise to signal ratios and information
305. 41:10 theory thing is very helpful. um
306. 41:16 because uh it it underlies the capacity for quantum computing in a quantum space that is 100% deterministic. Of course, the wave function is deterministic. That’s the irony. The irony is that the formalism is essentially deterministic. But I will not go into it this
307. 41:42 for another day. So now I want to discuss a bit the philosophy behind all this. I’ve discussed the mathematical apparatus and
308. 41:53 I’d like to discuss the philosophy. Our universe can be mathematically described as a matched or PLLL filter whose properties let through the
309. 42:06 collapsed outcomes of wave functions when measured or the signal.
310. 42:12 The rest of the superposition or the other universes in a multiverse can be
311. 42:18 represented as noise. Our universe therefore enhances the signal to noise ratio through acts of measurements.
312. 42:26 uh and that’s between you and me a kind of anthropic principle. Anyhow, arguably the most
313. 42:34 intractable philosophical question attached to quantum mechanics is that of the of a of measurement. The accepted
314. 42:40 the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says that the very act of sentient measurement determines the
315. 42:47 outcome of the measurement in the quantum micros microscopic or microcosmic realm. The wave function
316. 42:55 which describes the coexisting superpositioned states of the system collapses following an act of
317. 43:01 measurement. It seems that just by knowing the results of a measurement, we determine
318. 43:07 its outcome, determine the state of the system and by implication the state of the universe as a whole.
319. 43:13 This notion is so counterintuitive that it has fostered a raging debate which has been ongoing for more than seven decades or uh now and I have an
320. 43:25 interview that I granted to a Turkish journalist and I I will post the link on the
321. 43:32 description if you want to learn more about this debate regarding the measurement. But let us turn to the question and inevitably the answer uh let’s turn it
322. 43:43 on its head. Let’s ask it in a different way. Is it a measurement that brings
323. 43:49 about the collapse? Or maybe we are capable of measuring only collapse results. Maybe our very ability to measure to design measurement methods and instrumentation to conceptualize and
324. 44:01 formalize the act of measurement and so on. Maybe uh these render us limited.
325. 44:08 They’re limited in their design so as to yield only the collapsible solutions of the wave function which are macrocosmically stable and objective. These are known as the pointer states.
326. 44:21 So maybe our our hardware starting with a brain and ending with measurement
327. 44:27 instruments which are extensions of a brain is constructed to detect only collapse states.
328. 44:33 Indeed pointer states are reminiscent of strange attractors and chaos theory. As I said
329. 44:40 most measurements are ind are indirect. They tally the effects of the system on a minute segment of its environment.
330. 44:47 Voyekuric and others proved that even partial and roundabout measurements are sufficient to induce
331. 44:54 in select selection in selection or environment induced super selection. In
332. 45:00 other words, even the most rudimentary act of measurement is likely to probe pointer states.
333. 45:07 Superpositions are notoriously unstable. Even in the quantum realm, they last an infinite simal moment of time. Our measurement apparatus is not sufficiently sensitive to capture superp
334. 45:19 positions. By contrast, collapsed or pointer states are relatively stable and lasting and
335. 45:26 thus they can be observed and measured. This is why we measure only collapsed
336. 45:32 states because they they are the only ones there long enough for us to measure them. But in which sense excluding their
337. 45:40 longevity in which sense are collapse states measurable? What makes them measurable? What makes
338. 45:47 them I would say unique? Collapse events are not necessarily the most highly probable. Some of them are
339. 45:54 associated with low probabilities and yet they still occur and they are still measured. By definition, the most probable states tend to occur and be measured more often. the wave function
340. 46:06 collapses more frequently into high probability states. I grant you that. But this does not exclude the less
341. 46:12 probable states of the quantum system from materializing upon measurement from time to time. Pointer states are
342. 46:20 carefully selected for some purpose within a certain pattern and in a certain sequence. What could this
343. 46:26 purpose be? probably the extension and enhancement of order in the universe and
344. 46:32 a positive adaptation as far as survival. So it has an it’s an evolutionary
345. 46:40 advantage to detect collapse states. It endows the organism
346. 46:47 with survival um edge an edge for survival and as far as the universe is
347. 46:54 concerned it caters to the extension and the enhancement and the accumulation of
348. 47:00 order and that this is so can be easily
349. 47:06 substantiated by the fact that it is so. order increases all the time at least
350. 47:12 locally. The anthropocentric and anthropic view of the Copenhagen Copenhagen
351. 47:18 interpretation that conscious intelligent observers determine the outcomes of measurements in the quantum realm associates humans with negentropy the decrease of entropy and the increase
352. 47:30 of order. This is not to say that entropy cannot increase locally and
353. 47:36 order decrease or low energy state states attained. But it is to say that
354. 47:42 low energy states and local entropy increases are perturbations. So low
355. 47:48 energy states and increases in local entropy are perturbations and that overall order in the universe tends to
356. 47:56 increase even as local pockets of disorder are created. That’s one way of looking at it. Of course, the opposing view is exactly the opposite. Disorder, entropy in the universe tends to increase with local pockets of order. Be
357. 48:12 that as it may, order does increase whether locally or non-locally
358. 48:18 it systemically it does increase. The overall increase of order in the
359. 48:25 universe should be introduced therefore as a constraint into any quantum mechanic uh formalism. Yet surely we cannot attribute an
360. 48:36 inevitable and invariable increase in order to each and every measurement to each and every collapse. To say that a
361. 48:42 given collapse event contributed to an increase in order as an extensive parameter, especially order in the in
362. 48:49 the whole universe, we must assume the existence of some grand design within which this statement would make sense.
