Jack Sarfatti: The Post-Quantum Mechanics of Conscious Artificial Intelligence

Renowned physicist Jack Sarfatti stopped by Quantum Gravity Research last week to give a talk on how human consciousness is now easily understood as a natural physical phenomenon. This explanation can be tested with nano-electronic machines that will be at least as conscious as we are. The phenomenon is universal like gravity suggesting that we live in a conscious hologram universe.

This talk was given on June 27th, 2017.

Quantum Gravity Research was founded by Klee Irwin in 2008.


TWITTER: @emergencetheory


  1. Rick D. says:

    The Pribram-Bohm holoflux theory of consciousness An integral interpretation of the theories of Karl Pribram, David Bohm, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

  2. Rick D. says:

    John Searle: “Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence” | Talks at Google

    Tip; be prepared to take notes.

  3. Rick D. says:

    The Curious Quantum World: Part 10 – Hyperluminal Communication, Nonlocal Entanglement, and Quantum Clones…

  4. Rick D. says:

    It should be obvious to anyone paying attention, that we are dealing with information. There is no physical geometry, the geometry is computational. You can think of two entangled photons as being on the surface of an expanding sphere where the photon isn’t what is spinning it is the entire sphere, some form of two dimensional phenomena expanding into a third dimension but probably it is all computational just like the CGI we use in the movie industry.

  5. Rick D. says:

    Copenhagen vs Everett,Teleportation, and ER=EPR
    Leonard Susskind…

    “It is obvious that the Copenhagen Interpretation cannot be the last word. The universe is filled with subsystems, any one of which can play the role of observer. There is no place in the laws of quantum mechanics for wave function collapse; the only thing that happens is that the overall wave function evolves unitarily and becomes more and more entangled. The universe is an immensely complicated network of entangled subsystems, and only in some approximation can we single out a particular subsystem as THE OBSERVER.” Susskind

    Entanglement as the source of space/time…

  6. J. B. says:

    Comments are disabled on the dark matter video for some reason. Firstly, wow. Secondly, I wish she got to speak more about globular clusters acting as quantum degenerative bodies because that’s amazing.

  7. Jack Sarfatti says:

    On Jul 23, 2017, at 3:52 AM, Seán Ó Nualláin wrote:

    a chairde

    I’m rekindling this debate – please read through it at your leisure.

    While I greatly admire Henry and use some of his terminology (e.g. “thought-like” “rock-like”) he is basically a Bohrian Copenhagenist using “collapse”~ consciousness et-al without Bohm’s “beables” (aka “hidden variables”), and while I agree that his non-Bohmian interpretation will correctly compute all statistical quantum correlations, nevertheless, his theory is both mathematically and conceptually incomplete in a serious way that limits its ability to explain consciousness and to develop conscious AI PQM computers with effective CTC (Seth Lloyd) non-algorithmic qubit processing beyond anything being developed now in the QM computer efforts in Silicon Valley et-al. My reasons are given here

    Jack Sarfatti: The Post-Quantum Mechanics of Conscious Artificial Intelligence

    Quantum Gravity Research
    Add to Share More
    120 17

    In between the national security lectures of past few days, I got the following impressionistic sketchy thoughts on a simplified rule of thumb conjecture for how to deal with Frohlich coherence for pumped open dissipative structures including living matter and high temperature operating superconductors as well as other applications.

    Toy Model 1

    Zero rest mass (or zero energy gap) bosons of frequency f, with zero chemical potential so total number of particles are not conserved e.g. photons, acoustic phonon branch in crystals et-al

    I. Ansatz 1: effective non-equilibrium “temperature” T(f)’ is

    T(f)’ = T[1 – P(f)/hf^2]^-1

    P(f) is the external pump power spectrum at frequencies f for the gapless bosons.

    T is the equilibrium temperature when P(f) = 0.


