Big Think Interview With David Albert | Big Think

Big Think Interview With David Albert
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conversation with the philosopher of science at Columbia University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ALBERT:
David Z Albert the is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the M.A. Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University. He is the author of "Time and Chance," "Quantum Mechanics and Experience," among others. He received his B.S. in physics from Columbia College (1976) and his doctorate in theoretical physics from The Rockefeller University. He lives in New York City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
David Albert: I'm David Albert. I'm a professor of philosophy at Columbia University. And my research is mostly concerned with issues of the foundations of physics.
Question: What is the role of a philosopher of science?
David Albert: Well, I think that philosophy of science is at its best and at its most exciting at historical moments when it's not so easy to distinguish between the activities of certain kinds of theoretical physicists and the activities of certain kinds of philosophers. Philosophy of science, I think -- or at least -- well, let me back up a bit. There's -- philosophy of science can be divided roughly into two different kinds of activities. One is an activity of raising and investigating general philosophical questions about what science is, about whether the claims of science have some kind of privileged epistemic access to the world, can be justified, attempts to systematize how science reasons, attempts to raise questions about whether we should trust the conclusions of science, so on and so forth. These are very broad, very traditionally philosophical kinds of issues.
There's another branch of philosophy of science that takes up questions that arise within particular scientific theories -- the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, so on and so forth, and actually gets its hands dirty in the details of the structure of these scientific theories in order to try to help with problems that are often essentially scientific problems, but whose solution calls for an unusual degree of sensitivity to philosophical questions. It's the second kind of work that my own work has mostly been, and it's the second kind of work that one refers to when one refers to the foundations of physics. There are problems about the logical structure of physics, about the foundational assumptions that physics makes. Whether these problems properly belong to physics or they properly belong to philosophy when the field is healthy isn't much of an issue.
In my own case, my Ph.D. was in theoretical physics. I was a professor in physics departments before being a professor in philosophy departments. When I write a paper now, my rule is that if at the end it has more than two equations in it, I send it to a physics journal, and if it has less than two, I send it to a philosophy journal, and there's not much more of a distinction than that. When I attend conferences where people are discussing the kinds of questions that I'm interested in, about half of the people speaking at these conferences are employed in physics departments, and half are employed in philosophy departments, and it's not particularly easy to tell by listening to their talks what sort of department they're employed in. So philosophy of science, like I say, when it's healthy, is a matter of focusing with a certain level of philosophical sensitivity and sophistication on questions at the foundations of physics.
Question: What are some of the great questions in physics today?
David Albert: Sure. There's a glass of water on the table beside me. Someone asks, how do I know there's a glass of water on the table beside me? And the answer, the kind of answer that the whole structure of Western scientific knowledge is very deeply committed to, is something like this: there's light in the room, some of the light bounces off the glass, some of the light that bounces off the glass enters my retina; that causes certain electrical excitations in my retina; that in turn causes certain electrical excitations in my optic nerve; that causes various chemical and electrical changes deeper in my brain, and after some finite number of some steps, my brain is in the state that corresponds to having the impression that there's a glass of water sitting on the table.
Read the full transcript on bigthink.com/videos/big-think...

[@eelbo]

What I like about Albert is how careful and precise his statements are. Without being dry and technical. It's really a pleasure listening to the man.

[@judgeomega]

I dont think iv ever heard a better speaker in my life. Not only is he crystal clear, but the content is absurdly dense as in extremely profound, information laden, and deep.

[@monkeys12345]

Ilya Bogdanov I have to say that I feel like his speech is holding him back from communicating ideas. He dances around his own ideas and thoughts and its hard to just say "cool story bro" I consider that dry and extremely technical... Its almost like I'm waiting for the punch line. AKA "speak English" his Mono tone doesn't help either. He may be a smart man, but I feel like people who give background to every statement should give up the ego of sounding educated. He lacks interpersonal communication. < (that was my punch line)

[@monkeys12345]

judgeomega I have to say that I feel like his speech is holding him back from communicating ideas. He dances around his own ideas and thoughts and its hard to just say "cool story bro" I consider that dry and extremely technical... Its almost like I'm waiting for the punch line. AKA "speak English" his Mono tone doesn't help either. He may be a smart man, but I feel like people who give background to every statement should give up the ego of sounding educated. He lacks interpersonal communication. < (that was my punch line) HOLLY shizzz you're almost on his level with communicating with so much fluff.