363. 48:56 The constraint of increasing order is a design element.
364. 49:02 Even if and again I want to I want to make clear and emphasize it’s irrelevant whether order increases throughout the
365. 49:09 universe as an extensive parameter of universe or whether it increases locally. The very fact that there are
366. 49:17 pockets which are negantropic pockets which which are contrary to the second
367. 49:23 law of thermody dynamics. This very fact is very very problematic
368. 49:30 because it implies some intervention. This constraint
369. 49:36 uh especially if it’s local implies some kind of inter intervention
370. 49:42 and such a grand design such a mechanism must be able to gauge the level of orderliness
371. 49:48 at any given moment. For instance, before and after the collapse is it must have at its disposal sensors of
372. 49:55 increasing or decreasing local or non-local order. Human observers
373. 50:01 are such order sensitive instruments. We have the capacity to detect an increase
374. 50:08 in order. We introduce order into into the world. We enhance and increase order
375. 50:15 locally. And and yet to imply that human beings were created for this purpose or that this that there is a purpose at all. It
376. 50:26 you be beginning to see that this philosophical approach is is very problematic.
377. 50:33 When we regard collapse states as privileged states, we also at the same time say we also at the same time postulate an increase in
378. 50:44 order at least locally and at that point the act of measurement which is by
379. 50:50 definition uh a conscious act when it comes to human beings although measurement can be
380. 50:56 non-concious but when it comes to human beings it’s a conscious act. So at that moment the act of measurement is
381. 51:03 actually an act of design. It’s an act of intervention in the universe
382. 51:09 and it renders physics metaphysics a a branch of mysticism. And so strangely
383. 51:21 when I’m talking about deceiving the brain into perceiving uh non-olapsed states as or as reduced
384. 51:29 states as collapse states into into misperceiving the total state vector as having been reduced as as a coll in a
385. 51:37 collapsed state at that moment I’m removing I’m removing intelligence and sentience
386. 51:43 and and the human mind and the act of measurement and and even the act of measurement by machines. I’m removing all this from the from the picture. At
387. 51:54 that point if all superpositions and all state vectors ultimately
388. 52:02 collapse all the elements in the superp position all the igen states all the states in the state vector they all
389. 52:08 collapse ultimately or then it reduces the need for a grand
390. 52:16 design. But when I say that they all collapse,
391. 52:22 I don’t mean to say that they all happen simultaneously. Of course, they don’t.
392. 52:28 But I mean to say that none of them has a privileged status. Our brains are constructed to detect and to measure what we call today collapsed
393. 52:41 states. But that doesn’t endow the collapse state with any privileged status. In
394. 52:50 other words, the collapseness of the state, the the fact that the state is collapsed is not an attribute of the state is not a characteristic of the
395. 53:02 state. It’s a deformity or a design of the measuring instrument. In this case, the
396. 53:08 brain. The measuring device. We have the brain. detects these particular states not
397. 53:17 because they are special, not because they are high probability, not because there’s anything innate to these states,
398. 53:24 not because they’ve been selected, not because they’ve been none of this. It’s because that’s how the brain is is
399. 53:30 constructed. And so if we were to tinker with the brain with this um imagined chip, PLLL
400. 53:40 chip, we could actually see reality as it is. And in reality as it is,
401. 53:47 everything is everything is nothing has a privileged
402. 53:54 position. As Einstein has taught us, nothing has a privileged position.
403. 54:00 that quantum mechanics ended up positing or proposing that there are states that
404. 54:06 are privileged reflects our limitations as observers, not reality.