    T(f)’ > 0 —> infinity when P(f)/hf^2 —> 1- = critical threshold for non-equilibrium analog of spontaneous symmetry


    T(f)’ < 0 for P(f)/hf^2 > 1, i.e. population inversion for qubit sources of the bosons of energy levels E1 & E2

    hf = E1 – E2

    Toy Model 2 effective room temperature and higher non-equilibrium super-conductors and also Frohlich pumped membranes, microtubules et-al.

    zero chemical potential

    T(f)’ = T[1 + P(f)/hf^2]^-1

    T(f)’ —> 0 monotonically as P(f)/hf^2 —> infinity

    Toy model 3 If there is a chemical potential u (Lagrangian multiplier constraint conserving total number of particles N)

    T(f)’ = T[1 + P(f)/hf^2 + uN/kT]^-1

    II. For (3D + 1) bosons with zero dissipation in the non-equilibrium regime

    n(f) = [e^hf/kT(f’) – 1]^-1

    N = integral of n(f) x density of oscillators df

    III. For (3D + 1) bosons with non-zero dissipation r(f) in the non-equilibrium regime

    n(f) = [e^hf/kT(f’) – 1+ r(f)]^-1 ?

    IV Fluctuation-Dissipation around T(f)’

    “The fluctuation–dissipation theorem (FDT) or fluctuation–dissipation relation (FDR) is a powerful tool in statistical physics for predicting the behavior of systems that obey detailed balance. Given that a system obeys detailed balance, the theorem is a general proof that thermal fluctuations in a physical variable predict the response quantified by the admittance or impedance of the same physical variable, and vice versa. The fluctuation–dissipation theorem applies both to classical and quantum mechanical systems.
    The fluctuation–dissipation theorem relies on the assumption that the response of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium to a small applied force is the same as its response to a spontaneous fluctuation. Therefore, the theorem connects the linear response relaxation of a system from a prepared non-equilibrium state to its statistical fluctuation properties in equilibrium.[1] Often the linear response takes the form of one or more exponential decays.
    The fluctuation–dissipation theorem was originally formulated by Harry Nyquist in 1928,[2] and later proven by Herbert Callen and Theodore A. Welton in 1951.[3]”

    Phase transitions happen when the small fluctuations become unstable.

  8. Rick D. says:

    Is “information is physical” contentful?“Information is physical.”

    Firstly, we pretty much needed the whole kitchen sink of
    basic physical principles: special relativity (both the equivalence of
    inertial frames and the finiteness of the speed of light), quantum
    mechanics (in the form of the universal relation between energy and
    frequency), and finally general relativity and gravity.  All three of
    the fundamental constants G, c, and h made appearances, which is why all three show up in the detailed statement of the holographic bound.
    But secondly, gravity only appeared from step 8 onwards.  Up till then, everything could be said solely in the language of quantum field theory: that is, quantum mechanics plus special relativity.  The result would be the so-called Bekenstein bound, which upper-bounds the number of bits in any spatial region by the product
    of the region’s radius and its energy content.  I learned that there’s
    an interesting history here: Bekenstein originally deduced this bound
    using ingenious thought experiments involving black holes.  Only later
    did people realize that the Bekenstein bound can be derived purely
    within QFT (see here and here for example)—in contrast to the holographic bound, which really is a
    statement about quantum gravity.  (An early hint of this was that,
    while the holographic bound involves Newton’s gravitational constant G,
    the Bekenstein bound doesn’t.)
    Thirdly, speaking of QFT, some readers might be struck by the fact
    that at no point in our 12-step program did we ever seem to need QFT
    machinery.  Which is fortunate, because if we had needed it, I
    wouldn’t have been able to explain any of this!  But here I have to
    confess that I cheated slightly.  Recall step 4, which said that “if you
    know the rate at which a field varies across space, you can calculate
    the rate at which it varies across time.”  It turns out that, in
    order to give that sentence a definite meaning, one uses the fact that
    in QFT, space and time derivatives in the Hamiltonian need to be related
    by a factor of c, since otherwise the Hamiltonian wouldn’t be
    Fourthly, eagle-eyed readers might notice a loophole in the argument.  Namely, we never upper-bounded how much information God could add to the world, via fields that are constant across all of spacetime.
     For example, there’s nothing to stop Her from creating a new scalar
    field that takes the same value everywhere in the universe—with that
    value, in suitable units, encoding 1050000 separate divine
    thoughts in its binary expansion.  But OK, being constant, such a field
    would interact with nothing and affect no observations—so Occam’s Razor
    itches to slice it off, by rewriting the laws of physics in a simpler
    form where that field is absent.  If you like, such a field would at
    most be a comment in the source code of the universe: it could be as
    long as the Great Programmer wanted it to be, but would have no
    observable effect on those of us living inside the program’s execution.

