Videos Update – 10th March 2013

Hello, just wanted to post a little update. 

Today the average views/day count for my "What is Time?" video has gone over the 2,000 mark. I never expected this in a million years…! Well, if I'm honest, there was actually zero planning and zero expectations involved. I did it because I wanted to and it felt good, whatever the outcome.

I am so grateful for all the good feedback and support, and so happy that I followed my heart and started this new venture. 

I am currently working really hard on the creation of the next video. There has so far been an enourmous amount of research and work involved, as well as hours and hours of thinking and thinking. This probably takes longer than anything else, within the creation process. But thinking is actually as enjoyable as doing!

I am very excited about this next video; hoping to have it finished by the end of this month!

Again, thanks ever so much for all your support! ๐Ÿ™‚


Posted in Blog Tagged with: , , , ,
22 comments on “Videos Update – 10th March 2013
  1. Sofia Andrewski says:

    Looking forward to it! What is it going to be about?

    • Dolors says:

      Hello Sofia,

      …. Officially, not saying.

      Unofficially, here’s a hint: go to the “What is Time?” post and look at the comments section ๐Ÿ˜‰


  2. Robert M Newton says:

    Beautiful done. I very much enjoyed your perspective, it was enlightening. As I journey through the late autumn of my life, I have begun to study more physics, brush off the old calculus book and review or start to study new areas of math. When I was young, I thought of the basic law of physics and time was like a billiard table. When a professional hits the balls, their collisions can be predictable, and if every molecular or atomic energy transfer could be predicted, could not the future? This was how I once thought of time as deterministic. Now I picture it like a spec in the middle of a cube and that spec expanding as the possibilities of time expand. Something like parallel time arrows. If I could go back in time, at the precise moment I touched the past, a new time branch arrow would sprout out, which now includes my travels back in time, but the original arrow would still exist. Hard to explain, you do it much better. One last thought. Time seems to go by so much faster today than when I was in elementary school. The clock in class seemed almost to be motionless where today I blink an eye and another day has past. My only explanation is the amount of neurons in my brain are not as many as I had when I was young, so maybe having fewer slows the thought process and perception of time? Oh well, I have rambled enough.

    I will continue to look for your presentations and thank you for sharing. RMN

  3. Robert Arvay says:

    While I am nowhere near as intelligent as you are, I have a website where  wrote this introduction to my brief essay. . . .

    Neither causation nor quantum randomness explain natural events. The fundamental force in the universe is the one composed of life, consciousness and free will. Any so-called Theory of Everything must account for this force. That the implications are both physical and spiritual will deter those committed to a strictly material explanation of nature from achieving the paradigm shift necessary to the construction of a unified theory. But without it, science has already reached an impasse.

    I would appreciate any response.

    Thank you.

  4. Rami says:

    What do you think, do we as an consious entities, have our own measure of time, an individual "clock" so to speak. If one yields lots of information (thinking or processing, not just observing) does ones time go faster or slower or is this just a perception illusion.

    And how exatly should one regard perception illusion of passing time. If reality can be bent by observing it, should illusion be mutual if experience is mutual?

  5. Santiago says:

    Dear Madam

    As an engineering student, I can say that I have enjoyed your lecture, regardless of the voice.

    Keep up the good work!

    P.S. Your voice, is as wonderful as your knowledge.

    Best Regards


  6. Casimir Bruce says:

    Your video on What is Time has been one of the best I have seen. I hope that the idea presented about the importance of open-mindedness is not lost. There are other things that you did so well, I am looking forward to the next.

  7. Brian Beswick says:


    I just wantws to drop in and say that you are an amazing person. I love these ideas and your project. I've subscribed to your You Tube channel and I'm eagerly awaiting the next video. Thank you for taking the time out of your life to do what you love, I'll be forever grateful! ๐Ÿ™‚


  8. Jerry Pudelko says:

    I really enjoyed your video "What is Time".  It was nicely done. I wiil be looking forward to your future efforts.    My primary fields were experimental Psychology and  Physiology but I retired years ago.  Physics and Cosmology have become a new interest resulting  few nuts in need of cracking.  

     You are the first  I have found that has generalized fact that the "probability wave" is collapsed by observation.  So in a metaphysical sense, prior to an observation only probability waves exist. So I wonder, does it matter who does the observing? Does it remain a "probability wave in my universe when you do the observing or does your observation collapse the waves for all of us.  Maybe the solipsists got it right and each observer collapses the probability waves in a unique way and you just happen emerge via my observations.  