405. 54:14 And this chip implantable implanted in the brain which will deceive the brain into seeing reality as it is will simply restore
406. 54:25 um a truly objective deterministic quantum mechanics
407. 54:32 which should have been the case to start with exactly as Einstein said God doesn’t play dice
408. 54:38 still even assuming that quantum states are naturally selected for their robustness and stability In other words,
409. 54:44 for their order orderliness. Let’s assume, let’s adopt this position that they are somehow unique. They are
410. 54:51 somehow privileged. How does the quantum system know about this constraint of increasing order? How does the quantum system knows? How
411. 55:04 does it know its place in the grand scheme of things? How does a quantum
412. 55:10 system know about the measuring measurement device? In other words, the question is reverse. Not how does the measurement device interface with the quantum system. Not
413. 55:22 how does a measurement device detect the collapse state. No, in my view, that’s an easy one. We’re built to detect the
414. 55:28 collapse state. I think the the real question is how does the quantum quantum system know? How does the system know
415. 55:36 about the rest of the universe about the observer about the the mind of the observer about the brain about how where
416. 55:44 is this knowledge coming from? How does the system know to select the pointer
417. 55:50 states time and again? How does a quantum realm give rise to the world as we know it? Objective, stable, certain, robust, predictable, intuitive. How?
418. 56:03 That’s why I’m saying the way we are perceiving the world through quantum mechanics is wrong.
419. 56:10 It reflects our limitations as observers. It reflects the unique design of the brain. Not reality. Reality can’t be like this. Absolutely cannot be like
420. 56:21 this. If the quantum system has no a priority awareness of how it fits into
421. 56:27 an ever more orderly universe, how is the information transferred from the universe to the entangled quantum system
422. 56:34 and measurement system at the moment of measurement? Such information must be communicated super luminally at a speed greater than the speed of light. Quantum decisions decisions are instantaneous. Quantum decisions are simultaneous both in the
423. 56:50 quantum system and in the measurement system while the information about the quantum systems environment emanates
424. 56:56 from near and far. It should take time to arrive and to be communicated.
425. 57:03 This implies that there is a basic fault basic problem with quantum
426. 57:09 mechanics as we know it today. It’s a famous problem of locality and so on. I’ll not go into it but it this is a
427. 57:18 strong indication this in instantaneous communication action at a distance if you wish is a very powerful indication that we are misperceiving the world or misperceiving
428. 57:30 you know the mechanisms and it can all be solved all this is
429. 57:37 solved instantaneously if we just assume that there’s a problem problem with a measurement device that our brain is biased and prejudiced in favor of
430. 57:49 collapse states. At that moment, quantum mechanics becomes deterministic.
431. 57:55 At that moment, we get rid of action at a distance. At that moment, the alleged interface between measurement device and a quantum system changes its nature so dramatically that it becomes a simple act of observation. the way we I observe this computer or this lamp.
432. 58:14 It’s it’s philosophically very powerful to change the po the our point of view.
433. 58:21 What are the transmission and reception mechanisms and channels between the quantum system, the measurement device
434. 58:27 or the observer and the rest of the universe? What what are they? Which is the receiver? Where is the transmitter?
435. 58:34 What is the form of the form of the information? What is its carrier? Uh do
436. 58:40 we have to postulate another particle to account for this last one?
437. 58:46 And another not as crucial question relates to the apparent arbitrariness of the selection process. All the parts of
438. 58:54 a superposition constitute potential collapse events.
439. 59:00 All of them can in principle be measured. Why is only one of them measured? Why is only one event measured
440. 59:06 in any given measurement? Why not all of them? How is this event the collapse
441. 59:12 event? How is it selected to be the collapse event? Why does it retain a privilege status versus the measurement
442. 59:18 apparatus or the measurement act? It seems that preferred states have to do
443. 59:24 with the inexurable process of increase of overall amount of order locally or in the universe as a whole. If other states
444. 59:32 were to have been selected, order would have been diminished. Would have diminished.
445. 59:38 That’s the intuitive uh reaction. The proof is again in the padding. Order
446. 59:44 does increase all the time at least locally. And therefore, measurable collapse event and pointer states tend
447. 59:51 to increase order. There is a process of negative order oriented selection. collapse events and states which tend to increase entropy are filtered out and statistically avoided. They’re measured
448. 60:03 less. That’s more or less the current attitude in information theory and and thermodynamics.
449. 60:14 But I suggest that that this is wrong. I think all events in a superp position
450. 60:21 increase order. All of them. There’s no event which increases
451. 60:28 entropy by virtue of occurring and being measured. Order is added to the system.
