bucket foundation — inverse omegabucket.foundation

quantum

think this is one of the reasons people have trouble with the point of view that Stewart and I are putting forward because it does require that you have quantum coherence at a very high level
Concept
quantum
Score
4 · must · because
Status
candidate — not yet promoted to canon

Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

  1. 01 · yt0.835

    See, that's the trouble When the quantum world is ‘reality’ That lead to a confusion about this. Not many worlds. No, I'm against it. Well I have to be careful about this. I have I have a point of view. This has to be taken in the right spirit. But my point of view is that it's a good thing to have had in certain stages of your life, to have believed in the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. The shorter period the better. I did go through such a state myself believing it in the many worlds interpretation and I hope, I can't remember how long it was, whether it was as long as a year

    yt/0nOtLj8UYCw-quantum-consciousness-debate-does-the-wave-function-actually/transcript.txt

  2. 02 · yt0.829

    Many   very smart people have worked on that, trying to  explain measurement, the idea that decoherence may   play a role. I guess it does, but is that the  whole answer to the measurement problem? No,   it is not. You know, all of these things. But  this, what we're trying to do, is very modest,   but maybe therefore it can be successful. We try  to give an extended formalism, not deviating from   quantum mechanics, but capturing much of the talk  as much as we can in a formalism. And this idea of   ports, bu

    yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt

  3. 03 · yt0.827

    I wanted to begin with a, I don't know, a pet peeve of mine that I think you also agree with. When it comes to quantum mechanics, unlike any other theory that we discuss, people use this word "interpretation." The interpretations of quantum mechanics. And to me, as we'll get into it, the interpretations are not interpretations. They're different theories. And some of the interpretations don't even qualify as a complete theory. And so that just seems to be a complete misnomer in the way we describe these things. - I couldn't agree more. And I got this view from Bryce DeWitt, who was my supervis

    yt/Af5LICjFIBc-what-is-quantum-mechanics-really-telling-us-world-science-fe/transcript.txt

  4. 04 · pubmed0.826

    We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of sci

    pubmed/PMID-30232960-making-better-sense-of-quantum-mechanics/info.md

  5. 05 · yt0.825

    So, for about ever since quantum mechanics uh was conceived, the physicists have been puzzled by the fact that in the act of measuring a quantum object, uh a quantum variable, um the mathematical structure, say as a wave function, collapses in an instant and yields a number, which is not there to begin with. It's not there before you did do the measurement. And this is obviously very mystifying. And physicists, as I say, have been uh trying for close to a century to resolve that puzzle. And uh it it seems to me, after more than a hundred years of failure, that they really can't do it on the ba

    yt/QvLSkzes_II-convergence-to-neoplatonism-w-wolfgang-smith/transcript.txt

  6. 06 · _intake0.822

    No one seems to see this quantum construction, as I do yet. I think it will change because it is showing up in [journals and conference’s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JGmzTXMgOQ). The natural truth’s are bigger than my ego. It allows me the patience to be able to stand among the naysayers with this knowledge. More importantly, the experience of how Nature is running the show in us, has me in a place that is far beyond the dark ages of my past.

    _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/time4-time-creation.md

  7. 07 · _intake0.819

    Because if quantum states collapse only when measured a - [`016-remarkable-that-there-are-um-people-holding-down-positions-a`](consciousness/016-remarkable-that-there-are-um-people-holding-down-positions-a.md) — score=6 `00:00:46.079` — remarkable that there are um people holding down positions at universities who deny that there is such a thing as consci - [`017-ever-since-spirit-science-began-all-of-us-have-been-explorin`](consciousness/017-ever-since-spirit-science-began-all-of-us-have-been-explorin.md) — score=6 `00:32:43.519` — Ever since spirit science began, all of us have been explorin

    _intake/claims-allbranch/curated/INDEX.md

  8. 08 · yt0.818

    You give me the quantum state of the universe right now. This is the equation that tells you what happens next. It is not teological. It is not moral. It does not care what you do. It does not judge you. There is no goal or purpose towards which it strives. There's no causes and effects in this equation. It's just a pattern just like 6 7 8 9 10. Now you might object a slightly more sophisticated version of the previous objection is okay you have equations but I don't believe that your equations are truly fundamental unless they can fit on a t-shirt. So I prove to you that that can happen. Once

    yt/rqezWO5Yba8-sean-carrol-the-big-picture-on-the-origins-of-life-meaning-a/transcript.txt

  9. 09 · yt0.817

    This seems to me, from a philosophical point of view, um to be an example of just how muddled, to use one of Whitehead's favorite words, uh contemporary physics has become, that they that physicists would be celebrating the irrationality and absurdity of the picture that they're presenting to us of how the physical world operates. So, let's get into your proposals here for a new ontology for quantum physics. Can you lead us into uh your distinction between um the what's described in uh quantum physics and what you call the corporeal realm, and how physics has become ontologically confused abou

    yt/V_ZWBkSNMFg-platonic-physics-in-dialogue-with-wolfgang-smith/transcript.txt

  10. 10 · yt0.816

    Um, well, it's a curious word you used there, which was explain. Ah, because Yes. Yeah. I I should take that back, right? Yes. You know, because the the right I mean, I don't think this was exactly Boore's attitude. The common attitude is calculate. Predict tell me what the numbers will be, and if the numbers are right, that's all I want. Absolutely. Boore was actually trying to make a much more profound argument which was that a certain sort of explanation which had been provided by classical physics was no longer available. Just could not could not be found. There wasn't that nature didn't p

    yt/VbXEc9vpeIM-what-we-ve-gotten-wrong-about-quantum-physics-world-science-/transcript.txt

Curation checklist

  • ☐ Verify excerpt against source recording
  • ☐ Tag tier (axiom · law · principle · primary derivation · observation)
  • ☐ Cross-cite to ≥1 primary source (PubMed / arXiv / archive.org)
  • ☐ Promote to bucket-canon/02-physics/