     How, I wonder, do these sub, micro, micro, microscopic quantum events scale up to our physiologically deternined mode and level of experience?   Intellectually I  am convinced that  most observed physical stuff is "empty??" space. If I existed at the neutrino scale, I could drive about, under the influence, without much concern for hitting anything. At the level of my physiological existence, the electromagnetic force gives rise to things that makes driving,  under the influence abit risky.  So what goes on between the probability wave reality and the tree my car smashes into? Was it just lousy luck that the wave, on this occasion, collapsed as a tree? Was my mistake, driving while  observing?     

     Here is, I think, a nut in serious need of cracking.  Most of these "realities???" exist psychologically only as sets of totally abstract math equations that accurately predict. It would seem that the Meta-structure of math and the models it can generate are isomorphic with the structure of the physical universe.  Thus events that occur when the model is manipulated in a specific way will occur in the physical world when the corresponding (isomorphic) elements are manipulated in the same way.

    How can this be?  How did it come about?  Is it some cosmic coincidence that the meta-structure of mathematics generated by the human mind is isomorphic with the structure of the phyical universe?  Hard to see how evolution can have selected for it. Maybe each is a different manifestation of consciousness itself. One branch of consciousness creates models with a given set of parameters while another branch organizes percepts with another set of parameters born of the same underlying meta-structure. One predicts events in the other because the are two are surface manifestations born of the same meta-structure.  All that is really going on is that one aspect of consciousness is predicting evenst in another aspect of the same system.

     As things stand now I only know what and how I perceive things.  I have no idea what is really "out" there or how my percepts are generated in relation to it. Do math models predict what is actually out there or only my perceptions?  Physicists seem convinced that the math models describe what is out there. I'm not so sure, but if the math  models are isomorphic to physical reality,  I would be perplexed as to the origin of this relationship.  



    • Dolors says:

      Hello Jerry,

      Thanks for your comment ๐Ÿ™‚ 

      First of all I need to clarify a few things. The "measurement problem" in physics has not been solved. It remains one of the great mysteries of science. Measurement and observation are used interchangeably to describe something that goes from possibility to actuality. When the words "observation" or "observer" are used, it is not implied that the observer needs to be conscious, for it is not known how the process of collapse occurs.

      The whole "consciousness causes collapse" line of though is very misleading in my opinion. There are so many subtleties involved, and many factors that are currently unknown. It is very clear to me and to a percentage of physicists / philosophers that consciousness is involved somehow in the collapse process, but being involved does not mean that the particular conscious act of observing by a particular being causes collapse.

      Many of the founding fathers and maincontributors to quantum mechanics agreed that consciousness seemed to play a fundamental role in the nature of reality or that, at least, it played a more central role than physics was describing. It is fascinating to read the thoughts of Schrodinger, Pauli, Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Jordan, Von Neumann, Wigner, Bohm, Wheeler, etc on these topics.

      Wigner and Von Neumann in particular explored the concept of  collapse and consciousness in a lot of detail. It seems clear that consciousness is involved, however, personally, I think that the "consciousness causes collapse" line of thought is misleading.

      For this reason, I find the informational approach much more interesting. It was started by John Wheeler and in essence, the idea is that it is information available to (conscious) observers what is involved in collapse. This has been verified many times. In his famous "delayed choice experiment" for instance, it is information available to us today, as a consequence of our choice today, what "gives shape" to a previous undefined past. Note that we are not saying that the experimenter collapses the wave function by being consciously aware of something but that the experimenter's choice of set up of an experiment will make certain information available to him / her (or not). The fact that the experimenter has the information available, can retrieve it and give meaning to it seems sufficient to collapse the wave function. Note the sublety here. Consciousness is involved but it is not correct to say that "consciousness causes collapse".

