[Music] New Thinking Allowed: Conversations on the leading edge of knowledge and

discovery. With parapsychologist Jeffrey Mishlove. Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey Mishlove. Today we're going to

look at a path to resolving the paradoxes of quantum physics. My guest is Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, who has often been

a guest on the New Thinking Allowed channel. He is a computer scientist and a philosopher, and he has co-published

articles with major figures in the field of physics on quantum physics. He is the author of many books, including

Rationalist Spirituality; An Exploration of the Meaning of Life and Existence Informed by Logic and Science; Meaning in

Absurdity; What Bizarre Phenomena Can Tell Us About the Nature of Reality; Dreamed-Up Reality; Diving into the Mind

to Uncover the Astonishing Hidden Tale of Nature; Why Materialism is Baloney; How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death;

and Fathom Answers to Life, the Universe, and Everything; Brief Peaks Beyond; Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism, and

Culture; More Than Allegory; On Religious Myth, Truth, and Belief; The Idea of the World: A Multidisciplinary Argument for

the Mental Nature of Reality; and, of course, Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics. And it's really upon that

book that our discussion shall be based today. This is an internet interview, and now I'll switch over to the internet

video. Welcome, Bernardo. It's a pleasure to see you once again.

pleasure. It's very interesting that you've written this elegant chapter in your book on Schopenhauer about quantum

mechanics, but I suppose it's important to specify, for the benefit of our viewers, you are credentialed as a

philosopher and computer scientist, not a quantum physicist. That's correct. I have worked in the physics environment

for years, but I don't have a physics degree. And you've co-authored at least one paper on quantum physics with some

Yes, I know the one you're referring to, with Henry Stapp and Menas Kafatos, in Scientific American. I did author a few others on quantum mechanics as well. I trust that you know what you're talking about, so we

can start digging into it in really some detail. And I think the issue goes back to Einstein and the EPR

paradox, in which Einstein thought he could refute quantum physics by pointing out a strange effect that he said, if

quantum physics is true, that means 'spooky action at a distance.' And since spooky action at a distance would be

impossible to anybody with a naturalistic perspective, therefore Einstein felt that quantum physics wasn't really true. Right. That's a famous

1935 paper, co-authored by Einstein and a couple of others as well, and that has been proven wrong by a whole series of

experiments. I remember back when I was a graduate student at Berkeley back in the 1970s, physicists there—John

Clauser—did some of the very first tests of what became more formalized from what we call the EPR paradox.

The Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox became formalized by John Bell. He—John Bell—he basically...

because you see, the thing is, the EPR paradox is about two entangled particles behaving in a way that cannot be described independently of each other. So

they behave as though they were still intrinsically connected, even though they are measured at large distances. And one

possibility would be to say that, hey, they are behaving in an interrelated way because they have some unknown property.

that they share, they share from the moment of their creation, which leads to these correlations in their

respective behavior. And it just appears that they are still connected, but they are not; they only have this hidden

shared property. And John Bell, what he showed is that there are experiments you can do to differentiate the predictions

of quantum mechanics from the predictions of a theory based on this shared, local, hidden property. It would make, so you can make a distinction

between the two. And this distinction has been formalized by John Bell in that theorem, Bell's Theorem, of Bell's

inequalities, and they have been experimentally shown to be the case. In other words, you cannot explain the entanglement of particles in

quantum mechanics on the basis of—either of—what you cannot make sense of that in the way

that Einstein thought we would need to make sense of it, by hidden local properties—he didn't—local variables. I

remember back in 1975 when I published my first book, *The Roots of Consciousness*. I worked with the physicists then, Jack

Sarfatti, who knew about Bell's Theorem. And I think my book was actually the first popular exposition of how it might in

some way be related to parapsychology. And the thinking back in those days was that there was a signal that could

transfer faster than the speed of light because of this strange entanglement. Now, I think most physicists today don't

accept that interpretation. Your interpretation actually is much more daring: signal transmission faster than the speed of light would

violate relativity, which is where Einstein was coming from. So I don't think that is taken very seriously today

as a hypothesis to make sense of quantum entanglement or Bell's inequalities. In the meantime, there are some more

inequalities published in 2003 by another physicist. It doesn't matter, so we are left with... well, there aren't many

options. We are left with one: to say that the entangled particles still share a property, but that property is not a

local one; it's not in the particles themselves. It's sort of smeared out across space and time. That's the

so-called global hidden variables interpretation. But there are new inequalities, proven and published in 2003, but proven mathematically—Leggett's

inequalities by physicist Tony Leggett. And some of those inequalities, unlike Bell's, made a distinction between what we

call realism and locality. Because Bell's inequalities prove that the quantum system violates either realism—that the particles exist in and of

themselves—or violates locality—that the global interpretations would say, well, they violate locality because there is a global property and it

is smeared out across space and time. But Leggett's inequalities make a distinction. There are some inequalities by Tony

