Hi all,

I sometimes watch videos by a YouTuber who does self-help related topics. In the past they were mostly related to things like productivity, money and relationships, but in the last year or so he has done topics based on sketchier claims--for example, that reality is mental and not physical, non-duality and other new age ideas. In one recent video he even claimed to be God--apparently he discovered this with the help of psychedelic drugs.

In this video, he purports that QM proves materialism is false. I hesitate to ask someone to "debunk" it because that assumes his claims to be wrong from the get-go, but my knowledge of physics does not go beyond classical mechanics so I do not have the tools necessary to evaluate his claims--I can tell when something sounds fishy, but not much more.

Can someone with a stronger physics background take a look at it? The videos is quite long, so don't feel obligated to watch the whole thing or watch it in one sitting. Thanks.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~ Richard Feynman.

I watched the first half hour of the vid and he admits to being no expert about the details of quantum mechanics. How such a person can claim to be embodied refutation of the above quote is beyond me. He also claims that watching and fully incorporating this vid into one's worldview will be fatal...and yet he lives. Basically cuckoo cuckoo.

Yeah, it's just a Gish gallop of kooky claims.

At the end of the day, QM is a set of mathematical models that happen to very accurately describe the material universe without reference to anything non-material. You might have to throw out a lot of the assumptions of classical mechanics to adapt to it, but materialism (or methodological naturalism as I'd prefer to frame it) isn't one of them.

Wheelspawn wrote:
In this video, he purports that QM proves materialism is false.

So what if somebody purports QM proves materialism is false? Do you think this kind of wibble could prove you have an immortal soul? I mean, nobody really knows what materialism entails, but folks do tend to declare what materialism entails, as if they were Big Thinkers, by pinching the shit out of their asses and proudly showing it to you.

Wheelspawn wrote:I can tell when something sounds fishy

No, it doesn't seem as if you can. If you want to believe you have an immortal soul, go right ahead, as long as you don't insist it obliges me in any way. The key to skepticism is deciding what you have time for, and what you don't have time for. Time is short, unless, of course, you believe you have an immortal soul.

Cito di Pense wrote:
No, it doesn't seem as if you can. If you want to believe you have an immortal soul, go right ahead, as long as you don't insist it obliges me in any way. The key to skepticism is deciding what you have time for, and what you don't have time for. Time is short, unless, of course, you believe you have an immortal soul.

Did I say I believe in an immortal soul? Sounds like you are putting words in my mouth.

Wheelspawn wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
No, it doesn't seem as if you can. If you want to believe you have an immortal soul, go right ahead, as long as you don't insist it obliges me in any way. The key to skepticism is deciding what you have time for, and what you don't have time for. Time is short, unless, of course, you believe you have an immortal soul.

Did I say I believe in an immortal soul? Sounds like you are putting words in my mouth.

Sorry, WS, not you specifically. Maybe just the author of the video. There's stuff you simply should not pay very much attention to, unless you want to believe it. There is so much shit on the internet; it's not all going to get debunked.

Most of it is self refuting. As Matt_B said, we know about and verify QM through material evidence underpinned by a lot of math. To say QM debunks materialism is like saying a falling object debunks gravity.

To say that QM debunks materialism is essentially saying that something developed under the materialist worldview debunks the materialist worldview... which makes no fucking sense.

Wheelspawn wrote:To say that QM debunks materialism is essentially saying that something developed under the materialist worldview debunks the materialist worldview... which makes no fucking sense.

I don't think anyone who says QM debunks materialism really cares much. Materialism is just metaphysics, too. As such, it's pretty easy to debunk, as you've seen. It's also pretty easy not to give a fuck about what is said about metaphysics. You should try it.

Wheelspawn wrote:-for example, that reality is mental and not physica

You cannot debunk this, as it is actually true that everything you hear, and see, requires the use of your brain, and once your brain dies, you also die. You cannot function without your brain.
If you really wish to argue with him however, then you could try reminding him what reality is

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

And therefore, reality is "everything" there is in it's totality, and not simply the mental aspects.
But on the otherhand, i would not bother, because the most annoying thing about his argument, is not how wrong it is, but actually how simplistic and self explanatory it is, and yet he thinks he is revealing some dark secret only known by Hinduists, and something that no-one else that has not watched his favourite youtube video is capable of perceiving.

Wheelspawn wrote:non-duality.

non duality you can easily brush off as being non scientific religious doctrine

"nondualism" is derived from Advaita Vedanta, descriptions of nondual consciousness can be found within Hinduism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Wheelspawn wrote:In one recent video he even claimed to be God--apparently he discovered this with the help of psychedelic drugs.

Again, there is not really much you can say to that.
What is his definition of God? He likely has some new-age philosophy where we are all God. Either that or he may be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. My advice from here on would be for you to change your perceptions of him, and stop seeing him as annoying and requiring shutting up, and begin seeing him as possibly mentally ill, and begin trying to help him by trying to find some common ground. You could find this in Quantum Mechanics

Wheelspawn wrote:In this video, he purports that QM proves materialism is false.

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

You could begin by trying to discuss with him, what Quantum Mechanics is, and what it isn't.
But to do this, you will need to be prepaired to find out for yourself what it is, otherwise you may find you are unable to help improve his understanding, and point out his misunderstandings, and misrepresentations, because he actually knows more about the subject than you.

Nevets wrote:

Wheelspawn wrote:-for example, that reality is mental and not physica

You cannot debunk this, as it is actually true that everything you hear, and see, requires the use of your brain, and once your brain dies, you also die. You cannot function without your brain.
If you really wish to argue with him however, then you could try reminding him what reality is

Except the brain is physical, not immaterial and to use your senses you need to use other physical, non-mental parts of your body, specifically your nervous system, ears, etc.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Nevets wrote:

Wheelspawn wrote:-for example, that reality is mental and not physica

You cannot debunk this, as it is actually true that everything you hear, and see, requires the use of your brain, and once your brain dies, you also die. You cannot function without your brain.
If you really wish to argue with him however, then you could try reminding him what reality is

Except the brain is physical, not immaterial and to use your senses you need to use other physical, non-mental parts of your body, specifically your nervous system, ears, etc.

I agree, that it is also true that the Brain is physical, and that physical aspects are "true", and that not "only" is it true, that in order to percieve all physical aspects, we require use of a brain in order to decode those physical aspects in order to view reality.

Both are true.

But how can we convince him that our beliefs in the physical being real, are actually real? Even "real" Quantum mechanics cannot solve this.

Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications

What you could do however, to prove to him that the physical is real, and not simply a hologram made up by the brain, is explain to him how material came in to existence at the creation of the universe.

Regarding my above post, on "how did material come in to existence".

Science would rule out a god.
Science would also rule out the possibility of physical material objects, forming out of nowehere, and nothing, equally impossible. And this is what Quantum Mechanics seeks to explain, so far, unsuccessfully.

However i do have a theory myself.

What would happen in a nothingness void with no sun? would it not be a giant wall of Ice?
Is it possible for Ice to explode?

A dry ice bomb is a simple explosive device. While its simplicity, ease of construction, high bursting pressure and sound make it appealing for recreational purposes, it can be unpredictable and dangerous, and it has led to many injuries. Dry ice bombs are illegal in many jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice_bomb

Can fire create matter?

Scientists create a new form of matter—superionic water ice https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02 ... -water-ice

Now you can take this theory to that youtube person.

But we are a long way off being able to convince him that it was an Ice-wall that met the correct circumstances to explode in to an Icey Firey furnace that mixed together and created matter.

But you can also take this study to him, and show him it is possible for Ice to explode

Frozen Droplets Explode on Camera, for Science https://www.livescience.com/58241-watch ... plode.html

But good luck, as we are the ones clutching at straws, trying to make people believe in the crazy notion that Ice can explode, mix with fire, and create matter

Ice is matter, and fire is too. How can either create what it already is?

