AI could prove that reality doesn’t exist, physicists say

[@dieresis9]

AI thinks, therefore I am not?

[@brb__bathroom]

I drink, therefore you're a figment of my imagination

[@ItsJADA]

Ooff

[@Ippogrifus]

Lol thats great

[@ticiusarakan]

yep, we all are some kinda programs)

[@nosuchthing8]

Nice summary

[@Cyberautist]

There is a story of Chinese philosophers who wanted to discuss on a conference whether the yellow river exists or not. They couldn’t continue the conference because the yellow river flooded their meeting rooms.

[@chomomma7403]

R kellys river?

[@frankkastanza1904]

​@@chomomma7403🤣😅🤣

[@circusOFprecision]

@@chomomma7403 were these Chinese philosophers 16?

[@chomomma7403]

@@circusOFprecision yes

[@Black-lq2pb]

doesnt matter, this is in fact a simulation

[@rdsmith8031]

"Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away," - Philip K. Dick

[@axle.student]

Is it still there when there are no humans to observe it?

[@cochlea2719]

@@axle.student Tricky. What's an observation and why humans? What about monkeys? what about birds? How much can we reduce the level of awareness necessary for an organism to be considered an "observer"? And how could we test that if not by observing the process behind the observation? Isn't such process in the end an organized exchange of energy? Is that's the case, maybe we could say that things are real for as long as they lose and/or gain energy.

[@axle.student]

@@cochlea2719 Is a rock an observer? Photons hit the rock and the rock is effected in some small way. What is real to the rock? What is the rocks reality? > Back to the OP: "Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" What does a monkey believe? What is "reality" to the monkey? Does the monkey "Believe"? Does a rock believe? > The concept of "reality" and real has been the subject of philosophical debate since the beginning of structured human thought. The concept of Real and Reality is a construct of the human mind, so if we have no human does this concept persist? What does "Real" mean to the universe? Is there even a universal notion of "real"? > The best answer that we have to these things is that we don't know. Or maybe even that the question "what is real?" is the wrong question to begin with :)

[@milanstevic8424]

@@cochlea2719 Sum it up to beings. It doesn't have to be humans. Anything that isn't a rock that will keep its momentum for quadrillions of years.

[@tedmoss]

@@axle.student No.

[@thirstyCactus]

first off, the phrase, "reality doesn't exist", has no meaning. "reality" is whatever "this" is, however one wishes to think about it. if we are living in a simulation on some kid's phone, it is still "reality." i just wasted some of my reality typing this message. i fight the power by not using capital letters.

[@Derrick-l8o]

But if we are hooked up to some computer and in a simulation this wouldn't be reality. That's like saying dreams are reality. No they are dreams

[@thirstyCactus]

@@Derrick-l8o Nah, dreams don't have consequences, therefore not real. If in this computer simulation, we actually die when we fall off out of a plane, then how is that not reality? If not, please define reality.

[@Derrick-l8o]

@@thirstyCactus Have you died yet? Because I have more then a few and I'm very alive. Don't believe everything you see. It's just the simulation trying to make you believe it's reality. And consequences happen because you create that yourself to try and like I said before believe this is real. It's not real

[@JBS2018]

@@Derrick-l8o Reality is relative to the observer. Regardless of whether or not this is a simulation, its still "reality" to those of us observing.

[@Derrick-l8o]

@@JBS2018 agreed

[@charlesbradshaw3281]

I read somewhere that "Reality is what you hit when you stumble around in the dark"

[@osmosisjones4912]

Realty is hits when get out of college . Every credible sources ever fact check doesn't support reality

[@tiefensucht]

Must have been dark matter that was moving towards him.

[@anmolagrawal5358]

wow, that actually sounds pretty clever

[@bartsanders1553]

You didn't define what dark is, so there is no darkness.

[@truthpopup]

I know, right? A stubbed toe is real enough for me.

[@fredred8298]

To be is to do - Socrates To do is to be - Sartre Do be do be do - Sinatra

[@UglyFaceOnAStick-iz8bt]

da da da ... Ich liebe dich du liebst mich nicht da da da

[@osmosisjones4912]

These were college educated and look social theories economics every time it was host on record being after reduction in carbon admissions and Increasing in government revenue with taxes breaks and Increased birth rates college education and realty are like oil and water

[@bilbobaggins5938]

Scooby dooby doo - Scooby Doo

[@AEVMU]

​@@osmosisjones4912speak english

[@dem8568]

Who says philosophy doesn't make progress?

[@JK_Vermont]

AI? Quantum computers? What, no fusion? These authors need to try harder!

[@ShadowGrimsy]

What did you think they were going to use to power the QC running the AI? :P

[@TylerAyyy]

@@ShadowGrimsy dark energy 😂😂

[@osmosisjones4912]

Reality never provides it's sources

[@CyberscapeCity]

All the science buzzwords: Lets create a Quantum AI powered fusion reactor using room temperature superconducting materials with hybrid solar cells built on top of the reactor

[@erickgomez7775]

They need to put the AI in a DeLorean going at 88 MPH

[@Chriliman]

I’d rephrase it to “reality doesn’t exist as we perceive it to exist” reality certainly exists, we’re just limited in how we can perceive it.

[@alfred-vz8ti]

not quite: reality exists as we perceive it to exist, and quite possibly exists even more.

[@WolfxxBite]

Thanks Donald Hoffman 😉

[@trlavalley9909]

I propose this experiment. The Univerity(s) should stop paying the authors of the paper; when they complain, it should be pointed out to them that their paychecks were not real to begin with, so there should be no harm in not paying them. Just mediate and manifest abundance.

[@Dion-fh1uc]

I ‘manifested’ a £2M lottery win in 3 months. I’m tempted to believe it was purely coincidental but speaking probabilistically I find it difficult to entirely dismiss the concept regardless of how preposterous it may appear. What causes me further pause is the shear number of videos on YT claiming the same thing by verifiable lottery winners, which is why I attempted the feat to begin with. (It took 98 lines giving a probability of approx 98 in around 45,000,000ish, or roughly 1 in 450,000)

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

@@trlavalley9909 it certainly would have drive away Einstein

[@cemacmillan]

Wait.. What if we go one step further than mediation, demand redress, settlement for all stakeholders? Can't we use this to return slightly more money than is being disputed? We'll start with your mediation. The employers can then, after all the pay is out there and spent, deny the reality of the checks, the workers the reality of their purchases, the vendors the realities of their orders to suppliers and so on, until it is some worker shouting at a bunch of raw materials all day long, who is actually paid in cold hard cash for their tough work keeping the economy going.

[@osmosisjones4912]

These were educated in college college education and reality are like oil and water . Look official government revenue when there more relax breaks look birth rates wheh abortion is outlawed look every year it was the hottest year on record. Always after carbon admission were reduced

[@MOSMASTERING]

​@@Dion-fh1ucI've been trying to manifest a lottery win since the 90s, but seeing as I never buy a ticket, I've made the quantum system a lot larger and therefore the probability is a lot harder to collapse in my favour.

[@davidbell4986]

My friend always told me "Two heads are better than one,,,Unless they/re both stupid, Then it gets worse".

[@michael1]

Why did he always say it? Did you keep forgetting it?

[@fredparkinson1289]

@@michael1 LOL! You're sharp as a tack.

