Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism | The Knowledge Dynasty

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

Materialism has been dead for decades now and recent research only reconfirms this and goes even further, as this video will show. It ends with a brief intro…

25 Responses to Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

  • InspiringPhilosophy says:

    Great news! My video “Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism” now has ‘Chinese
    Simplified’ captioning. So you can send it to friends who speak Chinese.
    Check it out here: Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

  • InspiringPhilosophy says:

    Youtube made itself stupid over night!

  • The Realistic Nihilist says:

    I thought you were an objective idealist. 

  • Marko Ivančičević says:

    i would like you to clarify the ending about God’s observance.
    i would ask the question: “if God observes the universe, how can anything
    in the universe be in the state of wave function?”

  • Sturmwind says:

    This video is ok, until it completely breaks down at 10:15 and misuses
    somewhat the notion of Occam’s Razor. The same Occam’s Razor argument was
    once used against the idea of the Sun centred Solar system. By Occam’s
    Razor, the Copernican theory is multiplying space, the size of reality,
    without necessity. If Quantum mechanics is true, then the ‘Many Universes’
    necessarily exist. The Mathematics of Quantum Mechanics gives no
    alternative. See the linear superposition property of Quantum Mechanics.
    The multiverse only really involves those universes that are consistent
    with the laws of physics. This video contradicts itself, on one hand it
    acknowledges the Quantum superposition of living things and then at the
    same time completely disregards the fact that we, the observer, are also
    subject to Schrödinger’s equation. We have to apply linear superposition to
    ourselves as well as to electrons and atoms. But, from a personal point of
    view, it is great to see so many people naturally considering some form of
    higher consciousness. The discussion that these sort of videos encourage is
    great. You don’t have to fear the idea of ‘Many Universes’, it is not
    necessarily incompatible with the idea of God.

  • Ben says:

    So does this mean that humans create themselves since they are self aware?
    Or does our existence require a Higher Observer??

  • LaResistanceChannel says:

    What about a double aspect monism?

  • Jake Whitton says:

    5:01 “The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of the physical
    I disagree. It’s weird that they use the term “observe”, for that seems to
    entail a conscious entity who is doing the observing, but that it not how
    “observe” is being used here. Sean Carrol put it simplest when he said,
    “An observation is just when two quantum systems interact with each other”.
    It doesn’t require the existence of a conscious entity at all.

  • Mclinkin94 says:

    Why do you assume that there must be a conscious observer for wave
    collapse. There just has to be a measurement device!

    The measurement device isn’t conscious. 

  • PROdotes says:

    OK… while the first video in the playlist is just assumptions… This one
    actually gets the science wrong within the first 3 minutes… so i just
    kept scrolling through it and It does get a lot of stuff wrong… The most
    obvious one is that an object with sufficient “mass” will “collapse the
    wave function” by itself… an example would be… throwing tiny rocks at 2
    slits in a dark room with no “observer”… you will not get a wave
    pattern… I can’t go on watching if the video starts with a false
    presumption :)

  • Nowa says:

    Pseudoscience. Nothing to see here, move along.

  • julebakst says:

    This video got me angry at first, but now I’m just sad..

    It all went so well all until the very end of this vid, where you just had
    to mess it all up by pushing an agenda.

    Why could you not just be intellectually honest?? Why did you have to
    insert god of the gaps where our current understanding ends?

    Materialism debunked is not proof of a deity. I’m not saying theism is
    false, but it is far from the only explanation and I know you know it,
    because you seem educated.

    All I’m left with is the feeling that you really want to believe in God
    because that’s what you have been brought up to believe, and you are so
    afraid that he might not exist because it would shatter your world view and
    hurt your relationship with religious friends and family members. I am left
    with this feeling because you are trying too hard and it’s obvious.

    Relax. It is okay to not know, let’s push for more knowledge and let’s keep
    it honest. That’s how we make a better world.

  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) says:

    Stupid video. This is the kind of stuff that gives philosophy a bad name,
    when pseudo-intellectual internet philosophers talk about things they know
    nothing about. I’ll debunk the video for anyone interested in learning
    about this, because I too was fooled by people misrepresenting quantum
    mechanics years before I actually learned any physics beyond high school.
    Quantum mechanics is actually a lot more beautiful than these people make
    it out to be.

    1. “Observation” in quantum mechanics doesn’t mean the same thing as
    literally “looking at something”, it means “measurement”. That’s a common
    misconception. When physicists talk about “observation” they don’t mean it
    in a literal sense.

    Here’s the best analogy I can come up with to explain this: Imagine you’re
    doing an experiment on a classical object such as a ball, and you want to
    measure it’s position at some time and then it’s position again at another
    time. For macroscopic objects, you can do measurements that are gentle
    enough to not disturb the system and change it’s outcome. What you could do
    is just record the ball with a video camera and analyse the video to see
    it’s change in position. For this to happen, light has to be shining on the
    ball (otherwise you couldn’t see it), but the momentum of the light is so
    small that it has no measurable effect on the motion of the ball.

    Now, imagine that instead of recording it with a video camera, you decided
    to measure it’s position by throwing a brick at the ball and trying to hear
    where the sound of the collision of the brick with the ball is coming from,
    and then deduce where the position of the ball is from where that sound
    came from. This is an example of a measurement that is not gentle, it
    disturbs the system so much that it changes the outcome of the experiment.

    This is what almost all quantum mechanical measurements are like. Quantum
    mechanical systems are usually so fragile that even hitting it with a
    single photon will disturb the system, thus changing it’s outcome. But
    there *are* ways to measure a state without changing it’s outcome, look up
    the Elitzur-Vaidman experiment.