452. 60:34 The event may decay later. Obviously, the event may be subject to the second
453. 60:40 law of ther thermodynamics and and increase entropy later, but at the moment of measurement, there’s an increase in order. So, all the events are identical in the face of of the constraint of increasing enhanced order. Order cannot be the reason we select
454. 60:57 specific or we measure specific collapse states. It has to do with the act of measurement
455. 61:03 or more precisely with a measurement device. It cannot have anything to do with the universe with the with the
456. 61:11 physics. It has to do with the specific interaction. We seem to have a machine a
457. 61:17 device called the brain which detects only collapse states. There seems to be a guiding principle
458. 61:25 that of statistical increase of order in the universe. I agree locally. I’m sorry. I agree with it. This guiding
459. 61:32 principle cannot be communicated to quantum systems with each and every measurement because such communication would have to be superliminal
460. 61:40 which presents a problem. The only logical conclusion is that all the information relevant to the decrease of
461. 61:46 entropy and to the increase of order in the universe is stored in each and every
462. 61:52 part of the universe. It’s a fractal fractal approach which is why I’m using strange attractors chaos theory strange uh strange chaotic attractors. So no matter how minuscule, no matter how fundamental the part of the universe
463. 62:09 is, it contains this information relevant to the decrease in ent entropy
464. 62:15 and increase in order locally. That is that is true in my view. But it
465. 62:25 also says that all the states in the state vector all the parts of the superposition all the states and so on they all must be subject to the same constraint. They all
466. 62:37 increase order at the moment of measurement. Now I think it is the very act of measurement that introduces the order. Order increases locally by virtue of
467. 62:49 measurement. by virtue of measuring. It’s not something in inherent and innate in the states in the collapsed or non-olapse states.
468. 63:01 It is in in the act of measurement. Order emanates from the observer.
469. 63:08 The observer does not determine the event. The observer does not create the particle. This is metaphysics or
470. 63:14 mysticism. But but the observer does do. The observer is the one who introduces
471. 63:20 the constraint of increasing order locally.
472. 63:26 How? By measuring. And because there is this constraint, we
473. 63:32 measure only local uh collapse states. Because there is this constraint, we measure only collapse states because
474. 63:39 collapsed states are stable. But the truth is that all states in the state vector increase order locally. However, they decay very fast and so the
475. 63:51 net increase is in disorder. The non-olapse states or the states that
476. 63:58 are not detected by the by the measurement devices or the brain because they don’t last long enough, they’re not
477. 64:04 stable enough and so they’re not um collapse state. Uh these other states decay and
478. 64:12 degenerate very fast. So they tend to add negropy. they tend to end entropy
479. 64:19 whereas the collapse state maintains er negropy I’m sorry the the non-olapse states increase entropy
480. 64:30 because they decay and they generate very fast whereas the collapse state increases negentropy because it is
481. 64:36 stable in the long term. So non-olapse states increase entropy collapsed states
482. 64:42 increases neg entropy fights off entropy and increases order. This is why we have
483. 64:49 a predelection that where we have a selective filter a preference for detecting these stable negropic states which are erroneously called collapsed
484. 65:01 states all because all states are collapsed. They’re just not detectable as such by the brain.
485. 65:08 When you have a machine, when you have a measurement device, when you have the brain which are operating under the
486. 65:15 constraints of in locally increasing order, they will detect only order
487. 65:24 increasing states. So they will detect what we call collapse states. All the other states collapse as well, but they contribute to noise. the their the
488. 65:35 increase in in order is so brief and then there is a lot of entropy and I think that’s the reason we detect
489. 65:42 only uh what we call collapse states. Uh it is safe to safe to assume that
490. 65:50 very much like in living organisms all the relevant information regarding the preferred order favoring quantum states
491. 65:58 is stored in a kind of physical DNA. The unfolding of this physical DNA takes
492. 66:04 place in the physical world during interactions between physical systems. One of which is the measurement
493. 66:10 apparatus. So measurement device or the brain. Biological DNA contains all the information about the living organism and is replicated trillions of times over in each and every cell. It is
494. 66:22 stored in the basic units of the organis unit of the organism which is the cell.
495. 66:28 What reason is there to assume that nature deviated from this very pragmatic principle, fractile principle if you
496. 66:35 wish in other realms of existence? Why not repeat this winning design? For example, in elementary particles, the biological variant of DNA requires a
497. 66:47 biochemical context, an environment to translate itself into an organism. This environment is made up of amino acids
498. 66:53 and so on. The physical DNA probably also requires some type of context, the
499. 66:59 physical world as revealed through the act of measurement. The information stored in the physical particle or event in the chron theory is structural because order has to do with
500. 67:12 structure. Very much like a fractile or a hologram, every particle reflects the
501. 67:18 whole universe accurately and the same laws of nature apply to both. Consider
502. 67:24 the startling similarities between the formalisms and the laws that pertain to subatomic particles and black holes.