      John Wheeler wrote on this and he was definitely onto something important. What does it mean for information to be available? Clearly this information needs to be meaningful, he argued. Meaningful to a conscious observer who can interpret it. Reality seems to consist of different layers, and going from possibility to actuality seems to involve the availability of information to conscious observers. Here is an interesting interview, which also features Andrei Linde, a cosmologist who also agrees that consciousness plays a fundamental role in the universe. Linde applied the wave function to the whole universe and found that change would not exist (time made no sense) in a universe without observer. Time seems to be linked to the existence of observers; without it, the quantum equations do not need it. This is quite profound ๐Ÿ™‚

      Regarding the question of isomorphism. I don't agree with that… Confusing a model of reality with reality, the map with the terrain, is a mistake that can lead to many faulty conclusions ๐Ÿ™‚

      Our models are approximations of what we are trying to model. I do not think "our maths" are a perfectly accurate description of what is goin on. In addition, I am skeptical that maths can describe all of reality… I think there are many things which are not describable by mathematics, even in principle!

      Realism, idealism, dualism… Leaving maths aside or not, believing that our models can describe what is out there is a discussion that has been going on for a long time. Einstein and Bohr discussed the issue at length… It all boils down to understanding that information and reality may be thought as isomorphic, but that this information is dependent on the observer as much as it is on the observed. We are describing the connection, the link between the two. Talking about the "thing in itself" no longer makes sense ๐Ÿ™‚

    • mahmoud says:

      i've been thinking about quantum mechanics and conciousness, and i wonder why we demarcate between our own existance as humans and other forms of life, for example when it comes to shrodinger's cat we tend to think that the cat consiousness is alien to our own. Yet if we thought of universal consiousness -that personified in the cat, in humans….etc in any form of being that requires familiar logical rules like causality or whatsoever- the problem could be solved by realizing that the cat in the experiment have first broken the wavefunction-as the relational interpertation suggests- and made the measurement in order for it to measure what is really going to happen to it. So, the cat was not dead and alive untill we make the observation, but instead the cat has determined its state -not because the quantum super position is an illusion but because the consiousness of the cat urges the system to take some value- .

  9. Alex Slovin says:

    ANd be aware of numbers – more likes youll gain less you can get each one who supports you in that way.


    Also, if we will stair in history – and if we believe in that shrodinger thouts – everyone can see that sacrifices and losts was much more than gain a result of this evolution.
    So all what everybody can do is just wish for this world gonna dissapear.

    And it will.

    Just argue why and you wil find how easy it is )


    WIll whait for your next interesting mind about this old story and you can see how everything gonna turn into history right herre right now.


    SO is human mind is god who transforms the time in past and non existing future in melted past?

    Or views about time have lack of facts and gujst theoretical data about nature of time?

  10. g. petersen says:

    Think of physical time as a rollercoaster. In the seat ahead you someone is experiencing what you will experience one second later.

    In the seat behind you someone is experiencing, what you experienced one second ago.

    The answer of the old question: "Why is it now – right now" is therefore "Because you are you".

    (only one possibility among many).


  11. g. petersen says:


    You need to think of basic consciousness, as something that must "be there" from the very beginning.

    The "zero beats infinite" argument.

    If you start up any system of equations in a hypotetical non-conscious world – you can create all the combinations you want – it would be like iterations adding zero to zero – it would never become conscious – even if the numer of iterations and combinations were infinite (because zero beats infinite in iterative systems).

    The evolution:

    Think of the evolution. Unless you would say: "The first 100% conscious child was born by 100% non-conscious parents" you must accept, that the mind of a human being in 2013 is an iterative developement of something, that must have been there, already before the evolution began. Just like a human body 2013 is iterally developed shape of something, that was already there (stuff) – the human mind must be a iterally developed shape of something, that was already there (spiritual attribute of vacuum).

    No choice making.

    Be careful not make relations between "superposition" and "choice making". If it had something to do with choice, it should be possible to "chose" to send all photons through left hole – and not a single one through right holde. In other words:

    It should be possible for a quantum-computer to "chose" not to examine the combination 3*3 and say, that the number 9 is one of the numbers, that cannot be created by multiplying two other numbers. And then quantum computers would be useless.

    Superposition is – like the word suggests – super-causality – you can be absolutely sure that the quantum computer will discover, that 9 is not one of the numbers, that cannot be created by multiplying other numbers.

    But what about 12 ? Will the computer find 6*2 or 3*4 ?

    Answer: Both things must be done. Without Everetts many-world, you can never convince the customer, that all combinations are really tested – and the computer is reliable.

    Cracking the nutshell may be Doom:

    Many expect that brain-scientists will discover the link between chemical reactions and pain during next 10-50 years. There is 50% chance they will say: "Life is meaningless pain – stop making children".
    I think that is what Paulus tried to say already 2000 years ago. Maybe we have wasted 2000 years – but there are also the alternative 50% of chance – that life is a gift or/and maybe a duty.