Leggett that are only about realism, and those have been proven as well, which leads to the conclusion that, you know,

you cannot speak of the particles existing in and of themselves before they are observed. It is the

act of observation that brings their physical reality into being. And therefore, my own interpretation is that before they are observed,

they don't exist physically; they exist as a mental state, a transpersonal mental state out there, which essentially

constitutes what we call the shared world. And it is by interacting with this transpersonal mental context that we

bring physicality about on the screen of our... So for me, physicality can be reduced to transpersonal mentality, and I think

quantum physics has come to a point where this conclusion is very, very nearly inevitable to anybody contemplating the latest results without

Prejudice? Well, I suppose "without prejudices" is the key phrase in your sentence there, because there's a very strong prejudice

among physicists towards materialistic, physicalistic explanations. I talked to one scholar who said that the many

worlds theory—you ever—it is gaining in popularity because people in the physics community would rather not

acknowledge the significance of consciousness, unfortunately. But that is built into the culture of physics, into the history of physics. Physics

started as a reaction to religion, to the way religion had of making sense of nature, so it reacted to that and it has

it built into its DNA, you know, to go away from the idea that there is a mind underlying nature and instead thinking

of nature as a mechanism. I think, you know, as a reaction to the status quo back in the 17th century, this was

legitimate because when things are so extreme, you need to counter that by playing on the other extreme, but the

pendulum has now swung all the way to the other side, and at the end of the day, you know, experiment is the final

criterion for truth in physics, and what the experiments are telling us defy the autonomous, objective existence

of physicality. And then some people prefer to think of nature as a mushrooming infinity of parallel

universes, for which there is not a smidgen of empirical evidence. They prefer that than to think that an

ontological category we know to exist—mentality—because we have it.  Between you and me, to think of this category as existing beyond the

boundaries of living beings in the form of a still very naturalistic, but transpersonal mental context surrounding

us. For some reason, although these two hypotheses are hardly comparable in plausibility, you know, to think of

Infinities being created at every infinitesimal moment of time; infinities of new multiverses, new universes, and on.

The one hand, and on the other hand, imagining a transpersonal mind; they think the infinity of universes is

more plausible. And that's, if anything, a cultural artifact; that is one right there. Well, you refer to a series of

experiments that are attempting to kind of pin this down. And I remember John Clauser at Berkeley did some of the very

earliest tests of Bell's Theorem in the 1970s. Used to hang out with him in those

days. But these tests are continuing, and I'm under the impression that there's still physicists who believe we could

use their—we'll find a way to use Bell's inequality to actually transmit signals faster than the speed of light. They

haven't given up on that. That that is a theoretical impossibility. There is a theorem in quantum information theory,

the no-communication theorem, which shows without any shadow of a doubt, theoretically—and the theory has been

confirmed in many other different ways—that you cannot use quantum entanglement to transfer information. You only know

that the measurements made at different points in the universe correlate once an observer brings them together, but they cannot be used to transmit information

faster than the speed of light. It is not possible. Since I know you have a book that will be coming out next year on the

metaphysics of Carl Jung, who wrote extensively about synchronicity, let me bounce this off of you. I did speak with

a physicist and parapsychologist from Germany, Walter von Lucadou, who maintains that this quantum entanglement actually is quite

compatible with yoga and synchronicity. I agree it is, but that does not mean that you can transmit information faster than

The speed of light, and the reason is: look, if Bob is doing a measurement on one side of the universe and Alice is doing a measurement on the other side of the universe, and the measurements are entangled, you could suspect...

you could at least think that they could use this entanglement to transmit information to one another faster than

the speed of light because their measurements are correlated. So it could use this correlation, but actually you can't, because you only know that they

are correlated once Alice and Bob come together. And they have to come together according to the limits of the speed of

light; you know, they have to walk towards one another, take a bus, whatever. And then they can compare notes, and only then do

they see that what they measured was highly correlated—that Alice's measurements were highly correlated with Bob's measurements. Before they come

together, they only see their own measurements, and their own measurements are random. Taken in and of themselves,

the measurements obey the criteria for randomness. So they cannot transmit information to one another faster than the speed of light because the

phenomenon in question is only real—is only noted—once they come together. But synchronicity... Jung's synchronicity...

Solving the Paradoxes of Quantum Physics with Bernardo Kastrup

New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove 

베르나르도 카스트럽과 그의 양자 물리학 연구를 소개합니다.

컴퓨터 과학자이자 철학자인 베르나르도 카스트럽이 게스트로 소개됩니다.

물리학계의 주요 인사들과 양자 물리학에 관한 논문을 공동 발표했습니다.

형이상학, 신경과학 및 관련 주제에 관한 수많은 저서를 집필했습니다.

토론은 그의 저서 '쇼펜하우어의 형이상학 해독'을 바탕으로 진행됩니다.

EPR 역설과 벨의 정리에 대해 논의합니다.

카스트럽은 물리학자가 아닌 철학자이자 컴퓨터 과학자라는 자신의 신분을 분명히 밝힙니다.

그는 헨리 스탭, 메나스 카파토스와 함께 양자 물리학에 관한 논문을 공동 집필한 것을 언급합니다.

이 토론은 아인슈타인의 EPR 역설과 '원거리에서의 으스스한 행동'이라는 개념을 중심으로 진행됩니다.

얽힌 입자와 상호 연결된 동작에 관한 EPR 역설에 대한 설명입니다.

양자역학과 국부적 숨겨진 변수가 있는 이론의 차이점을 보여주는 존 벨의 정리에 대해 설명합니다.

레겟의 불평등을 언급하며 지역 현실주의의 개념에 더욱 도전합니다.

양자역학과 의식의 역할에 대한 카스트럽의 해석.

카스트럽은 입자는 관찰하기 전에 물리적으로 존재하지 않으며, 대신 정신적 상태로 존재한다고 제안합니다.

그는 물리적 현실은 초개인적인 정신적 맥락과의 상호작용에서 나온다고 말합니다.

그는 육체를 초개인적 정신으로 환원할 수 있다고 주장합니다.

이 토론에서는 물리학계에 만연한 유물론적 편견에 대해 다룹니다.

얽힘, 빛보다 빠른 통신, 동시성에 대한 추가 논의가 진행 중입니다.

현재 진행 중인 벨의 정리를 테스트하는 실험이 언급되어 있습니다.

양자 얽힘을 이용해 빛보다 빠르게 정보를 전송할 수 없다는 '무통신 정리'가 소개되었습니다.

대화는 융의 동시성 개념과 양자 얽힘과의 관계로 옮겨갑니다.

동기화는 빛보다 빠른 통신과 차별화됩니다.

얽힌 입자들의 상관관계는 분할되지 않은 전체로서의 우주를 암시합니다.

쇼펜하우어의 형이상학과 양자역학과의 일관성.

이 논의는 쇼펜하우어의 형이상학과 양자역학 연구 결과와의 호환성으로 돌아갑니다.

양자역학의 역설은 모든 현실이 물리적인 것이라는 가정에 기인합니다.

현실의 근본적인 본질로서 쇼펜하우어의 '의지'에 대한 개념을 설명합니다.

물리학은 의식의 모든 측면을 포괄하는 것이 아니라 지각의 과학으로 설명됩니다.

일반 상대성 이론과 양자 물리학의 비호환성.

일반 상대성 이론과 양자 물리학을 조화시키는 지속적인 과제에 대해 논의합니다.

대규모 현상을 설명하는 데 있어 일반 상대성 이론의 정확성과 소규모 현상을 설명하는 데 있어 양자장 이론의 정확성이 주목받고 있습니다.

중력을 통합 필드 이론에 통합하는 문제가 강조됩니다.

특수 상대성 이론의 쌍둥이 역설은 시간 팽창의 반직관적인 특성을 설명하는 데 사용됩니다.

관계 양자역학과 개별 현실의 개념.

관계 양자역학이 도입되어 각 관찰자가 자신만의 물리적 우주를 경험한다고 제안합니다.

물리성이란 관찰에 따라 달라지는 외형이라는 개념에 대해 논의합니다.

초개인적 사고로 구성된 공유된 비물리적 세계의 존재가 제안됩니다.

관찰자의 역할이 결과에 영향을 미치는 예로 이중 슬릿 실험을 들 수 있습니다.

현실의 집단적 창조라는 개념은 공유된 초개인적 정신 상태와 관련하여 논의됩니다.