[@michaelgorby]

@@judgeomega My personal fav physics lecturer is Sean Carroll, who also has this skill and ability to express complicated and counterintuitive concepts in a simple and much more digestible way. I recommend watching this conversation between David and Sean: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIrKaZqvpMRgo5Y

[@taileenalvarez1626]

@@michaelgorby thank you

[@xit1254]

Really enjoyed this. The more I hear this guy talk, the more I want to hear.

[@jefftarango2278]

David Albert is a master !

[@nickspitzer2271]

As a philosopher in a world of scientisim this is so refreshing. Why is there a nonsensical bifurcation between science and philosophy? At their best they inform each other.

[@metatron5199]

He's part of a group of particle/nuclear physicists turned philosopher of physics/science have come to clear up all the misconceptions from all the terrible QM interpretations that have been given over the year. The problem is these various interpretations do not turn out to make any sense in a literal sense so they have tried to resolve this by putting forth Bohms interpretation as a way forward which seems to have the only sensible interpretation of QM.

[@Kalumbatsch]

Almost, there's Everett, and Bohm is just Everett in denial.

[@metatron5199]

Kalum Batsch those two interpretations are radically different from one another so to try and draw that conclusions is silly.

[@Kalumbatsch]

Meta Tron They are not so radically different. Bohm's interpretation just postulates an enormous number of additional unobservable particles, whose states are the hidden variables. Occam's razor cuts them down.

[@metatron5199]

Kalum Batsch hahahahaha thank you for proving you don't even understand the bohmian interpretations. First bohmian mechanics is what john bell would call super deterministic, there are no "hidden" variables rather an extra term for the pilot wave. Next bohm is much more elegant in that it actually gives us a real be-able i.e. an actual particle with an actual position in spacetime, while many worlds must invoke a lot more hocus-pocus to ground the theory, i.e. How does the universe diverge into an infinite of universe at every given instance? This then brings into question the actual grounding of the wave function, is it a real be-able bc many worlds has to have that be so etc... now don't take this as some eulogy for many worlds interpretation nor am I saying that the bohmian interpretations is correct rather the issue at hand is of interpretations i.e. in he subtle details between the many different interpretations that QM has. Also just for your information bohmian mechanics does not postulate any "new" particles, bohmian mechanics actually yields exactly the same results as QM. Unlike QM field theory tho it is no relativistic, but there is much work currently being done trying to show ways of foliating the bohmian mechanics so as to be relativistic compatible so as to put it on the same playing field as QM field theory.

[@nickknowles8402]

my favourite man to listen to from academia by far

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

I love David Albert and so on and so forth 😁😁😁

[@timewalker6654]

Lol

[@llank]

3:45 What are some of the great questions in physics today? (Measurement Problem) 7:47 How does quantum mechanics contradict common sense? (Cont' d Measurement Problem, Principle of Superposition) 18:06 Can science give us a precise image of the universe? 27:14 What is string theory? 28:59 How might we establish the truth of string theory? 30:14 Is the LHC capable of doing this? 31:10 Does quantum mechanics speaks at all to consciousness?

[@djw457]

I love listening to this guy, I can almost half understand what he's saying some of the time. But It just makes me want to listen harder and glean whatever I can, even if I have to stop and listen again over certain sections.

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

David Albert does a great job of clarifying the issues of Quantum Theory.

[@qubitz5906]

Wow this truly lives up to the name big think. He's great to listen to, he's like a non-smug version of stephen fry.

[@dougg1075]

Of all the science communicators, he’s in my top three. Straight out of central casting movie scientist.

[@dan-iu2rd]

Man..! a scientist who speaks english!. Thank you Mr. Albert. Also..polite. Krauss: paying attention?

[@DFragment-electronic-music]

Craziest hour in my life.

[@MathematicianDr]

This man knows and understands very clearly what he is talking about.