[@jerrymiller276]

My brother and I used to have discussions as to whether two halfwits make a whole wit or a quarter wit. We felt it was the latter but couldn't think of an experiment that either of us would want to perform due to the likely higher than acceptible risk of catastrophe.

[@kingklank6732]

Two stupid heads are lesser than one.

[@Datamining101]

"A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain."-Heinlein

[@parrotraiser6541]

There was a faith healer from Deal, Who said "I know pain isn't real, But when I sit on a pin And it punctures my skin, I dislike what I fancy I feel."

[@terabeatnik2000]

That a good one :)

[@sgalla1328]

@@parrotraiser6541 He was using one of his 5 senses maybe the one who created the senses did so with the intent of controlling pir perceived reality ?

[@sgalla1328]

@@parrotraiser6541 When I was a child I was playing inside a large box near the road. ( Didn't say I was a bright kid 😁.) There was a small pinhole in the box facing the street. A car drove by and I saw the car reflected upside down inside of the box i was in , on the back wall of the box. It came in from the pinhole. I wondered if I was upside down and the car was right side up. Perception is in the eye. of the beholder. Of course later I found out this is a phenomenon of pinhole photography. But it stumped me as a child.

[@parrotraiser6541]

@@terabeatnik2000 I can't claim originality, but it seemed apropos.

[@philliprobinson7724]

Hi. Wasn't that an Edward Lear nonsense poem? Cheers, P.R.

[@orionspur]

"I'll be, therefore, you." -- Theme from Friends

[@Existidor.Serial137]

LOL

[@cheeks7050]

LOL

[@Freddisred]

And you'll be, therefore, me too.

[@drakonli]

Not bad!

[@zacharysherry2910]

Pretty good lol

[@curtisscott9251]

The biggest hurdle of quantum computing is how to "observe without observing." Honestly it's a conundrum that I'd rather not be entangled with.

[@LaplacianDalembertian]

+, I am thinking therefore I exist (c) DeCartes I am thinking, therefore I do not exist (c) AI 😄😸

[@quantum7145]

software hack is the only solution.

[@1112viggo]

Can't that be accomplished by simply letting Biden or his brain damaged rival take a look?

[@IamHumanWoman]

Your statement made me giggle. I liked that. Thanks.

[@FelixUnderdog]

Wonderful! But, can you please use proper grammar.

[@msromike123]

This explains why when I am doing woodworking, I can never be sure if my part will fit. The shelf is in superposition until I fit it into the closet shelf brackets.

[@garglebargle69]

And then it collapses

[@Abmotsad]

Does this also explain why plane geometry simply does not apply when the plane in question is sheet of plywood?

[@tlange5091]

Where it collapses from its superpostition into a super position

[@djimmy74]

I'm sure that as a wood worker you measure twice before you make the part? Hence the whole thing collapsed even before you put in the part

[@ieradossantos]

You don't observe reality, you project it

[@redred2772]

Im old enough to remember a time when I believed the internet would make the general public far more intelligent.

[@RTomassi]

As a result, you stopped existing altogether...

[@HermanVonPetri]

And the inventor of television believed it would be a tool to revolutionize education and allow everyone free schooling on any topic they desire. Instead we got Big Brother and The Kardashians.

[@JediYutu]

One would think having the sum total of human knowledge at one's literal fingertips, instead of well how we used to access knowledge (paper books libraries etc) would.... But instead it's exactly the opposite. Now there's something "real" for a study and paper.😂

[@nias2631]

Really, we just created more ways to access and manipulate a fundamentally intellectually lazy society with marketing.

[@redred2772]

@@RTomassi Then logically you are actually talking to yourself. Possibly your past self. Dont get married! Its a trap!

[@CertifiedClapaholic]

The push towards a nihilistic mindset is by design. It's a method made to make you question why you do anything at all, completely undermining your sense of self and sense of purpose. That is my theory, anyway.

[@livewithmeterandnomeasureb1679]

Me thinks you are right. Best have a strong sense of self if you can help it. Hope all is well. This bs is very frusturating to say the very least.

[@petewright4640]

Buddhism talks about the two extreme views: One is that phenomena exist independently (conventional view) and the other is that they don't exist at all or nihilism. Buddhism says that there is a third option and that is that all 'things' exist independence on other 'things' and that includes the observer.

[@petewright4640]

BTW. The 'self' is a good example of a non existent phenomena. It is a mental construct projected on ones own body and mind.

[@CarlosO.Santacruz]

@@petewright4640 Beg to differ (or may I elaborate, if you don't mind...?) Buddhism 'says' that the third option (or the 'Middle Way') is that all 'things' exist inter-dependently (inter-being) with each other (and this includes the observer). In other words, we (all 'things' in the universe) are inter-connected, (there is not anything that is not included) and all arise/ grow/ perish concurrently with each other, depending on each other, supporting each other. Air, water, nutrients, etc. provided by Mother Earth in the development/ evolution of the human species as well as the animal kingdom, vegetable, minerals, etc. This co-existence is beautifully illustrated in 'Indra's Net', where every node (intersection) in the net is occupied by a mirror-jewel which reflects each and every other node in the net, for all distance through the universe, without end... Namu Dai Bosa, Namu Dai Bosatsu! Cheers, massolrac 😃

[@IkeFromCN]

​@@livewithmeterandnomeasureb1679 You think Kant answered this question hundreds of years ago. The reality humans are trying to solve should NOT exclude humans themselves. Humans cannot understand the world through absolutely objectivity because we must use some theory to explain them. Those theory came up through human mind, hence not an absolutely objectivity. Science in the end is a set of lot theories that are the subject of human mind, it has its limits, and it is not objective. I think a lot of scientists forget this.

[@robertmudry4242]

The problem I have with Wigner, is that if his friend is in a superposition until she tells him, why is Wigner himself not in a superposition until he tells someone else what his friend told him? It all sounds like nonsense because it almost certainly is.

[@duprie37]

He is though. The superposition extends everywhere until it fills the whole universe: a Universal Wave Function. That's why you can never say for sure that a measurement has been made, there's always another detector for which the system is still superposed. Unless you believe in God, the superposition is interminable. At least that's the premise of the argument.

[@deathsinger1192]

@@duprie37 that's precisely why I believe in god, without god, there is nothing without one choosing to lie to themselves

[@john_hind]

@@deathsinger1192 I choose the simpler approach of just believing in reality. Less baggage!

[@JCurcio]

​@@deathsinger1192😅

[@deathsinger1192]

@@john_hind if all you believe in is reality you are functionally a nihilist because you don't believe in morals or any values

[@420Stoner66]

A wise old man once told me in the mirror, " Some believe what they want to believe, others believe what they have been told to believe. But the wise believe what they see before them". I argued with him that not everything we see may be reality, it could be just our own perception. Then I realised I had smoked way to much weed, and was talking with my own reflection... We are nothing more than a conscious mind rendering light and vibrations into sounds and imagery. The reality is, we are blind to reality.

[@luck484]

Be that as it may...Is it possible to probe, measure, model, comprehend or describe a reality which might be almost completely out of the realm of human perception and experience?