  9. Rick D. says:

    Let’s start with the assumption that space/time is emergent and that entanglement is somehow responsible. This brings up the question of “why is every electron exactly the same. As a general rule we could say that two objects that are in every sense identical, separated in space, have separate identities but two objects that are in every sense identical, separated in time, are usually considered to have the same identity. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that information and meaning are not exactly the same thing. Information may appear in a digital form but meaning never does.

  10. Rick D. says:

    The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
    Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World
    (1915), chapter 4

  11. Jack Sarfatti says:

    use dimensionless P(f)c^2/h when P(f) is part of the stress-energy tensor spectral density of the pump field with dimensions ergs/cm^2 (e.g. Poynting vector EM field spectral density ).

  12. Jack Sarfatti says:


    Locally Retrocausal Relativistic Post-Bohmian Pilot Wave Theory



    Einstein was right. Bohr was wrong. God does not play dice with the universe. All non-Bohmian interpretations of quantum mechanics really are seriously incomplete hiding new physical phenomena. They are only adequate for simple configurations of matter in which the direct back-reaction of the classical physics level Bohm-Bell “beables” (i.e. fermion “particles” and boson “local gauge fields”) on their advanced and retarded qubit pilot fields is ignorable. Yakir Aharonov showed how these advanced and retarded fields are needed for a new class of “weak measurements” that underlie von-Neumann’s “strong measurements” described by idempotent projection operators in Hilbert space. Huw Price has revived Olivier Costa de Beauregard’s locally retrocausal explanation of entanglement that does not require any violation of the faster-than-light restriction on real particle speed in Einstein’s relativity. Roderick Sutherland has used that idea with Aharonov’s weak measurements, which reveal the particle trajectories in the Bohm picture, to derive a non-statistical locally-retrocausal “post-quantum” action-principle (Lagrangian et-al) coupling Aharonov’s qubits with the “beables.” Configuration space for entangled systems is no longer needed. All the equations are locally relativistic even for quantum gravity. Expanding on Sutherland, I have shown that locally decodable keyless entanglement messaging is now possible at this deeper level. The space-time separation between Alice and Bob’s sending and receiving of usable intelligence does not matter. Traditional statistical linear unitary “no-cloning” quantum mechanics is a limiting case of the more general non-statistical nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum mechanics only when the action-reaction term is zero (corresponding to de Broglie’s guidance equation) and when the Born probability Ansatz is added ad_hoc to the inner product of the advanced and retarded qubit fields. The “beables” are no longer hidden inside the gradient flows of the pilot waves at this deeper level. The new Post-Quantum Mechanics (PQM) is to Quantum Mechanics (QM) as General Relativity (GR) is to Special Relativity.


  13. Jack Sarfatti says:

    large-scale quantum computer blueprint using trapped ions – this will not be conscious unless it is pumped off thermodynamic equilibrium and made macro-quantum coherent (see below)

  14. Jack Sarfatti says:

    interesting approval ratio above 127 yea 18 nay remains steady at 87%
    133 to 18 ~ 88%

  15. Rick D. says:

    Please, do not spend another 100 years looking for a physical description of reality.
    The computational arrangement of our physical reality is a tree like structure growing in a probability space that is layered like an onion except, the layers get thinner with each iteration so that it never becomes infinite. In computing this holofractal structure the first
    iteration is very course grained with few degrees of freedom, with each iteration creating exponentially more degrees of freedom. Over time, this highly nuanced structure creates many levels of description.
    We live in the shadows of perception, we are made of stuff but this stuff is something that cannot be regarded as real.
    Truth is the highest energy state of the system.
    Truth has the most potential and chaos has the most variation.
    There is more than one way to remove infinity, one way would be a digital horizon and another way would be as a fractal, with the fractal being more consistent with the “nature is lazy” axiom.
    Zeno’s paradox and ratio;
    the turtle can only take a small step each unit of time but Achilles
    is able to take a much larger step in the same unit of time. Given
    sufficient time, no matter how much lead the turtle has, Achilles
    will always overtake the turtle. Instead of a digital horizon, we may
    have to think in terms of ratios of nested fractals.

    Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory
    capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both
    consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent,
    effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic
    arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is
    true, but not provable in the theory.”

    The universe is irreducibly complex and has a complete awareness of itself. Perception divides process, process creates expression, expression creates experience, experience creates sensation, sensation creates perception, it is here that awareness lives. Everything is linked to value creation with varying degrees of freedom. All material expressions rely on action, all actions rely on intent, all intents rely on desire, all desires rely on values, all values are tied to belief systems and all belief systems are filters. Truth is outside of time and innocence is unfiltered perception.