    2. Strictly speaking, wavefunctions are solutions to the Schrodinger
    equation, elements of the Hilbert space L^2 (functions that are square
    intergrable). What the wavefunction actually *means* in the real world is
    still deeply mysterious, the person who made this video basically took one
    interpretation of one interpretation of quantum mechanics (one way of
    looking at the copenhagen interpretation out of many) and tried to pass it
    off as scientific fact, even though he greatly misrepresented it.

    I don’t really like the many worlds interpretation, but it definitely
    doesn’t violate Occam’s razor. Mathematically, it’s the simplest
    interpretation by far, it gets rid of unnecessary postulates. The
    wavefunction collapse is one of those uncessecary postulates (or more
    specifically, the projection postulate, not necessarily the same as the
    wavefunction collapse), it can actually be taken out of quantum mechanics
    and you would still have the exact same mathematical framework. It is not a
    fundamental postulate, and it isn’t a postulate that can be proved using a
    fundamental postulate.

    3. The idea that concioussness is what causes the wavefunction to collapse
    (if it actually does collapse) is not taken seriously anymore. Some
    physicists in the early days of quantum mechanics (early 1900’s) were
    interested in it because they didn’t have the technology to see the effects
    of individual particles, so their measurements had to scale up to the
    macroscopic scale, which is why it might have seemed plausible to them. But
    today that’s not the case since we know that measurements on individual
    particles have the same effect.

    4. Please, someone explain to me how this in any way debunks “materialism”.
    While you’re at it, define what “materialism” is, I’ve never heard a
    precise definition of it that wasn’t vague. It seems to me that internet
    philosophers don’t want to say “I believe in magic without evidence”, so
    instead they say “I’m a non-materialist, and if you disagree with me then
    you’re just a filthy materialist”.

  • Sal C says:

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism: http://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM

  • Aeronor2001 says:

    I really liked the video. However, talk about Occam’s Razor, the last
    minute and a half of the video made so many giant assumptions.

    Why does human consciousness have to be a part of this at all? Couldn’t the
    geiger counter be considered an observer of the atom’s decay in the cat
    thought experiment? Couldn’t the measuring device measuring the electrons
    in the two-slit experiment be an observer in itself capable of collapsing
    the wave function? Going back to Occam’s Razor, a much much simpler
    explanation of all of this than throwing a heavenly being into the mix is
    that human consciousness is not a special circumstance, but that a
    multitude of quantum interactions can add up to collapse a wave function,
    hence why macro objects are not in superpositions; their atoms are
    “observing” each other.

  • T.W. Avent says:

    How would you respond to an article such as this one:

    That states consciousness is clearly a brain function, as OBEs are
    manipulatable, and other studies like it, I’m not disagree, just

  • Sean Cohron says:

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism: http://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM

    People who think, think God. Those who dont think and just except. Except
    anti-theism. Don’t let the lies of man and the devil take away what has
    been freely given to you. Know that slavation comes throught christ jesus
    because He alone gives righteousness with grace, based in the truth of God.
    Protected by faith-complete trust in someone(God)and a sword sharper than
    any other which is christ jesus. Who gives peace of mind when treading in
    the battle field. Then by prayer we stand and when we have done all to
    stand we stand therefore. For it is the power of the Lord and His strength
    we rely on not our own. Take up your armor and stand tall knowing that God
    in heaven looks down on you with joy wanting to know the soldier who stands
    for His Son. Forever Strong #soldiersofgrace 

  • Scot says:

    Do you believe in a loving, personal god?

  • TacticalSpectre says:

    So many butt #rekt atheists upset because their beliefs and dogmas are
    reaching a paradigm shift. It’s truly entertaining to watch them damage
    control all of their outdated or inconclusive “evidence” in order to keep
    up their guise as being “intelligent”. I predict egos will be crushed. 

  • SI Afghani says:

    This is video is so good for putting this information in context, something
    so few people do these days with scientific knowledge.

  • Jézusmária says:

    Wow. Consiously misinterperting almost every result just to add at the end:
    “Therefore God”. Nice.

  • Helvetica Neue says:

    I love how he handwaves Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation away by
    explaining it as superfluous When in fact, it’s the least superfluous
    conclusion to come to mathematically.

    So no, QM doesn’t disprove materialism, nor does it disprove realism. We’d
    need more data to come to either an idealist or a realist conclusion. Until
    then, I’ll stick with the theory based off mathematics, rather than the
    mathematics based off theory. 

  • redvaldez1990 says:

    The particles were there prior to your observation, The first part of you
    argument says that the double slit produces X pattern before observation
    and Y pattern after observation. If your first argument was correct, you
    would have no pattern prior to observation (which is paradoxical as you
    cant observe something that doesnt exist) and Y pattern after observation.
    Quantum mechanics doesnt say that you or a god created reality by observing
    (nothing apparently) but rather that reality is affected by our
    observation. You aren’t constantly creating electrons out of thin air (or
    space) when you observe them, you just change their properties due to your

  • RebelAngel Killer62 says:

    Right off the bat you know this video is bullshit, most modern physicists
    are materialists. This religious however to prove their is a god must
    somehow try to undermine this and this video is trying to do that. Maybe if
    this video were presented to the scientific community it could be taken
    seriously but we all know the religious fool that created this video can
    not prove what he is trying to imply so that will never happen. This video
    is bullshit.

  • Red Pill Philosophy says:

    To be honest, you screwed this video up when you threw in the stupid
    religious reference at the end. Don’t use quantum physics to prove —
    directly or indirectly — a religious worldview. Such a shame for such a
    great video, debunking the hell out of the dogma of materialism, to
    indirectly be supportive of the dogma of a popular religion.

Leave a Reply

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

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Follow us on Twitter