[@420Stoner66]

@@luck484 I think we can imagine, but our perception is biologically limited, and for good reason. life began on this planet by evolving a single DNA. All life forms evolved from this in our tree of life. Our DNA contains our blueprint to how we perceive and because we share the same source, humans along with all life that evolved from this source share the same base perception. We all see a tree as a tree and we all see a rock as a rock. Our consciousness however allows us to begin building layers of perception upon this base, giving us the ability to perceive individual versions of perception. Religion is a great example of a layer of perception. The "good reason" for this limit of perception is evolutionary in nature. Life may not be able to survive if it had no limits. We see what we need to see to function. The best example I can think of is the atmosphere that surrounds us. We can feel it ,smell it but not see it. Why? Imagine if you could see it, you would not be able to see much more. Because of this, I do not think we can measure "actual" reality beyond hypothesising. There is a window however we can create. A.I does not have the biological constraints we do. But in its current form, it cannot see anything more than us because all in knows is what we are teaching it. In a way, we are passing our own constraints onto it. If we ever decide to untether A.I and allow it to think beyond our own capability, it may very well be able to see beyond what we can. The question will come however, would we be able to understand what it tries to tell us? And do we really want to open "actual" reality? Like I said, we are limited for a reason.

[@CaptainSeamus]

"Can you have an existential crisis if reality doesn't exist?" - Probably one of the best questions I've heard in a long, long time.

[@TGBurgerGaming]

Only if you want an answer.

[@Stoicmuslimah]

Yes, because we still exist in some figment of reality. And in our reality we do exist, regardless.

[@mickdood4780]

Of course because the two represent different ideas of the definition of reality. In 1 you’re having an existential crisis, & in one you’re not. And there’s only one scenario where it matters. Your reality. So yes it’s possible but the question is does you experiencing it mean it exists therefore it’s the only possible reality.

[@taylorfrancis9403]

Someone can but this is 2024 everyone believes everything now anyways. Most people believe In aliens and would be bored of them being brought to light at this point. Even if you see the math it’s hard to believe where in a sim but facts are we are almost guaranteed to be in one. Not a big deal man and it doesn’t make reality fake.

[@dbfzato-1327]

Thats what will send the quantum ai on it's path lol

[@BarryKort]

It occurs to me that the most plausible deduction is that we cannot always know reality. Not every mystery is resolvable. There are just some things that we can never know. Every time we learn something we didn't know before, a new mystery inevitably comes along.

[@mysticone1798]

The more answers we find, the more difficult the questions become.

[@rbaxter286]

Funny how the only thing that is known to exist inside those gaps are the myriad of Gods that Man has invented, instead of the billions of Men that the Gods have invented?

[@osmosisjones4912]

You want stick cult of source's not reality

[@apexapey]

"All of Lifes most important answers must be formed as questions" -Alex Trebek

[@baribari1000]

wait... that verified badge is real. how?

[@caseytaylor1487]

Underrated sardonic quote: "Can you have an existential crisis if reality doesn't exist?"

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes😂🤣

[@the_indicted]

I would be appropriated to have one, at least.

[@TheKingWhoWins]

That is some existential dread if I've ever heard it

[@rcnelson]

That would indeed be the ultimate existential crisis.

[@takanara7]

apparently: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eamyfqGFbrigr68si=5VSRrdSj9XrUlmoV&t=1008

[@Oxxyjoe]

9 out of 10 AI dentists say that toothpaste is not real tasty

[@th3dudeabides1]

Here's the a priori, in order to take any measurement, reality must exist. Can't make measurements without reality. Measurements don't exist if reality doesn't exist

[@alieninmybeverage]

Philosophers trying to do science is somehow less embarrassing than scientists trying to do philosophy.

[@TheDotBot]

Harald Lesch might want a word.

[@garglebargle69]

Most are neither but think they can do both

[@Abmotsad]

I agree that it is difficult to decide, but as a person with degrees in both Physics and Philosophy, I can tell you it's a pretty close call.

[@bobaldo2339]

Amen! Physicists are much more likely to swallow whole the metaphysical presumptions built into everyday language than are philosophers.

[@danielmabella]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqW4eWywlLSYr5osi=faScYfBm2-_k48C8 What else is there to say…

[@russell_rozenbaum]

All is good until your friend lies to you and sends you down a separate path of reality

[@anonymouslyphantomwarrior6787]

LoL !

[@HupfderFloh]

This reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Anathem

[@pinkfongbabyshark-kidssong8533]

Damn that good, how the hell did u come up with it?

[@sangeet9100]

whether your friend measured it OR lied about the outcome of the result the reality was always there and doesn't change - your knowledge about it is all that changed

[@davejacob5208]

that actually points to the issue that "a friend tells me what they saw" is definitely not a reliable "measurement", if it is one, therefore it is very unlikely that it can prove anything...

[@gavinreid9184]

In basic maths we are taught if our attempt at a proof ends with 1=2 then our proof is wrong. This sounds like a very similar proposition.

[@alfred3496]

eghh, could be two things I think. 1) Your proof is wrong (i.e. your conclusion does not follow from your premises) -> you made a mistake along the way 2) One or more of your premises is contradictory -> all the steps you made in your proof were correct but since the premises are contradictory, the proof is not in any way useful.

[@barrerasciencelabuniverse6606]

Exactly.

[@andresbriones8054]

What they prove is not that reality doesn't exist, just that reality is something else of what we think it is.... totally different from contradiction

[@barrerasciencelabuniverse6606]

@@andresbriones8054 Make people sleep better on nights,..

[@altrag]

It's not "wrong", it's just that they're using a non-colloquial definition of "reality". To continue your analogy, it'd be like doing your proof within a framework you construct for the sole purpose of proving 1=2, and then claiming that 1=2. You're not _wrong,_ because you defined things in a way where your proof works. It's just highly questionable whether your proof is useful outside of your little constructed framework. And sometimes it does end up being useful. Maybe not 1=2 specifically, but there are a few things (in math) that are generally regarded as "impossible" but can be given valid definitions within specific frameworks, such as dividing by zero, and those frameworks then find real use in some obscure branch of math or science. From what I gather (and to be clear, I'm only going by Sabine's summary so massive grain of salt here) it sounds like "reality doesn't exist" is a somewhat hyperbolic clickbaity interpretation and it should be more like "reality is relative in some new way", which is a far less shocking take given what we already know from special and general relativity.

[@realsatoshihashimoto]

When Dr. Johnson, the author of the first English dictionary, was told of the theory that the material world did not really exist, he kicked a rock and said, "I refute it thusly!" If only most modern physicists showed as much common sense as Dr. Johnson.

[@thebaryonacousticoscillati5679]

Well, complete misunderstanding of a philosophical position for a soundbite hardly counts as common sense in my book.

[@vasilyp]

"If your theory implies that reality does not exist, then MAYBE there is something wrong with your theory!" BRILLIANT 😄😄

[@Thomas-gk42]

"...maybe, JUST maybe.." she's really cute and fabulous

[@arturaslusnikovas8173]

@@Thomas-gk42 "... no because your theory doesn't exist as well" :)

[@jorgepeterbarton]

when most physicists have ditched ontological Realism anyway, I'm not sure what a theory that shows nothing exists would REALLY say - perhaps its ontologically homologous to something else and defines an unknowable noumena that is both there and isn't at once. I have a headache now.

[@Cryptonymicus]

Or maybe reality just isn't what you want it to be.

[@xFlRSTx]

thats exactly what a not real reality would say

[@1ApeinSpace]

Reality is, no matter the AI or Quantum computers garbage in garbage out.

[@osmosisjones4912]

You mean college education

[@theorenhobart]

GIGO = 1st law of computing. from waaaaay back

[@richardchapman1592]

@@theorenhobart Get In Get Out usually enhanced by quick to make new computer systems crash faster with no comeback on the cowboy software engineer.

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

Reality is what exists. If reality does not exist, nothing exists.

[@Ippogrifus]

From what i get reality is mean as the material world as we are used to see it?

[@SolidSiren]

​@@Ippogrifus No, reality IS reality. If it is a fact that the universe we see isn't objectively how it appears, that just means reality is that reality, not that it doesn't exist

[@thudthud5423]

If reality doesn't exist, then experiments and papers supposedly disproving reality's existence...don't exist.

[@cvabds]

Please try to study and understand locality

[@osmosisjones4912]

Please provide your sources 😅😅😅 . And no reality is for conspiracy theorist.

[@JosephLMcCord]

As I was going to Lawrence Livermore, I met a physicist with seven friends. Each friend had seven cats; each cat had seven quarks; each quark had seven states. States, quarks, cats, and friends - how many were there going to Lawrence Livermore, in the end?

[@gristly_knuckle]

You could have at least tole me ahead of time that Maxwell’s humble equations were wyrd but not even Shrodinger, before I contemplated the wonder of the old and outdated.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Sounds like an article for the "Journal of Irreproducible Results".

[@absolutmauser]

I cant believe someone published this paper

[@TheDotBot]

@@absolutmauser To be fair though, some periodicals like to include a crazy contribution in each issue for light relief.

[@Feefa99]

Butlerian Jihad is ready

[@The_Reality_Filter]

@@TheDotBot Err, no they don't.

[@compphys]

They published Mein Kampf (changed to use the specific 'scientific' language) as scientific, so....

[@thudthud5423]

The paper doesn't exist. You could show me the website with it, print in out and put it in my lap, read it to me out loud a million times, but that would not prove it exists. You could tattoo it to my eyeballs, but that would not prove it exists. I'm sorry...I think I'm using their logic.

[@LNSY144]

I am reminded of Percival Lowell, who saw canals on Mars. He could replicate his findings -- every time he looked in the telescope he saw the veins of his eyes reflected back, and assumed it was on Mars. This paper is the result of scientists trapped in the maze of their own instrumentation

[@collin4555]

The vein explanation is speculative, when he could have and more likely did just misinterpret the geography of mars. At least we got the Lowell Observatory out of him, in any case

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

It was not his eye veins. Some could reproduce his maps, some had differing results, and others never saw any Canali. Pareidolia, or so, it most probably was. Mass hystery has also been suggested, but others find this an oversimplification.

[@robo5013]

@@collin4555 And the John Carter from Mars (Barsoom) stories.

[@kevinvanhorn2193]

That's not replication. Replication means some independent research group with separate facilities getting the same results.

[@Chrisbajs]

No wave collapse -> no measurement. So why do people find the double slit experiment so weird? When you measure a photon, it's a particle, because the photon itself hits a detector (a retina or a film). In the same instant you "observe" it, you interact with it. You measure it. So the wave has to collapse. I don't understand why the double slit experiment is so shrouded in mystery.

[@MemoriesLP]

Isnt it because if you dont measure, it hits a different location?

[@Chrisbajs]

@@MemoriesLP How can you know if it hits a different location if you don't measure it?

[@MemoriesLP]

@@Chrisbajs maybe Im confusing stuff But by mesurement I mean when we look at it. I remember that with measurement, they would hit an intended location. Without measurument, it hits different locations. (Or it is the other way around)

[@xfirehurican]

The *probability* that these characters are a) on a fat grant, or b) fully tenured, or c) seeking relevance IS measurable.

[@osmosisjones4912]

The point of education is not function in reality. Just like therapy

[@Tailspin80]

The market economy has decided it needs these questions asked. Maybe it’s a market failure?

[@richardchapman1592]

@@xfirehurican would suggest that they are collecting our feedback as data to be sold for later analysis of AI networks designed to be more effective at imitating humans.

[@luck484]

@@Tailspin80 It feels more like a market success and a market that begs for a virtual currency to enumerate transactions.

[@FenrirKi]

What does one subatomic particle say to another? It says: "Hey, have you seen those human beings? They are physically defined in time and space with absolute values! That goes against any kind of intuition and reality!"

[@Rocksite1]

In "Creator," Mariel Hemingway's character got fed up with some of this, and she challenged: "Try assuming you don't exist, and see where that gets you!"

[@videogamesruinedmylife3769]

A while back I was experimenting with suno AI and instructed it to write pieces that sound closely to beethoven, vivaldi, mozart and bach. the results were astounding and some of the music even nearly made me cry. It made me realize that everything built in the universe is just mathematics and vibrations.

[@TorchAnalytica]

The fact that they don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[@MrAntup]

The fact they understand it doesn't mean it exists.

[@omerhechter5895]

it all comes down to how people don't understand a Quantum process doesn't exist in our reality, but an imagined "ghost" reality. then they try to make the ghost real, which gives insane conclusions

[@altrag]

@@omerhechter5895 > then they try to make the ghost real, The "ghost" _is_ real. We can (and have) done counltess experiments to verify it. The problem is that the "ghost" doesn't make any fricken sense to our very-not-quantum intuition and we struggle to handle that inability, so we grasp at any conclusions we can find - sane or otherwise - to try and bridge that gap. The Copenhagen interpretation is also "insane". So is many worlds. Hell "fields" as a concept is pretty damned weird. They've all been around so long that we just accept them these days but they were at the time, and still are for anyone who stops to think about them, pretty wild in comparison to the classical mechanics our intuition has evolved to recognize and understand. Yet it works. The device you're using to read this message would not function without quantum mechanics. The ghost is real. We can see its effects. We can even control it in some limited ways with our devices (such as making it emit photons of the right wavelength in the right place to form an image behind a piece of glass). But we still can't "see" it - we don't know what it really looks like in any meaningful way. And we really, really want to know what it looks like, so we come up with tools and concepts for ways we might get a glimpse. Sane ideas don't seem to cut it - almost everything we might consider "sane" is rooted in classical mechanics after all - so we're stuck giving the insane ideas a shot. Maybe one of them will work. Or maybe not. But not even bothering to try isn't really within human nature. We always want to know.

[@JacquiMcCarron21]

You’ve never experienced Mandela effects have you? Lol

[@davidhume5399]

Many people who don't understand something pretend it doesn't exist.

[@joefresh3725]

so......... do I still have to go to work tomorrow?

[@lilburntcrust]

Beeeuuuhhhhh

[@a6hiji7]

No, it's a weekend.

[@JCurcio]

Have to? No. There may be consequences.

[@camelCased]

Yes. Reality does not exist, but work exists. No escape. No superposition. Unless you are the boss. Then you are in the superior position.

[@goodfortunetoyou]

Yes, you do. As an entity composed of non-real physical material bound to obey physical laws, you can only do that which is fated to occur tomorrow. If your fate is to work (and you know if this is the case), the answer is yes. If not, then no.

[@prettyfast-original]

5:15 You do need something more than a detector to make a measurement, you need an observer. Otherwise, the detector becomes entangled into a superposition of two or more different outcomes. Indeed the observer becomes entangled too, however the outcomes the observer cannot observe become meaningless to him and therefore the measurement he has is valid and real.

[@Existidor.Serial137]

you dont need an observer. This has been proven over and over! Consciousness has nothing to do with the wave function collapse.