RE

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Ice is matter, and fire is too. How can either create what it already is?

RE

Do you mean, how can matter be created out of nothingness? And this would include Ice and fire and gases and liquids? Well, i do not know.

But yes, you are correct.

Science would say it is impossible for even any matter to just appear out of nowhere.

But i do not know what you mean by "it already is"?

The question that needs answering, is how did "what already is", become?

Is it coldness that creates Ice? Or is the Ice already there in matter already? I think there needs to be water

Liquid water becomes solid ice when it is very cold https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice

Is there anyway Water can be formed?

double click

This is horribly confused.

Where to even begin? Let's start with something basic.

Is it coldness that creates Ice? Or is the Ice already there in matter already? I think there needs to be water

Assuming, of course, we're talking about water ice, then obviously there needs to be water. Such ice IS water, just in a different state. Temperature is a product of the average kinetic energy of the atoms in a system. Low temperatures mean little kinetic energy, meaning atoms are jiggling about less. When water gets to 0 degrees celsius, it undergoes a state transformation from liquid to solid; that is from liquid water to solid water. Similarly, when water reaches 100 degrees celsius (at sea level) it undergoes another state transformation from liquid water to gas water: steam.

Coldness doesn't 'create' ice; coldness is a property of the atoms in the system, which includes those atoms making up the hydrogen and oxygen molecules forming the water.

Nevets wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Ice is matter, and fire is too. How can either create what it already is?

RE

Do you mean, how can matter be created out of nothingness? And this would include Ice and fire and gases and liquids? Well, i do not know.

But yes, you are correct.

Science would say it is impossible for even any matter to just appear out of nowhere.

But i do not know what you mean by "it already is"?

The question that needs answering, is how did "what already is", become?

Sigh, I mean what I post, unless it’s a throw-away comment, and this wasn’t. Both fire and ice are states of matter already in existence, and have nothing whatsoever to do with how baryonic matter came to be. Using them as an example of anything other than fire and ice is foolish. Your example is so poorly formed it’s nearly impossible to address in a meaningful manner. How dry ice bombs play into the issue is beyond me.

Virtual particles sort of throws a kink in the matter from nothing objection, and science might have a different view on the subject than you suggest. We simply do not know how baryonic matter came to be. Since we do not know the conditions proceeding the inflation epoch the best we can do, for now, is to speculate.

What more needs to be said about the subject? Seriously? What’s your point?

RS

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:

Nevets wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Ice is matter, and fire is too. How can either create what it already is?

RE

Do you mean, how can matter be created out of nothingness? And this would include Ice and fire and gases and liquids? Well, i do not know.

But yes, you are correct.

Science would say it is impossible for even any matter to just appear out of nowhere.

But i do not know what you mean by "it already is"?

The question that needs answering, is how did "what already is", become?

Sigh, I mean what I post, unless it’s a throw-away comment, and this wasn’t. Both fire and ice are states of matter already in existence, and have nothing whatsoever to do with how baryonic matter came to be. Using them as an example of anything other than fire and ice is foolish. Your example is so poorly formed it’s nearly impossible to address in a meaningful manner. How dry ice bombs play into the issue is beyond me.

Virtual particles sort of throws a kink in the matter from nothing objection, and science might have a different view on the subject than you suggest. We simply do not know how baryonic matter came to be. Since we do not know the conditions proceeding the inflation epoch the best we can do, for now, is to speculate.

What more needs to be said about the subject? Seriously? What’s your point?

RS

Please can you view the thread as a whole, and see my previous posts in order to understand why i am coming up with theories. It is purely to try to help the OP of this thread, whom i have already made everything you are making quite clear to me, quite clear to.

If you understand what i mean.

I am already aware, that i am fighting the losing argument.

But i am coming up with recipes, in the hope it might spark an idea in the OP, as it is the OP that is looking for a magical answer.