503. 67:32 Moreover, the distinction between functional, operational, and structural information is superfluous and artificial. There is a magnitude bias here. Being creatures of the macrocosm,
504. 67:43 form and function look look to us distinct. But if we accept that function is merely what we call an increase in
505. 67:50 order then the distinction is canled because the only way to measure an increase in order is structurally.
506. 67:58 We measure functioning the increase in order using structural methods. The alignment or arrangement of instruments
507. 68:06 measurement instruments. Still the information contained in each particle should encompass at least the
508. 68:14 relevant close non-negligible and non-cancellable parts of the universe. This is a tremendous amount of data. How is it stored in such tiny corecules or
509. 68:25 such tiny events? Well, I don’t know. either utilizing
510. 68:31 methods and processes which we are far even from guessing or else the relevant information is infinitimally vanishingly
511. 68:39 small. Actually the extent of necessary information contained in each and every
512. 68:45 physical particle could be somehow linked or even equal to the number of possible quantum states could be linked
513. 68:52 somehow to the superposition. superposition may be a reflection of this DNA. The collapse event as we
514. 69:01 perceive it is um non-representative
515. 69:07 um in the sense that not nonrees non-representative it’s not privileged is what I’m trying to say because all other events are are the same they contain essentially the same information
516. 69:19 it may well be that the whole universe can be adequately encompassed in an unbelievably minute negligibly tiny
517. 69:26 amount of data which is which are incorporated ated in those quantum supercomputers that today for lack of
518. 69:32 better understanding we call particles and in the chron theory they are events
519. 69:38 in a field of potentials. So this is where my mind is is going
520. 69:44 right now. Um as you see there are several possible directions. Some of them are mutually exclusive contradictory. Uh I’m not pretending that I have the answers. I’m just sharing with you my deliberations and my internal arguments
521. 70:00 and so on so forth. It’s going somewhere. I know it’s going somewhere because the mathematics the mathematics
522. 70:07 is coalescing. I’ve I’m already able to put together some basic modules and
523. 70:13 units of the mathematics and they give interesting results. For example, the affinity between attractors
524. 70:21 of all kinds and uh en states states in
525. 70:27 the ve in the state vector is is pretty amazing. And there are specific attractors that
526. 70:33 are identical to pointer states. So I’m beginning to see that chaos theory and and uh similarly similar mathematical work attractor theory can
527. 70:46 fit into this. I’m doing a lot of work with noise and signal especially
528. 70:52 probabilities of noise and signal and then I’m trying to map the state vector
529. 70:58 into noise and signal um noise and signal kind of templates
530. 71:04 to regard some some states as noise some states as signal I’m going in in a variety of directions
531. 71:11 but I have the feeling that we are misperceiving reality we are
532. 71:17 misperceiving reality because of our limitations, the limitations of the devices that we built to probe reality
533. 71:23 and learn its true nature. And I think we need to step back and
534. 71:29 rethink the whole thing. Perhaps one of the ideas that I gave here the
535. 71:35 same way in 1982 I stepped back back having spoken to Yakiraov and Richard
536. 71:43 Fineman at length. I stepped back in 1982 and I said we need to rethink the
537. 71:49 whole the whole the whole of physics there is a a multiplication of entities
538. 71:55 there’s no parimony something is wrong here and then I came up with chron
539. 72:01 theory and with the idea of fields of potentials events and so on so
540. 72:08 forth which a theory which has develop has been developed unrecognizably by such Um, I think I’m leading some over with this
541. 72:20 and I think I’m going to come up ultimately with um a quantum theory that would be
542. 72:28 deterministic and would allow us to get rid of the biases and prejudices and limitations that currently plague the measurement
543. 72:41 problem and the measurement acts. Simply because never mind how we how diff how never mind how hard we try we end up in the brain and we need to take a hard look at the brain and we need to get rid of the
544. 72:57 assumption that the brain is infinite and capable of anything and everything. No, it’s not. It’s limited very
545. 73:06 and we need to ne not be blind to these limitations to the best of our ability
546. 73:12 attempt to remove them. And mathematics is the way to go initially because whatever else you say
547. 73:19 about mathematics, it’s divorced from any substrate. It is divorced from any platform. It’s not dependent. While the act of measurement in the physical world is most definitely dependent on the brain and the brain child
548. 73:36 brainchildren of mankind.