[@WarrenLacefield]

Actually, that sort of makes "measurement" and "entanglement" synonymous with "experience." Apparently, the result has to be a "memory." Otherwise there would be no "sound" when the tree fell in the forest.

[@chrishalle1982]

The detector interacts with the particle to measure it. Thats why the Superposition collapses. So every particle interacting with another is a detector or a measurement

[@itap8880]

But if you have two particles in their own superpositions, you can have them interact in only some of the possible states. Then you have two particles that both have interacted and have not interacted. Not to mention situations where a particle seems to interact with itself as if it were two.

[@Violet-fe8cy]

So, as you say, they are basically proposing that you can use quantum computers to explore if there is a certain threshold of system complexity that can be put into superposition. Why do you call it "nonsense" rather than just "poorly explained"? The reason they say you need intelligence to make a measurement is that they are testing the hypothesis that a measurement is definable as "something that provides information about the state of the world", but in order for information to have meaning it has to be interpreted by an intelligent system. By the way, contempt is a cognitive distortion designed to scare people away from taking an idea seriously. If you are rejecting an idea because it sounds nonsensical to you, rather than because you can pinpoint the underlying error in the reasoning, chances are that you cannot pinpoint the error in the reasoning; you are simply threatened by the idea and therefore using contempt to inflate the perceived merit of dismissing it. You are an honest person so I don't think you are doing this deliberately, but I hope you stop because it leads to major blind spots in your thinking. You couldn't even see why, by some very parsimonious definitions of a measurement, it is reasonable to say you need intelligence to make a measurement!

[@osmosisjones4912]

These were college educated and just realty contradicts their college education reality can't be real

[@Mansplainer2099-jy8ps]

_" but in order for information to have meaning it has to be interpreted by an intelligent system"_ That's not how meaning works though. If we die out and decades later aliens come down they can still figure out English from studying books and read a Superman comic. And scientists figure things out by looking at patterns as old as the dinosaurs. In other words, clues remain clues whether detectives exist or not.

[@marcoac-sx6lq]

The comment I was waiting for

[@NickyD-99]

When you told Michu "that's because you believe that math is real" for me that was the best science moment this decade.

[@johnblackledge4009]

I'm sorry I missed that. He needed telling.

[@NickyD-99]

@@johnblackledge4009 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWScnJmorbSGfsksi=G15bA7iCEGLaNz1a&t=2010

[@VicMikesvideodiary]

Math is real. That is, the foundation of math is real, and math does build the universe. That includes fantasy as well.

[@NickyD-99]

@@VicMikesvideodiary Math is our attempt to translate what already happens into something we can understand. It's as real as French.

[@VicMikesvideodiary]

@@NickyD-99 Absolutely wrong, and completely backwards. Our attempt to understand what really happens only becomes fully understood when we see the math. Which is why all of physics goes hand in hand with math. French is a made up language. Math is absolute. I'm guessing you've never really studied geometry and have noted what the "line" does and how "PERFECT" it all is when combined with a "perfect circle". It's absolutely flawless. I'll give you another example. Energy is essentially mass times velocity squared. The form of the square is MATH. You're confusing man made symbols of math with the foundation of math. If math were the product of this chaotic universe - and not the other way around, there would be flaws where I noted. And there are none.

[@lukeclayton7578]

This just sounds like a justification for a paycheck.

[@mobilephil244]

Publishing papers is how people who publish papers for a living make a living.

[@E.Hunter.Esquire]

@@lukeclayton7578 so does this video, tbh

[@ColbyAzimuth]

When I step out of a big box store and face a giant parking lot where I lost track of my car, WHERE IS IT LOCATED? There is actually a probability function spread across the entire parking lot, where the chances are lesser and greater depending on my memory and my incomplete observations. In the handicapped spaces, I know the probability function is very low, and in the first 3 rows of cars to the left, the function is higher, kind of like a tidal wave of probabilities spread across the entire parking lot with a total volume of 1.0. Once I see a car that looks like mine, the probability function collapses into that parking space with a probability of 0.95, and once I verify that my key actually works, it becomes fully 1.0, with no more probabilities anywhere else. THIS IS NOT A FEATURE of the car or of the parking lot or of my eyeball measurement devices. This is a feature of my uncertain mind, trying to perceive more clearly towards a conclusive answer. In reality, the car actually existed only in one location and only one state the entire time, and it was my mind that imagined spreading it's "likely position" across the parking lot with some best guesses. My measuring instrument was not quite clear and accurate enough, so I fabricated the idea of a probability wave just as a mental exercise, a helpful imaginary tool. The probability function only exists as a thinking aid, "as if" there was a wave of numbers covering the parking lot. It's just a model, you guys. It does not mean my car was actually in fragments all over the parking lot, and magically resolved itself only when observed. It's the mental model that resolved itself, the measurement uncertainties.

[@CarlosO.Santacruz]

Very admirable reasoning... I just try to remember where I parked my car before entering the store (usually I remember, but now that I am getting older, it's not so dependable...) Cheers, massolrac 😃

[@botboy0]

Isnt that just superdetermisnm?

[@quantum7145]

that is just 100% using imagination to imagine a possibility and it is so imagination was the start of the creation of the "universe".

[@SalvableRuin]

We've gone from the self-evident "I think, therefore I am" to the delusion "I think I am not, but I still want to let everyone else who also doesn't exist know about it because I'm an idiot."

[@prosamis]

"I think, therefore I am" is not self evident

[@RolandHuettmann]

No, it should have been "I am, therefore I think".😮

[@paulinebell4873]

its a failure to discern between actual reality and the perception of reality

[@TranscendentBen]

"I must publish this to advance my nonexistent career."

[@plethoradulcet]

"I think, therefore I am" is also delusion if you're schizophrenic or..... BUFFER TIME..... ..... .... YEAH ..... transgender

[@sunalwaysshinesonTVs]

The joke's on Sabine. That paper doesnt exist.

[@tja4379]

you wanna say the paper is reality?

[@scottcooper7586]

Nor this video-what are you commenting on?

[@TheMelnTeam]

@@scottcooper7586 Was never a comment in the first place.

[@NiToNi2002]

•

[@oljobo]

The joke is on you, because Sabine doesn't exist 😊… Unless, you don't exist either, then the joke is on me… Unless… 😱

[@AlEcyler]

I'd love more on this. The nature of measurements has had me curious for quite some time.

[@muleface1066]

"Trying to prove..." They're off to a bad start already. I suspect their main objective is being published.

[@sergekotlyarov]

Thank you Sabine! I think there is a common misunderstanding of the difference between reality and perception of reality by our consciousness. The first one exists regardless of our observation. The second one is a result of evolution and doesn't need to be accurate - its goal is not to observe the real world but help our genes to survive and spread. And yes, we know that our perception of the world is not veridical. For example, we don't see a blind spot in our retina - our consciousness is "rendering" what we don't see for us. The question is how far apart is reality and our perception of it. Probably, more than we think today.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

Reality, what a concept. More people need to engage with it.

[@Viky.A.V.]

"...progress in physics - making insane ideas even more insane" -- lol, that was good =D

[@ChristianIce]

Well, there are people who think that text prediction can become magically sentient. This is worse, but not that far apart.

[@MarmaLloyd]

AI is nothing but a buzzword. Most current 'ai' programs were written in the 80's. We just didn't think they would have access to such a big database

[@ColbyAzimuth]

Well, there are schools that teach that memorizing texts by rote can make one magically knowledgeable. This is worse, but not that far apart.