[@originalsubwayjones]

I was trapped in my car. Afraid I wouldn't have another opportunity to listen, and therefore I wouldn't finish this video if I headed to work, a place I can not be late for. I held steady, stayed the course, and was barely late for work... WOW! I really enjoy the way you translate Quantum Mechanics into English. I have seen you as part of a panel, but it was a pleasure to hear you speak without interruption. Excellent watch...

[@metatron5199]

He's a believer is the bohmian interpretations or a variant of it...

[@trentonhebert3559]

Kristopher Jones

[@brianknox8439]

Thus guy a breath of fresh air.

[@JonathanLaliberte1]

Excellent.

[@The3ART3]

Check out David Albert's conversations with Martha Nochimsom in her book "David Lynch Swerves".

[@IngridMacherTV]

Interesting points

[@claudeenckels2117]

J'adore ces propos fondamentaux

[@nickreed60]

The problems with quantum mechanics not syncing with newtonian appear to be because of our position in the equation, we can only perform those observation while inside the equation before it has equalised. I Think it will turn out that time and space do not exist, and all of our complex equations are irrelevant to explaining everything. As he says we are in a superposition. Time being symetric equals zero. Canceling out. Space-Time is basically a natural equation. (Non computing heat based)

[@bryan3dguitar]

At 2:50 he says that if he writes a paper that has more than two equations - he sends it to a Physics journal, and if it has less than two equations - he sends it to a Philosophy journal. But it's the ones that have EXACTLY two equations that interest me, logically speaking :o) Where do they go? To a Math journal?

[@adge610220]

If fundamental interactions are time reversible wouldn't it be possible for two entangled particles to 'collide' and become unentangled?

[@khrysos1180]

The loss of order and the rise of entropy builds up from the very small in our macroscopic world as a signe that the flow of time tends to naturally destroy any infomation contained in any structure that emerges from caos. Entropy is also the most probable outcome that can be given to us from an arrow of time pointed to the future. Nevertheless structures of order do emerge from unordered caos. Like cluster of galaxies that emerged from the primordial plasma soup. Or like the evolution of life. Or like the complexity of neural connections that build up year after year in a brain since birth.

[@RashedAhmad]

I am not sure why he said at the last few minutes that all of our theories of physics are time reversal symmetric. Isn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics a theory that is not time reversal symmetric (at least statistically)?

[@KipIngram]

Indeed that is correct. The proper way to state his case would be to recognize the "conflict" between the 2nd thermo law and all of the other laws he mentioned. The 2nd thermo law is a "different kind" of law - it's really just a statement that "large scale" events that can occur a lot of different ways are more likely to happen than large scale events that can only occur a few ways. For instance, when you shuffle cards - there is absolutely no reason that you couldn't "shuffle them into a precise order." Nothing prohibits it. But it doesn't happen, because a truly precise order can occur with only one sequence of cards - the one that defines your sequence, whereas there are many, many, MANY ways the cards can be arranged and still be "shuffled." The second law doesn't really "forbid" anything. It just says that the chances of entropy moving downward instead of upward are so small that you can ignore them.

[@optionmaster221]

He is trying desperately to reconcile Quantum Physics with our perceived reality BUT today in 2022 when the 3 new Nobel prizes for Physics proved the non-locality is REAL I think we are moving more and more APART. I'm afraid that it is not possible to reconcile what we see/feel/experience from the quantum world simply 'cause we live in some kind of SIMULATION where the quantum world reacts only to perception/measurements to create the reality we experience and NOT the other way around.

[@hooya27]

Just placed where I've heard David Albert speak most: cheesey movie "What the Bleep Do We Know", where he was misrepresented as a "woo" philosopher, rather than the precise and scientific expert he is.

[@iainmackenzieUK]

It would be useful to hear how the second law of thermodynamics (Entropy always increasing) is NOT an example of a physical law that is time symmetric.

[@DestroManiak]

it is not a "fundamental" physical law but rather an "emergent" property of lots and lots of particles. scientists believe that particles in groups should obey the same fundamental laws that they obey when they are on their own, so the second law of thermodynamics should be derivable from the fundamental laws, which no one knows how to do.

[@xavieraguerrevere9716]

what happens with the particuls is that they modifide de spacetime thrugh their passege in the slit experiment creating wave that replicate the particules but when you take a look to it you will always see the real one

[@DestroManiak]

good!

