This lecture was so wonderful. Wheeler is probably my academic hero, and his thoughts on the importance of measurement have occupied my mind for so long. I wish I had watched this years ago. I have so many new ideas now, this made so many things straight in my mind. Thank you so much for your irreversible act of amplifying Wheelers ideas!

Terribly impactful presentation that is deserving of a wide audience. Thank you to the speaker. 🙏

Heard her talking about this on a podcast the other day. Was very intrigued with what I heard and immediately ordered her book, _Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn._ Looking forward to reading it! Yeah, I think physics needs to face up to the role (and the reality) of consciousness in collapsing the wave function. Many of the most important founders of QM faced up to the obvious implications of the "measurement problem", but many of today's physicists would rather favor the Many Worlds Interpretation than acknowledge any of that consciousness " woo" (because MWI is so much less woo-ish, I guess).

I do see a simple "solution". We can all observe and set possibilities. That is, if I observe "spin up" and you observe "spin down", the alternative is identical, as in, it makes not physical difference the spin direction, but it does our correlation between them. As our correlation is a different physical interaction, we can have a nested observer setting some spin directions (cat alive or cat dead) while others are not set (the sum of observing the room with the scientist). As the scientist sets some spins, but not all, we should find a solution between us that agrees, even though some observations may not.

@45:55 aaaand we’re back to Hegel! Love it.

hola. totalmente de acuerdo

I don't see how there is a many-observer problem if it doesn't really make any difference with respect to the question of whether certain information is available. For instance, with a double slit experiment, a photon can be in a superposition of going through both slits and interfering with itself, unless the information is available that rules out the possibility that the photon went through the left or the right slit by virtue of a detector making that observation. You can have multiple detectors, presumably making independent observations of that same information regarding both possible paths of the photon, but it's kind of irrelevant with respect to the question whether the which-way information is available. It's not like you can have conflicting observations where one observer has which-way information that rules out self-interference while another observer doesn't have which-way information allowing for self-interference to be observed if both observers are interacting with the same proces of a single photon going through a double-slit.

The many observers are just one with many eyes.

If QM and Relativity have this deep connection of both being theories of relations, one wonders why they are -- so far -- immiscible.

If the Universe is both finite and infinite then you solve it with infinite replication or eternal recurrence, you can't have one observer without the concept of a fraction but you can have many observers as one observer and one observer as many observers. If you created a one observer Universe you would get a single dream that would have to wake up to this reality to believe that a single observer dream was less real and that this real dream of the many dreamers was more real which is why we dream. You can't have infinite without replication and you can't have replication without infinite, this Universe is based on the illusion of history happening for the first time for the observers but for the Universe it's happened for the infinite non time but you can't have one without the other but you must believe you can have one without the other by you believing you can separate yourself from the Universe to believe you exist for the first time, sorry folks the reality is you will all exist infinitely as belief of a first time.