[@camelCased]

We'll have to wait a bit until they become not only text prediction but also action prediction, emotion prediction, and whatnot. "Not much" is needed for it, "just" constant learning, long-term memory, internal feedback for self-criticism and self-reflection, a constant stream of audiovisual and sensory data from the real world, including pain (don't put your robotic arms into the fire!) and rewards (hm, what would a robot like?), and voila! we got a really smart cookie. That makes me think ... wait, aren't we, humans, also just "prediction machines" trying to come up with our next action (including our own thoughts and speech) based on all the information from all the sensory input that we accumulate in both short and long term memory? And, of course, that consciousness problem, which still cannot be explained. Is it just the result of the "strange loop" (from the awesome book "I am a strange loop") or something more? Who knows. AI don't.

[@ImperativeGames]

Well, there are people who think that biological organisms reacting to stimulus somehow became sentient. What I'm trying to say, intelligence is an emergent entity.

[@aheendwhz1]

I don't think current LLMs are going to become anything we'd describe as "sentient" any time soon. But whether they might one day depends on your definition of "sentient". And finding a good one is really tough.

[@cameronb851]

Lol. "It's like Schrödinger's Cat, but with less fur and more lab coats." Great commentary video, as always Sabine.

[@ErnestLordGoring]

I would have thought the main problem with Wigner’s friend is finding a Physicist with a friend in a nonexistent reality /s

[@martinstent5339]

The ultimate oxymoron "Reality doesn't exist".

[@luck484]

I wouldn't say ultimate, but certainly an oxymoron. I also like "It's the exception that proves the rule" because it sounds "sciencey."

[@byrnedhead]

04:42 my favorite words in any scientific activity, "assume human-level artificial intelligence"

[@E.Hunter.Esquire]

@@byrnedhead so, dumber than current LLMs

[@trustedsource2617]

I guess I can stop worrying about global warming, the next pandemic, AGI, etc., if reality does not exist. I feel better already.

[@tja4379]

you can do that already considering "free will" is not compatible with quantum mechanics and many other scientific theories already

[@BigFruity]

Except, oh wait, you still exist and nothing has changed.

[@bjb7587]

That will be $25, plus 20% service charge. Have a nice day. Oh, I see you already are. How nice for you.

[@JimmyMon666]

I don't worry about those things even though I do believe in reality. Why worry about things you cannot change?

[@Bryan-Hensley]

Have you studied the atom? The atom is the foundation of our reality. Do you need to explain? Or are you intelligent enough to understand?

[@marcobiagini1878]

My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physcist. I would like to explain why Sabine is wrong at minute 6:00 when she talks about the possibility to solve the measurement problem. I also want to explan the correct solution of Wigner's friend problem and why, contrary to what Sabine says in the video, the idea that the collappse of the wave-function is caused by a measurement device is logically inconsistent. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The point is that any measurement device and all the interactions involved by the measurement device are described by the Schrodinger equation. Therefore a measurement device cannot cause the collapse of the wave function. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process. This solves the Wigner friend problem, because the Schrodinger equation does not describe the human mind, and therefore does not describe the "device + Wigner friend" system. This means that there is no possible superposition involving the mind of Wigner's friend. The mistake is trying to apply the Schrodinger equation to describe a system involving a human mind. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience); the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism. In my youtube chanel you can find a video about the unphysical nature of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@nashaut7635]

Thanks a lot for that explanation - I think I understood what you wrote (hopefully). Would that be the same as saying what the scientists concluded (or are trying to demonstrate) is like trying to prove there can be no winner or loser at the roulette since the game is described by a set of rules and the outcome is a superposition of all possibilities, so no two gambler would be able to agree if they won or lose? (I'm not sure I chose the right analogy to make the point though :D )

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@nashaut7635 I don't think that it's the right analogy

[@requiemphoenix2891]

If I understand that correctly, what you describe is indistinguishable from the concept of a simulated universe that is actively managed. Correct me if I am wrong. Maybe I missed or misunderstood something, but the point about that idealism contradicts the personal belief of most physicists, is in itself a personal belief or isn't it? How can something objectively, if there is only a God given illusion about the universe in our minds?

[@p39483]

​@@requiemphoenix2891I think it is the simulation hypothesis which Sabine has come out against saying it's unfalsifiable. But reality being unfalsifiable is also an argument that reality is simulatable. If reality is even simulatabe then wffs in the simulator must obey Godel incompleteness. Physical reality is then the subset of provable wffs within this reality. If something can not come to be through physical rules then it cannot physically exist. An experiment is an arrangement of physical rules that result in a constructible wff, which is isomorphic to an existence proof. If a wff cannot be constructed then it isn't physical even though the wff may actually be true. Some things which do exist, such as consciousness, appear to be unconstructible from physical rules. They may exist as true wffs despite being physically unprovable, meaning no arrangement of physical rules can construct them. OTOH the collapse of the wave function may be simply filling in a proof for a simulator wff which is actually is provable. Somehow the wff comes to be with missing steps, such as a circle without a diameter, and becomes real once the entire simulation proof is constructed. All unfalsifiable, I know.

[@xxlvulkann6743]

I generally agree but I think there is an overemphasis on humanity and God in this interpretation. I do think that consciousness is important to resolving the measurement problem but I lean more towards a simulation hypothesis wherein objects are only realized when observed in order to save compute (or some other reason). Otherwise, events are computed probabilistically.

[@deadcell8081]

I have an existential crisis at least once a week, therefore reality exists.

[@HAMETE]

"That's what they call progress in physics nowadays. Making insane ideas even more insane" 😂🤣

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes, she's hilarious 😅

[@anywallsocket]

When you force every buzzword you can imagine into a single publication 😂

[@sluggo206]

"I think this is nonsense." --Devastating Sabine quote of the year.

[@LoveToRelax]

I think I'll actually put this on a bumper sticker.

[@CartoType]

That is a signal of one of the main weaknesses of Ms Hossenfelder’s approach.

[@vkpc1]

Sabine is clearly wrong and outdated in her quantum thinking

[@quantum7145]

All this will prove is that superposition is just imagination and imagination is not reality until an action occurs. Imagine imagining that a cat is dead and alive until you open the box in this case the measurement is the action which cements the outcome of the reality .

[@jussiniemi9560]

In a quantum sense there is no objective reality. But that doesn't mean anything to us because we all experience reality subjectively anyway.

[@jocr1971]

but it is objectively experienced subjectively

[@achangyw]

Correct absolutely.

[@youngwillis63]

Wouldn't this mean that reality probabilistic. The range of outcomes and their likely hood of occurrence is reality?

[@paulpvhl1930]

Just want to say Sabine that I greatly appreciate the humour contained in your videos. It is so often used to highlight how ridiculous an argument is in a manner understood by those who are not expert in the field. Thank you.

[@brendanmoore8159]

The idiom "have your cake and eat it too", should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too"...

[@innocentsmith6091]

That is what it means, but if you really want to make it less ambiguous replace "have" with "keep."

[@patrickday4206]

@@innocentsmith6091 i have cake regularly delicious. It should say you can't save your cake and eat it too

[@WarrenLacefield]

Once you eat the cake, it becomes part of you, so in fact you still have it. (Well, part of it does; the rest gets flushed.)