[@david_porthouse]

I think a computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to make use of a random number generator. Is this stating the obvious, or is what I am aiming at impossible in principle? I would be interested in hearing David Albert's view.

[@mattsheezy5469]

Dr. David “So on and so forth” Albert. I saw some student reviews of David’s class at Columbia, and one girl called him a “Boring Weirdo”.

[@timewalker6654]

Lol maybe the girl shouldn't be in science

[@pasquino0733]

Does anyone know of anyone in the world of the philosophy of science who is posing the question of how we should live in the light of Physics, biology etc...? Somewhat like the moral world view of the Stoic was perceived in classical times as integrated with Heraclitus' conception of the Logos.

[@michaelgorby]

I would recommend a book called "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris. He also has quite a few talks on the subject, which are available on KZbin.

[@josephknecht4675]

Try Jacques Monod's 'Chance and Necessity'. It primarily discuss the meaning of social and psychological values in the age when science has found that essentially values are meaningless in an indeference world without gods.

[@myothersoul1953]

Science doesn't deal with what should be, it only tries to describe what is. Right and wrong, good or bad, or how we should behave aren't properties of the universe. As far as we know they are only categories for humans and maybe some other primates have. Just because ethics is subjective doesn't mean they are unimportant, they maybe be most important. The big problem is those judgements are solely the responsibility of individuals, it's very important you get them right but there is no way to know you got them right that is outside of yourself. Good luck.

[@jjcm3135]

Dr Gerald Schroeder's books changed Prof A Flew. Or check out the Society of Catholic Scientists.

[@pasquino0733]

@@josephknecht4675 To my mind, I don't buy the premise that science shows values are meaningless. Values emerge out of the context of this world - made evident in physics, chemistry and biology - along with everything else. It would be a Cartesian view that might even be used to buttress an anachronistic religious stand point that would put values along with the mind and consciousness, within its own separate isolated category, divorced from science. I'm looking for something akin to Spinoza's dictum 'the mind is the idea of the body' etc

[@smashu2]

I think the fact that at the micro scale things are time reversal and at macro they are not is I think a emergent behavior. Example a tornado is composed of air but if someone study microscopic molecule of air he could never predict that many of them together could form a tornado. I think it is the same with time reversal (micro)and none time reversal (macro) phenomena.

[@erixoz8535]

10:00 good logical observations. The answer probably is; they aren't particles on any routes, but an expanding shell of energy in all, directions waving the ("infinitesimally small", Einstein''s words) "aether".

[@andrewdeen1]

+Erixoz the more i understand about particle physics(a silly statement in itself) the more i think that particles, in fact, don't exist. only waves/fields that interact strongly or weakly with one another.

[@taileenalvarez1626]

@@andrewdeen1 very interesting. Like a wave with more density maybe? If that even makes sense

[@davidwilkie9551]

It should "probably" be "The Navigation Problem", and restated in terms of Temporal Superposition-point Positioning.., because "Measurement" is recognition of pure relative motion logarithmic pulse-evolution differentiates here-now-forever universal point-positioning => future measured mapping by relative ratios of resonance on the real-time wave-package envelope, projection-drawing ruled-past. The act, or singular observation snapshot of a particular observable cause-effect position, ie a "snapshot", is the collapse of all wave function as line-of-sight superposition identification, so by intent, the C of G location is established or substantiated by the Exclusion Principle of time-timing sync-duration identification, this sum-of-all-histories integration of Actuality. "It doesn't make sense" to wonder about what was then excluded, having made a singularity-point, in degree, of certainty. (A "Shut up and Calculate" type positioning) A Psychological assessment of the problem might conclude from the persistent debating tactical behaviour, of displacement of attention fostering "controversial distraction", away from the Universal standing wave-packaging formation, a here-now-forever Conception, to a remote Big Bang, a discrete abstraction of a snapshot type "beginning", to be pathological denial of Observable Fact here-now. The "New Age" looks like the old one by another Nomenclature. Same old, same old deliberate denial of direct sense in favour of elaborate "speculation" of consciousness in absence. Science precisely positions Theoretical pictures, abstractions, Sciencing checks for truth in this labelling system/Nomenclature for authenticity in practice. Humans tend to deny natural ignorance behind superficial presentations of group-think "knowledge" styling. That's why Science Education.. Time, "I know what time is until asked to explain it", because we "can't see for looking", ie the displacement of attention from conscious thought in full immersion to making sense of "externalities" excludes unknown outside from experience inside. It's possible to be precise about location here-now-forever, not where you will be without intentionally navigating the memory associations mapping of experience.., intuitively/probabilisticly. Every theory is based on observation, the projection-drawing that is e-Pi-i logarithmic condensation in singularity positioning.., by collapsing the line-of-sight wave-particle coordination-identification, ie exclusion of the non-resonant Quantum-fields in pure relative motion, of Superspin @.dt zero-infinity, and identifying the location/picture of density-intensity sync-duration, the localised coherence-cohesion abstraction. Maths-Philosophy is required to assemble a reasonable and rational objective mechanism of proportioning and design parameters to compose the comprehensive Theory of Everything, in a practical sense.