    Maybe a little hint: The Universe seems silent. Maybe there has been many civilisations before us. Suddenly they "cracked the nutshell" and dissapered just after !


  12. g. petersen says:

    Information theory:

    Heat is wisdom – taking decitions makes it nescessary to remove wisdom.

    Scene from a future brain-laboratory:

    A: "Look in this microscope. You will see the neurons communicating in a working brain."

    B: "It looks funny – many little chain-reactions"

    A: "Yes but — sorry i have made a mistake – the amplification were 1000's of times too big. What you saw was not neurons exchancing information but atoms exchancing heat – – now is is corrected – look again".

    B: "Hmmm – i still see many little chain reactions – how can we know, that consciousness works in the coarse neuron-level and not in the fine atom-level ?".

    Are human beings coarse – in fact stupid – "descition-taking" machines i a sea of thermal wisdom ?

    Remember in both cases the microscope was watching the same brain – only amplifications were different. As long as we aree alive, we are producing heat, and can therefore not receive heat. But when heat production stops – we are free to be an integral part of the biggest brain ever:

    The Thermic System.

    If one normalizes for falling energy-density – the difference between neural networking and heat-dissipation vanishes.

  13. Jesse says:

    What a wonderful discovery to find your materials.  I have watched your videos on youtube for some time now.  This is the first time I have visited your website. At first I wanted to share my "knowledge" or more accurately my acquired information of someone's teaching (ie. books read and so on).  But now my head is swirling in the idea that I am not in the universe, nor am I a part of the universe but what I call "I" is universe or at least integrated.  My words are not describing what I am sensing.
    The lucid dream segment helped me to understand the idea of downward causality in a way I hadn't before.  I was first exposed to the idea in Dr. Amit Goswami's book "The Self Aware Universe".   
    Who knew what I was to find when I began this search.  Truly astounding the reality of it all.
    Thank you very much… 

  14. Jesse says:

    I read some more of the posts and and I wanted to comment on the delayed choice experiment.  David Albert when discussing the state of the electron while in a superposition between the input and the output of the apparatus suggested that our minds (consciousness) also go into a state of superposition which simultaneously collapses at the instant of observation. Any thoughts?  

  15. Jesse says:

    Well I guess I have more to ask ๐Ÿ™‚ … Can you put me on the track to learn the skill of lucid dreaming? 

  16. Brian says:

    I have watched almost all of your videos.  I appreciate them very much.

    Also, thanks for mentioning Tom Campbell.  You made a point of stressing how much

    he helped you so I went and watched several hours of his videos.   It has made a big difference in my attitude and I've gained much from introspection.  Keep up the good work. 

  17. Steve C says:

    Hi Dolors,

    If you haven't yet seen it, I think you'll like this Google Tech Talk – takes a more classical math approach to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, bringing in Shannon's Entropy and makes the argument that quantum entanglement is no more than a measurement. If you skip to 00:54:00 he'll be just about to sum up – that should give you an idea if you want to watch the whole thing:

    Thanks for all your hard efforts – love your videos,


  18. Ricardo says:

    I just wanted to say you come across remarkably intelligent and clearly you have a very cohesive and well-thought out idea of how everything comes to be. As a side-note, the adopted British accent is very catchy!

    My belief too is that information can be considered the most fundamental unit of our universe, a quantum of action is what iterates the universe. Perhaps this is where my ideas diverge because I believe it is deterministic, just that the complexity of our universe and its exponential possibilities gives us the illusion of free will.

    I watched two of your videos and I believe neither mentioned the concept of the universe being a computable machine. Neither seemed to mention the idea of there being a creator or purpose to the universe (understandably, perhaps). Could you subscribe to the idea that our universe and deterministic laws could be some form of enumeration, perhaps created intentiontionally. Perhaps on the plane of the creator the planck scale is much more infinitesimally small that our notion of great expanses of time is actually a brief timeframe for them?

    It may even be that a creator could be asking the same fundamental questions as ourselves, such as whether free will exists, or perhaps we're the radical agents of the universe to enumerate possibilities of interest to them.

    I don't like the many worlds idea in the 'physical sense' and think it to be more likely that time has an infinite nature over which variations of existence can come to being.

    Thank you for sharing your ideas!



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *