Donald Hoffman: "Spacetime is doomed!"

[Joshpantera]

Leading into the 13:00 mark

 

The alternative view presented around 22:00

 

Open panel discussion around 29:00

 

 

 

If that's correct, then everything relying on taking spacetime literally is doomed as well. Alternative spacetime oriented theories notwithstanding. 

 

And how fitting a conclusion that would be considering:  

 

1) literalistic religion, doomed. 

2) literalistic spacetime concepts, doomed as well. 

 

Possibly opening the way for a new option based on not taking reality at face value perceptions. Looking deeper in. Where either science or religion is concerned. And seeing both sides of an old argument flush down the toilet together at the same general time. 

[pantheory]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Leading into the 13:00 mark

 

The alternative view presented around 22:00

 

Open panel discussion around 29:00

 

 

 

If that's correct, then everything relying on taking spacetime literally is doomed as well. Alternative spacetime oriented theories notwithstanding. 

 

And how fitting a conclusion that would be considering:  

 

1) literalistic religion, doomed. 

2) literalistic spacetime concepts, doomed as well. 

 

Possibly opening the way for a new option based on not taking reality at face value perceptions. Looking deeper in. Where either science or religion is concerned. And seeing both sides of an old argument flush down the toilet together at the same general time. 

 

Josh,

 

Spacetime literally means little or nothing at all. Mathematically space and time are joined together to make better gravity predictions in physics. Once the author of your video discusses the concept of spacetime, he is trying to turn philosophy into science.

 

What this video actually says is mostly wrong IMO. There is a great deal wrong with it concerning science. I can pick it apart quote for quote if you want me to.  For such a theory  to be scientific, it must be totally testable and able to be disproved  by experimentation which it cannot IMO. It would be obvious to most anyone educated in physics that mixing physics with consciousnesses would nearly always be bogus, He is really working with the false premises of science to come to an alternative, but false conclusion. To equate such ideas with physics is just using questionable theory in physics to draw wrong conclusions related to another field of science, consciousness.

 

Even some of the comments of the questioners have been good, but not related to the proposal. Like I said before, higher consciousness as a philosophy is not a problem, but if one considers these ideas as being science related to physics in any way,  that idea is simply  wrong. According to the scientific method -- these ideas cannot be tested or disproved, a requirement of all valid scientific hypotheses and theory.

 

For an idea, hypothesis or theory to be scientific, it must follow the scientific method. Let's look at the steps involved:

 

---Ask a question or define a problem

 

1)  Make observations or experiments

 

Since most theorists are not observationalists,  they sometimes must work from the observations or experiments of others.

 

2) Ask related questions about related observations and/or experiments.

 

For this step, research is required to find out what others have accomplished in experiments and observations related to the new proposal.

 

3)  Form a related hypothesis,  after extensive evaluations related experiments and observations, one can propose a hypothesis that can be tested.  Of course one can often think of more than one hypothesis to explain a set of observations but usually only one can be evaluated or tested at a time. If your hypothesis cannot be disproved by experiment, then it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

 

4) Developing  experiments, or different kinds of observations to test the hypothesis.

Sometimes, or often, one might have to rely on experiments by others. If you have prominence in your field you could make a proposal and obtain the funding for experiments.

 

5) Analyze and interpret the data, then Draw conclusions if the experiments seem to be in agreement with your hypothesis.

draw conclusions.  If conclusions do not seem obvious, research must be resumed via step 4. When conclusions seem obvious via this method then one can finish step 5, if observations are contradicted. go back to step 3, form a new hypothesis and resume testing the new hypothesis via step 4.  Conclusions must continuously be questioned and tested looking for errors. Eventually a theory might be drawn if all requirements listed above are fulfilled and when the hypothesis has been tested by time and  by others in peer review processes. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[midniterider]

Is science the only path to truth or reality?

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

Is science the only path to truth or reality?

 

 

I'm sure it's not. But the scientific method can separate science from non-science. If a hypothesis cannot be tested and disproved, it's not science. But in the future someone might figure out how to do both for a questionable hypothesis and that would be science.  and it could be proven correct if verified by incontrovertible evidence. The scientific key here is testability.

 

So science is primarily a method concerning a field of study. Hypotheses and theories are only possible truths. Any so-called truths must be determined by incontrovertible evidence determined by testing or observations. As to reality itself, it could never be a truth. It is only a way of looking at things; reality is simply a perspective of what one is considering-- whereby there could be many different types of realities at the same time and correct points of view concerning the same subject.  And countless other possible incorrect points of view, some of which might  be considered generally meritless over time.

 

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/eight_reasons_to_distrust_your_own_perceptions

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00567/full

 

[midniterider]

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I'm sure it's not.

 

In that case whether something is science or not science isnt that relevant to me. 

 

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

But the scientific method can separate science from non-science. If a hypothesis cannot be tested and disproved, it's not science. But in the future someone might figure out how to do both for a questionable hypothesis and that would be science.  and it could be proven correct if verified by incontrovertible evidence. The scientific key here is testability.

 

So science is primarily a method concerning a field of study. Hypotheses and theories are only possible truths. Any so-called truths must be determined by incontrovertible evidence determined by testing or observations. As to reality itself, it could never be a truth. It is only a way of looking at things; reality is simply a perspective of what one is considering-- whereby there could be many different types of realities at the same time and correct points of view concerning the same subject.  And countless other possible incorrect points of view, some of which might  be considered generally meritless over time.

 

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/eight_reasons_to_distrust_your_own_perceptions

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00567/full

 

 

 

[pantheory]

18 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

In that case whether something is science or not science isnt that relevant to me.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand the question midniterider Yes, you and I are not science directly, but our beliefs can be related to science, philosophy, religion, spirituality, speculations, combinations thereof, etc. -- and is relevant to everyone, right?

[midniterider]

Just now, pantheory said:

 

I'm not sure I understand the question midniterider Yes, you and I are not science directly, but our beliefs can be related to science, philosophy, religion, spirituality, etc.

 

What I'm saying is that if I can use a method other than science (like philosophy or psychology) to explain how something works, then whether that idea is science or non-science is irrelevant. I've used another method and am satisfied with it.

[pantheory]

19 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

What I'm saying is that if I can use a method other than science (like philosophy or psychology) to explain how something works, then whether that idea is science or non-science is irrelevant. I've used another method and am satisfied with it.

 

That's true. But if the idea or belief is not testable, and there is little or no direct evidence for it. it would be just speculation, religion, philosophy, etc. right? There is nothing wrong with such ideas or beliefs , of course, but no truths can be claimed without formal testing by recognized methods. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and of existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline or perspective of reality, And psychology can be a scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.

[midniterider]

Hoffman may be a crackpot, but the University of Irvine is financing his research. A quick search on google shows he has about 80 science papers published, some in science magazines, three science awards and three books. 

 

Someone thinks he's doing science.

[pantheory]

16 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Hoffman may be a crackpot, but the University of Irvine is financing his research. A quick search on google shows he has about 80 science papers published, some in science magazines, three science awards and three books. 

 

Someone thinks he's doing science.

 

It may seem to be related to science, but it doesn't meet the accepted definition of it. But it seems like he's on a roll, good for him    I would bet dollars to doughnuts he believes in what he's writing, maybe a little like religious folk who get broad funding from those who agree and believe.

[midniterider]

5 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

That's true. But if the idea or belief is not testable, and there is little or no direct evidence for it. it would be just speculation, religion, philosophy, etc. right? There is nothing wrong with such beliefs , of course, but no truths can be claimed without formal testing by recognized methods.

 

Do people just go out and do random experiments and studies for no reason? No, they are inspired by "I wonder how that works? Could it work this way?" Emotion and illogic spark people to investigate. Speculation, religion, philosophy drive science. 

 

I think Hoffman and others like him have some interesting new ideas. And in Hoffman's case, 30 years of research backing it. What is more important? Classifying Hoffman as a scientist or philosopher? Or just learning about the research? I dont need to gatekeep the hallowed halls of science. 

 

While the old orthodox part of me says, "Conscious reality is nonsense!", the part of me that finds consciousness fascinating says, "What if he's right about that?"

[midniterider]

12 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

It may seem to be related to science, but it doesn't meet the accepted definition of it. But it seems like he's on a roll, good for him    I would bet dollars to doughnuts he believes in what he's writing, maybe a little like religious folk who get broad funding from those who agree and believe.

 

Everyone believes their own ideas. 

 

I like that article you posted. The first one. People have a really really hard time solving a problem when it appears the answer is going to contradict their own personal opinion about it. Makes you wonder about how accurate results about everything ever, might be.  

[pantheory]

30 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Do people just go out and do random experiments and studies for no reason? No, they are inspired by "I wonder how that works? Could it work this way?" Emotion and illogic spark people to investigate. Speculation, religion, philosophy drive science. 

 

I think Hoffman and others like him have some interesting new ideas. And in Hoffman's case, 30 years of research backing it. What is more important? Classifying Hoffman as a scientist or philosopher? Or just learning about the research? I dont need to gatekeep the hallowed halls of science. 

 

While the old orthodox part of me says, "Conscious reality is nonsense!", the part of me that finds consciousness fascinating says, "What if he's right about that?"

 

IMHO what he is doing might be called metaphysics. I think he has a clear idea concerning the way he thinks reality should be, and uses some of the "goofy" interpretations of science attempting to justify his beliefs via science.

 

Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

[pantheory]

35 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Everyone believes their own ideas. 

 

I like that article you posted. The first one. People have a really really hard time solving a problem when it appears the answer is going to contradict their own personal opinion about it. Makes you wonder about how accurate results about everything ever, might be.  

 

Yeah, I think that's also a big problem in science also. If the results of an experiment or observations seem contrary to mainstream theory, the results may never get published. On the other hand, when different interpretations are possible from experiments and observations, the interpretation closest to mainstream theory will be the one used for publications.

[walterpthefirst]

midniterider and Pantheory,

 

There might be another option here, when it comes to what Hoffman is doing.  The Christian calling himself Reformed_Kingdom_Image posted videos by Doctor Jason Lisle, but unfortunately, didn't grasp that YouTube videos don't become absolute truth just because you believe they are.  However, that's not the real point.  Lisle's is both a Young Earth Creationist and an astrophysicist. (Quite how he reconciles these two things is beyond me, but I digress.)

 

https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/dr-lisle/

 

Obviously, Lisle cannot get any serious science journal, like Arxiv.org or Nature.com to publish any of his work if it comes with a Creationist agenda, or indeed, if it has any kind of religious message at all.  They wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.  So, Lisle has sidestepped them and uses his own videos to push his personal agenda.

 

What if Hoffman is doing something similar?  What if Hoffman is putting forward a strictly personal view in his video?  What do you think about that possibility?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

midniterider and Pantheory,

 

There might be another option here, when it comes to what Hoffman is doing.  The Christian calling himself Reformed_Kingdom_Image posted videos by Doctor Jason Lisle, but unfortunately, didn't grasp that YouTube videos don't become absolute truth just because you believe they are.  However, that's not the real point.  Lisle's is both a Young Earth Creationist and an astrophysicist. (Quite how he reconciles these two things is beyond me, but I digress.)

 

https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/dr-lisle/

 

Obviously, Lisle cannot get any serious science journal, like Arxiv.org or Nature.com to publish any of his work if it comes with a Creationist agenda, or indeed, if it has any kind of religious message at all.  They wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.  So, Lisle has sidestepped them and uses his own videos to push his personal agenda.

 

What if Hoffman is doing something similar?  What if Hoffman is putting forward a strictly personal view in his video?  What do you think about that possibility?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

I doubt it because midniterider explained that Hoffman was getting university grants for much of his work. That's unusual IMO because I expect that many might view his work as meta physics, or maybe pseudo-science based upon his video. As such he would have to publish his work and reveal his funding sources.

 

But of course it could be possible that his video did not represent his research and publishings directly. and that it has more personal theory within it. 

[midniterider]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

midniterider and Pantheory,

 

There might be another option here, when it comes to what Hoffman is doing.  The Christian calling himself Reformed_Kingdom_Image posted videos by Doctor Jason Lisle, but unfortunately, didn't grasp that YouTube videos don't become absolute truth just because you believe they are.  However, that's not the real point.  Lisle's is both a Young Earth Creationist and an astrophysicist. (Quite how he reconciles these two things is beyond me, but I digress.)

 

https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/dr-lisle/

 

Obviously, Lisle cannot get any serious science journal, like Arxiv.org or Nature.com to publish any of his work if it comes with a Creationist agenda, or indeed, if it has any kind of religious message at all.  They wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.  So, Lisle has sidestepped them and uses his own videos to push his personal agenda.

 

What if Hoffman is doing something similar?  What if Hoffman is putting forward a strictly personal view in his video?  What do you think about that possibility?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

One possibility is that science has expanded beyond what we used to think of as science. Younger minds in management positions are more willing to entertain these new ideas and call them science. 

 

Hoffman might be putting forward a strictly personal view in his video, but doesnt everyone become enamored with their own work/ideas? I noticed he always says something like "I could be completely wrong...", so I think that kind of balances things and makes him not look so religious about his ideas. If he's being paid by a university still, I dont think he would want to go too far out on a limb or he might be risking his paycheck. 

 

Seems like a bunch of scientists seem to be leaving the strictly physicalist tradition ... like Christoff Koch, neuroscientist and panpsychist.

[Joshpantera]

On 2/13/2022 at 10:53 PM, pantheory said:

Josh,

 

Spacetime literally means little or nothing at all. Mathematically space and time are joined together to make better gravity predictions in physics. Once the author of your video discusses the concept of spacetime, he is trying to turn philosophy into science.

 

[Joshpantera]

On 2/14/2022 at 2:45 AM, pantheory said:

 

I'm sure it's not. But the scientific method can separate science from non-science. If a hypothesis cannot be tested and disproved, it's not science. But in the future someone might figure out how to do both for a questionable hypothesis and that would be science.  and it could be proven correct if verified by incontrovertible evidence. The scientific key here is testability.

 

So science is primarily a method concerning a field of study. Hypotheses and theories are only possible truths. Any so-called truths must be determined by incontrovertible evidence determined by testing or observations. As to reality itself, it could never be a truth. It is only a way of looking at things; reality is simply a perspective of what one is considering-- whereby there could be many different types of realities at the same time and correct points of view concerning the same subject.  And countless other possible incorrect points of view, some of which might  be considered generally meritless over time.

 

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/eight_reasons_to_distrust_your_own_perceptions

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00567/full

 

 

@29:00 They have an open panel discussion where Hoffman lays out exactly what the plan is. With raised eye brown results among the panelists. 

[Joshpantera]

 

This seems to be more and more where science is going to have to go. I see little choice otherwise. It started out with intuitive observations like Joseph Campbell relates above, which go back to meditation and close observation of how the natural world seems to operate. Eastern mystics came into their ideas by simply playing closer attention than certain other people in the world paying at the time. I was looking at things like this 20 years ago and not fully understanding it. Certainly not understanding how it could relate to science. Sort of wading into idealist philosophy. 

 

It has to do with the nature of reality. 

 

If (1) existence cannot emerge from non-existence and (2) awareness cannot be separated apart from the existence of anything, then (3) science has little option but to start working with that foundation. So, there it is. It's beginning to take shape. 

 

You can listen to the contrast between Hoffman's ideas and Dennett's during the panel discussion after 29:00. It's all explained very well. Including the concept of having a mathematically precise description of consciousness.  

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

I feel certain that Hoffman believes what he is saying -- but many scientists have called his ideas false, or pseudoscience.

 

This video explains both points of view concerning Hoffman's ideas. It is a conversation of Hoffman with Michael Shermer, the world renowned skeptic and critique. Hoffman is given a long time to discuss his ideas, and Sherman explains what he believes could be wrong with Hoffman's ideas and writings. Very interesting conversation IMO.

 

https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/donald-hoffman-case-against-reality-why-evolution-hid-truth-from-our-eyes/

[midniterider]

16 minutes ago, pantheory said:

I feel certain that Hoffman believes what he is saying -- but a great many scientists have called his ideas false, and pseudoscience.

 

This video explains both points of view concerning Hoffman's ideas. It is a conversation of Hoffman with Michael Shermer, the world renowned skeptic and critique. Hoffman is given a long time to discuss his ideas, and Sherman explains what he believes is wrong with Hoffman's ideas and writings. Very interesting IMO.

 

https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/donald-hoffman-case-against-reality-why-evolution-hid-truth-from-our-eyes/

 

If you'd like to save me 2 hours and just provide a bullet point or two, that'd be great.  

 

 

[pantheory]

18 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

If you'd like to save me 2 hours and just provide a bullet point or two, that'd be great.  

 

 

 

A bullet point or two? OK. Hoffman's ideas are controversial in science, but less so in philosophy. His ideas fit better with philosophy and metaphysics. I think he is confused concerning the many points of science he discusses. Spacetime is one of the scientific concepts he totally doesn't understand at all. But he is not a charlatan IMO.