[@jameshart2622]

That _was_ the original idiom. The purpose was to show how ridiculous it is to get the benefits of something without getting any necessary downsides.

[@brendanmoore8159]

@@innocentsmith6091 sure, but it's a very old idiom, like most.

[@FlywithMagnar]

This brings unlimited opportunities for chess players.

[@Amenti_H]

“...and this is why, kids, you should say NO to drugs.”

[@whome9842]

Even if they are free drugs?

[@shocktnc]

​@@whome9842especially if they are free

[@ShonMardani]

This is why we use the drugs and this program is promoting it.

[@StevenErnest]

It would be more polite to say, No thank you

[@Amenti_H]

@@StevenErnest Yeah... even UI got stupid nowadays. If Windows was created now, it would've had a button “Got it, thank you!” instead of “Ok”. 🙄

[@diyeana]

I have a billion dollars in my bank account. You can't prove it's not there unless you look it up, so it is both there and not there. You might as well give me the keys to that Mercedes-Benz right now and not waste your time.

[@napoleonfeanor]

Zimbabwe dollars?

[@cherubin7th]

And its gone...

[@osmosisjones4912]

Reality is biggest provayer of misinformation

[@O_Lee69]

@@cherubin7th 😄

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

@napoleonfeanor, no, a _Schroedinger-Billion!_

[@unduloid]

As an actual photon I feel attacked.

[@GoHexrt]

Lollll

[@gristly_knuckle]

It seems to me that particle physicists are being bullied by the lineage of Trophim Lysenko, man of most babies and money, man of most goodness.

[@DaimonAnimations]

A.I. can't draw hands but its gonna tell me about reality? LOL!

[@LAMEZ_]

say that again in 20 years. „LOL!“

[@DaimonAnimations]

@@LAMEZ_ If its gonna take 20 years for an A.I. to draw hands it might not be that efficient. A human can learn to draw hands in like a week if you're that bad at drawing.

[@LAMEZ_]

@@DaimonAnimations it draws no hands because it probably knows even without them it is already better than you ever will be! 😅

[@DaimonAnimations]

@@LAMEZ_ Predictable insult because you got no way to defend your point. Good job.

[@LAMEZ_]

@@DaimonAnimations we were both using sarcasm… or atleast I thought so? if u actually believe that AI cannot draw a hand because of some youtube shorts that you saw, and if u actually believe that the 20 years I mentioned referred to the time-frame being needed to draw hands then I am afraid there really is nothing else for me to say😂.

[@Desertphile]

"... scientist say." "... physicists say." Gods how I loathe what passes for "journalism."

[@osmosisjones4912]

If your asking a source . Doesn't mean reality doesn't matter. And asking who right to say what's Cannon in the fail reality

[@dem8568]

@@Desertphile You don't want someone to report what scientists and physicists say? What an odd comment.

[@boobah5643]

'Physicists' and 'scientists' don't say anything; collectives don't have an independent existence. Physicist Alice and Scientist Bob can say things, physicists and scientists can't. There's some leeway for talking about things where most people of a category agree, but there's no damn excuse when talking about the cutting edge of fields of study that most physicists aren't even aware of and certainly haven't studied, and consequently have opinions with about as much weight as the average layman's.

[@lIIIIlIllI]

@@dem8568I think his issue is that the article’s title could imply that there is a consensus in the scientific community about these strange theories. There is no issue with a physicist hypothesizing that reality doesn’t exist but the journalist article kind of takes it out of context and portrays it to their readers as a serious idea that could end up being true.

[@drbuckley1]

Sabine is better than most.

[@TriEssenceMartialArts]

I got the feeling that the authors of this paper just wanted to publish something novel so they don't "perish". I can't imagine them seriously believing in what they are proposing 🤣

[@friedmule5403]

Sabine is in infinite places at once! She can be in Rom, Oslo, New York, Zimbabwe and .... It is only when she tells where she is, she manifests at one place. :-)

[@gristly_knuckle]

I hate!! Let there be an objective reality. I don’t hate.

[@SuperpositionSimon-vt7cc]

Thanks for making another video of quantum mechanics and reality. Anton Zeilinger postulated: Information = Reality. If we discuss whether reality exists or doesn't exist, we might have to talk about how to define reality and how to define existence. Maybe you can make another great video about this :). I'm glad that there are phyicist who realised that the theory of decoherence does not solve the measurement problem. To solve this, we need more phyicists like niels bohr who said: "everything we call is real is made of things, that can not be regarded as real".

[@matthewlloyd3255]

It's a neat way of saying "if I close my eyes, the scary universe disappears and I don't have to be afraid!" ;-)

[@jason2014]

My 2 yr old son covers his eyes when he is in plain view of us. He thinks if he cant see anything, then we cant see him. Maybe he's onto something.. from his perspective, it works

[@faselfasel2864]

I have 0 idea about physics, but even i understand that in order to measure something we have to use....SOMETHING....that INTERACTS with what we want to measure. So there has to be a cause and effect relationship between the two. Now for physicists to go so far as to deny that cause and effect relationship on which their not only their field of expeerise but science as a whole is based, is absolutely wild.

[@Angelmou]

It is the essence of quantum woo for several decades now.

[@ThePowerLover]

@@Angelmou Don't you see that Sabine is being incredibly dishonest in this video?

[@E.Hunter.Esquire]

@@faselfasel2864 that isn't even what's going on. They plan to use something to measure it. They're just having an ai read the results, then having the ai tell them. They're repeating the double slit experiment but putting a robot in the middle of it to see of they can get around the observer effect.

[@faselfasel2864]

@@E.Hunter.Esquire that is then even more stupid.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

How can a theory that *"reality doesn't exist"* be taken seriously if it also exists within this reality?

[@thudthud5423]

Reality doesn't exist because this KZbin video does not exist. One good experiment to prove whether or not reality exists or not: - Stop eating food, breathing, going to work and paying your bills. See what happens. If you starve, suffer from hypoxia and lose your house/car...then you're imagining things - its not real because reality doesn't exist.

[@Existidor.Serial137]

fake reality just exploted because of that paradox.

[@osmosisjones4912]

Reality is biggest provayer of misinformation. Reality is the greatest threat to democracy

[@businessmanager7670]

they are actually referring to spacetime and locality. it is impossible that reality cannot exist. but spacetime and the universe, sure, it could be an Illusion generated by consciousness

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"but spacetime and the universe, sure, it could be an Illusion generated by consciousness"* ... In order for any "illusion" to be observable, all elements of the illusion *must exist.* They must exist in order for you to comprehend the illusion. *Example:* I project a holograph of a Lamborghini parked in your driveway. I'm tricking you into thinking that the car is really there with a holographic illusion when in reality, the car I used for my illusion is still parked over at the dealership. Now, the only way you could believe (or be tricked into believing) that a Lamborghini was parked in your driveway was if Lamborghinis *actually existed.* The Lambo is either *in your driveway* or *parked somewhere else* and only the "image" of it is in your driveway. Either way, the Lambo *must exist* as that's the only way you are consciously able to recognize what you are observing. So, based on that, how can you argue that 'reality" is just an illusion? If it's not what we are all subjectively observing right now, ... then where is it really located?

[@quantum7145]

The universe exists then does not exists then re-exists so rapidly over and over that you can not see or feel it happen it is the heart beat of the universe. Each beat everything has a new time and location that is the "Measurement" .

[@ratreptile]

You just described the universe's refresh rate or frame rate. The universe is a simulation confirmed.

[@virxest]

There is no such thing as "location". There is only imagination (nothing physical ever exists...because there is no such thing as everything happening "somewhere"), but the question remains, does imagination need a "location"?

[@quantum7145]

@@virxest there is no such thing as nothing there is only existence, imagination conceives location. Time and Location is key to the conscious which is why they do not know how to define "consciousness"

[@quantum7145]

@@ratreptile the frame rate slows down around black holes or other massive objects in correlation to the mass due to the massive amount of location calculations space "expands" to cool down the heat created by the calculations .

[@kennyslg8914]

Holy shit, this actually makes perfect sense!! It's like the universe is a flipbook.

[@PeekSterling]

I agree the proposed experiment sounds meritless. But Sabine's given reason for this makes no sense. Yes, A.I. would not be helpful here b/c it is effectively the same as the detector, i.e., it is not an observer, just an instrument. But you can't make a measurement with just an instrument, you need an observer. Even then, that observer is split into a superposition.

[@prettyfast-original]

Agreed. If an instrument could be used to observe, then the proposed experiment here would have potential value. Sabine seems to contradict herself.

[@havenbastion]

Field theory is merely statistical probability and measurement is verified reality. There is no measurement problem.

[@markfernee3842]

I suggest you read the paper. In fact, I suggest that Sabine actually reads the paper. It has certainly been misrepresented in this video. In essence it is an extension of Bell's theorem that explicitly includes the role of the observer.

[@cherubin7th]

Linear Regression is AGI enough.

[@m.x.]

AGI is a smoke selling term.

[@theorenhobart]

as my 3rd year math prof would say: SPLINES !!!!!

[@danielduncan6806]

Why does one coming to understand their existence have to be a crisis?

[@vkpc1]

You are very smart

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

This is exactly what I've been saying! I thought physics was all-in on objetive reality existing, but now you tell my they're seriously considering philosophical idealism (of a sort?)

[@MrBradWi]

I feel this is a waste of brain resources. So I'll waste more. But don't worry, they're only college dropout brains being wasted. Is an observation==measurement? What event or phenomena has ever been observed, i.e. "noticed to have had happened", whose state of superposition has not collapsed until a much later, and satisfactorily agreeable, "measurement" has been made? Also, it occurs to me that every measurement we make involves some measure of the photoelectric effect, no matter what the force-carrying particle is, or the quark type is, massless-particle type is, or neutrino type is. Something happens and some energy in the form of photons gets "photomultiplied" to a scale that is meaningful to us. Whether those photons and / or electrons emit directly from the event, or are the result "dark interactions" that eventually cause an electron to jiggle from its "ground state" enough for a photon to pop, and be seen, or cause heat, or do whatever photons do. It doesn't matter. We see it when we've converted it into a huge pile of photons. So we identified all these standard-model particles, theorized their interactions and states in such a way that we can get at them with the tools electromagnetism, charge and momentum. It seems we have very limited way to collect information that may be more nuanced and elusive at these quantum scales. Every quantum nail is hit (or measured) with a QED or QCD hammer (or ruler). So things like space, we can't say much about it; nor time either, so we turn to macrolevel relativity for those. So there simply has to be more kinds of interactions, to which we're still blind, or other particles, for which we can't devise experiments which are dependent on photons. Whatever it is, I don't think AI and quantum computers can solve it by simulating AGI and Wigner's Friend games. Poor Albert.

[@icusawme2]

If there is no reality,then AI will be biased

[@thudthud5423]

If reality doesn't exist, then AI doesn't exist.

[@osmosisjones4912]

If there's reality then the source of information doesn't matter

[@johnblackledge4009]

If reality doesn't exist, we _are_ the AI.

[@jarrowmarrow]

Cut off their funding and reality will continue to exist.

[@chrisanderson687]

"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it... doesn't go away." I love that quote, not sure who said it.

[@eecarolinee]

I hereby suggest there are people who spend too much time indoors.

[@ClemensKatzer]

I agree, and furthermore suggest there are people who spend too much public money.

[@aguyinavan6087]

If they prove that reality doesn't exist then they will have to distrust that result, because it's not real, thereby proving that they cannot prove it.

[@utubesux1]

Tell my 54 year old back that this isn't reality lol....

[@pototo1]

Writers have sensed this for ages. Albert Camus said it best: At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face." The essential absurdity of it all is what so easily gives it away.

[@TypicalTonk]

We absolutely should question reality and the nature of it.

[@JourneyofOne971]

Proving something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy.

[@rotorblade9508]

or , if you imagine a circle, does your circle exist? No, but the thought about a circle does exist.

[@k.vn.k]

Proving a logic is fallacy doesn’t exist.

[@robm.4512]

@@rotorblade9508And that’s linear thinking for you. Oh, wait a sec…

[@nickr4957]

Mathematicians do it all of the time - usually using proof by contradiction.

[@tja4379]

Assume statements A and B can't both be true at the same time (one can always formulate a statement A that contradicts any given statement B). if we can't prove A to not be true, we also can't prove B to be true (because it would simultaneously prove A isn't true) and thus can't prove anything at all

[@jccusell]

Reality always exists. Always.

[@templeofgame3047]

5:17 If you have a detector and no observer, then how can you still have a measurement? This reminds me of Hugh Everett's argument about Schrödinger's Cat. If an observer were present, that observer would then be split into a superposition of observing the detector giving one outcome AND it giving another. The quantum nature of reality does not stop at some arbitrary boundary (the detector, the observer, the laboratory, etc.).

[@eliahabib5111]

The fallacy in this argument is confusing "I don't know what the observer will measure in the future" with "the observer is in a superposition" they are not the same. For example: your boss (or teacher of you are a student) living room has a ceiling light. It is either on or off right now. You don't know what the light state is. But the light is NOT in a superposition on/off. You just don't know the answer. If you visit your boss house you can find out what the light's state is. Still not a superposition.

[@ide94]

The first sentence doesn't make any sense. A detector (a measuring device) makes a measurement and is, *by definition*, an observer.

[@templeofgame3047]

@@ide94 No, because the detector is in a state of superposition itself. This was Hugh Everett's exact argument when people didn't know how to make sense of Schrödinger's cat. The physicists in the room that open the box to observe the cat become entangled, just like the radioactive element and the cat were.

[@templeofgame3047]

@@eliahabib5111 No, Hugh Everett's argument is that no system exists in isolation. Everything is entangled. So taking your example, the light IS in a state of superposition with your boss and the room and the building and the town and the Earth and the galaxy, and so on. You make an observation that the light is on or off, and the wavefunction collapses for you into one or the other. But then YOU are now entangled, so that you are in a state of superposition, one version of you sees the light on, another version of you sees it as off. You "knowing" the "answer" is a nonsensical statement in this context.

[@templeofgame3047]

@@eliahabib5111 Please look up Hugh Everett's argument about Schrödinger's cat. He argues that everything is entangled. No system exists in isolation. So yes, the light is both on and off b/c your boss both turned it on AND off. He also did AND did not come to work today. And you both observe the light to be on AND off in different "universes" within Hilbert space. You cannot make a measurement without an observer. If you could, then this proposed experiment would have merit and contradict Sabine's whole argument.

[@clawthe]

“Let’s start at the beginning, or maybe it’s the end. Who knows in a reality that doesn’t exist?” is genuinely my thought process lol