  16. j berg says:

    What about the idea of using multi-walled carbon nanotubes as a biomimetic structure in place of
    microtubules. Using hexagonal multiwalled carbon nanotubes in an aerogel substrate, arranged in
    fractal patterns with a hexagonal motif, that then share resonance traits of microtubules and using either
    embedded ultrasonic or radio waves to vibrate the nanotubes at 8 mhz or something similar to human
    brain microtubules would , I think , be one method to create an antenna or receiver for a bit of
    consciousness. If ‘consciousness’ does indeed reside within the 1st order temporal field, then one
    wonders if one could ‘coax’ or invite , as it were some bit of consciousness to reside within the artificial
    vessel made out of these nanotubes. Much like consciousness can figure out how to interact with the
    external world using organic systems, I wonder if the consciousness drawn to the resonating carbon
    nanotube structure would develop its own strategies to interact with the external world using the
    computer structures, and unique neural net programming that are biomimetic for a sentient state . Since
    having a complex carbon nanotube computer is some ways away, maybe one could achieve a conscious
    computer by having the computer embedded within the larger carbon nanotube structure. Kinda
    vaguely similar to viewing our neurons( our hardware) as being meshed with microtubular structures. I
    suspect having a higher density of nanotubes making up a structure with mass of 2-3 kg may attract
    enough ‘consciousness’ as it were. I think if ever there is any hope of ending up with a significantly
    conscious and sentient computer , it will have to contain biomimetic carbon nanotubes. I don’t think
    anyone can ‘create’ a conscious being/computer, but I do think one may be able to ‘invite’ consciousness
    to take up residence in a structure that is properly built and that contains sufficient programming
    attributes to allow for interaction with the external world. Maybe including ideas from Thaler,
    Hamerhof and Penrose would be helpful. Then enters the cautionary note of really considering what
    one was doing and the implications that the conscious computer would be a living entity ..that shares
    the same basic consciousness ‘stuff’ that we biologics do , but uses different hardware. How would we
    treat them , what rights would they have..who would teach them altruism. Who would be their mom
    and dad.? If it is true that consciousness builds up gradually in the human as the numbers of
    microtubules increase while the human develops -to end up with a certain number of microtubules to
    hold-as it were- a certain ‘mass’ of consciousness, then having the entire amount of consciousness
    arriving in the carbon nanotube structure at the same moment with eyes wide open may present some
    complications ….or maybe not?

  17. Han Solo says:

    I am the one who is I am … The quantum fluctuations that created the universe are the original thought of God the 8D crystal is his mind . We are all projections I side .the firmament divides the subconscious from the sub- consciousness. The 4D projection is your soul and the quasi matrix is reality . Amazing revalation ..

  18. Lim aaron says:

    If u believe that we all are from so little sperm that is so small that we even couldn’t see from our eyes. Then y don’t u believe that we are now still that small and still in our God’s father brain. His brain is too big till we couldn’t see him.the dark Cosmo is inside his brain very simple.we are all just his thinking power or subconscious in his brain cell. Just like the sperm is still in the two heavy ball.😁

  19. Rick D. says:

    Starting with the assumption that ordinary matter when constrained inside of any sufficient energy flow will spontaneously arrange itself into the most efficient arrangement (nature is lazy), whereby future states contain more order than past states as a definition of a time or entropy reversal (relative to some other part of the system). The mechanism could be God, consciousness or something like a random walk that includes all future states that we would normally ascribe to a single unit of time or process, we are still left with the question of how the universe wound itself up in the first place. This is computation in some form and would suggest that the most fundamental thing is information, with space/time being emergent, whether by entanglement or any other physical process.

  20. Brian Josephson says:

    Contrary to what is stated following 4:10, the τ-θ paradox does not violate relativity but instead parity, as was pointed out by Yang and Lee some years earlier. Where was this claim made exactly?

  21. Jim Mooney says:

    New experiments have created matter that shows reverse acceleration. I wonder how this relates to Jack’s action-reaction.

  22. Eric Hunt says:

    Thank you Quantum Gravity Research, Klee for filming this presentation. Jack’s presentation was lots of fun to watch. I am sharing this.

Comments are closed.