[Joshpantera]

On 2/15/2022 at 12:32 PM, pantheory said:

I feel certain that Hoffman believes what he is saying -- but many scientists have called his ideas false, or pseudoscience.

 

This video explains both points of view concerning Hoffman's ideas. It is a conversation of Hoffman with Michael Shermer, the world renowned skeptic and critique. Hoffman is given a long time to discuss his ideas, and Sherman explains what he believes could be wrong with Hoffman's ideas and writings. Very interesting conversation IMO.

 

https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/donald-hoffman-case-against-reality-why-evolution-hid-truth-from-our-eyes/

 

Bernardo Kastrup also interviewed with Shermer about analytic Idealism, a related philosophical issue. And what it revealed is how little Shermer understands any of this. He just didn't know very much about idealism to begin with. Every objection were well known objections and already answered: 

 

Bernardo Kastrup on the Nature of Reality: Materialism, Idealism, or Skepticism - YouTube

 

I'm going through the Hoffman interview now.

 

Right away after 29:00 minutes it's made clear that Shermer doesn't understand Hoffman's position much at all - the same issue as with the interview I've linked above. Shermer is just altogether unfamiliar with the content. By 30:00 Hoffman is explaining to Shermer that he's a realist (conscious realism), agrees with most of Shermer's points, and the only real point of contention is that Hoffman doesn't think we're there yet - that we haven't arrived at truth.

 

And the implication of Shermer's arguments would lead to an untenable sense of thinking that we have truth now and do understand objectively reality, which, we clearly do not. They estimated that we have a zero percent chance of perceiving reality as it actually is through "fitness payoff's" of natural selection. It's not even possible that we have a grip on objective reality in the sense of truth right now. 

 

No one's even arguing that there is no objective reality. All parties agree that there is. The argument is to how well, if at all, we understand and perceive objective reality as it actually is. And an objective look into the problem (Hoffman and Kastrup) reveals that we do not. And that we can't currently. 

 

I'll go through the rest of your cited video and leave more comments later. 

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Bernardo Kastrup also interviewed with Shermer about analytic Idealism, a related philosophical issue. And what it revealed is how little Shermer understands any of this. He just didn't know very much about idealism to begin with. Every objection were well known objections and already answered: 

 

Bernardo Kastrup on the Nature of Reality: Materialism, Idealism, or Skepticism - YouTube

 

I'm going through the Hoffman interview now.

 

Right away after 29:00 minutes it's made clear that Shermer doesn't understand Hoffman's position much at all - the same issue as with the interview I've linked above. Shermer is just altogether unfamiliar with the content. By 30:00 Hoffman is explaining to Shermer that he's a realist (conscious realism), agrees with most of Shermer's points, and the only real point of contention is that Hoffman doesn't think we're there yet - that we haven't arrived at truth.

 

And the implication of Shermer's arguments would lead to an untenable sense of thinking that we have truth now and do understand objectively reality, which, we clearly do not. They estimated that we have a zero percent chance of perceiving reality as it actually is through "fitness payoff's" of natural selection. It's not even possible that we have a grip on objective reality in the sense of truth right now. 

 

No one's even arguing that there is no objective reality. All parties agree that there is. The argument is to how well, if at all, we understand and perceive objective reality as it actually is. And an objective look into the problem (Hoffman and Kastrup) reveals that we do not. And that we can't currently. 

 

I'll go through the rest of your cited video and leave more comments later. 

 

 

 

Shermer's specialty is spotting charlatans. He does not identify Hoffman or others related to higher consciousness, as being charlatans. This is not a subject of knowledge, IMO, it is a subject of a belief in a higher consciousness of some kind, right?   True, few understand that there is no such thing as objective reality, period. There are different perspectives and ideas of it mainly concerning the ideas and discussions of metaphysics, a branch of philosophy.

 

I like this stuff too, but when somebody says there is some truth to any of it, then I expect they haven't studied it enough IMO. There is neither truth of lies in most of this philosophy, just different discussions concerning varying perspectives of reality.

 

I'm leaving from So Cal to Louisiana this evening to help a family member in that state. I will be back in about 10 days from now and won't be able to respond to postings again until I get back the first week of March or so (God willing and the creek and well don't run dry).

 

Have a good one Josh. regards Forrest