[@yacc1706]

3:11 Wigner

[@reaganmcguire3463]

Smart man

[@AvNotasian]

"This story of why I know theres a glass on the table radically falls apart" How, its easy to say stuff like this but based on what I know thats simply not the case.

[@AvNotasian]

Answer was collapse of the wave function.

[@ronaldbuskens3619]

Brillant indeed. Jesus also said in one of the forbidden teachings that was hold out of the bilble that this world was not real: "You must not be born in this world but the world must be born in you". Here comes two worlds from 'east en west' a bit closer again, with one used to say in the seventies. You look and see nothing, you look again and its all there. Writing this, the doorbell rings and there was an a statement at the front of the flyer they gave me: "You shall be in in paradise with me". Coincindence? Entanglement?

[@MrAkashvj96]

Mr. Albert shouldn't waste his time with petulant fools like Lawrence Krauss.

[@bruceneeley1724]

!

[@JCmultiverse]

Err umm..err umm umm... ..you know

[@Awbrfg55]

REALLY?...tell me more (sarcasm)

[@mikeythebox]

Someones car breaks down. The mechanic says its the battery. Swaps it out. It's fixed. A non-mechanic says the battery doesnt exist and the car isnt fixed. Thats the issue between science and philosophy.

[@markoos88]

+mikeythebox Nope, that's the difference between an existentialist and a mechanic, a TINY area of philosophy. Just remember that the mode of thinking to find the problem (the battery) is deductive reasoning; a philosophy. It's much broader and coincides with everyone's lives and professions than sitting around talking about whether things actually exist or if we're in The Matrix.

[@ilovsaw]

+mikeythebox Haven't you ever learned not to discuss things you know nothing about

[@mikeythebox]

+ilovsaw Discussing things they know nothing about is a philosophers job description.

[@Drinko76]

+mikeythebox Your analogy is poor, as you dont know what you are talking about. You just put your ignorance on full display.

[@mikeythebox]

+Drinko76 Where as your analysis is resoundingly astute right? No counterpoints, facts, or a point of your own. Congratulations at being a self-collapsing vortex of hypocrisy.

[@go2mark1313]

here is a conundrum we do not know what time is (general relativity) Einstein we do not know what matter is (quantum theory) Feynman we do not know what light is (uncertainty principle) Heisenberg we do not know what energy is (we only can observe its effects) we do not know what gravity is (we only can observe its effects) we do not know what consciousness is we do not know how big the universe is what do we really know ? Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. i postulate that if there were no energy there would be no GOD. as much as we do not understand what energy is , so we also fail to comprehend about GOD. The reason that atheists "choose" that there is no GOD is that they do not want to be dictated to and prefer to be self sufficient at understanding the universe we live in. the difference between heaven and hell is that heaven is for those who have accepted our limited understanding and allow an all knowing GOD to direct our path toward its intended purpose. hell is reserved for those who have chosen to rely on self as the way to know our purpose for existence. forcing your will on anyone is rape . free will is the true expression of love. GOD will not force his will on anyone and this is what true love is.

[@Returnality]

"i postulate that if there were no energy there would be no GOD." I don't mean this to be an insult, but you really need to take a class on theology. I bet you can't even properly define God in any remotely cogent way. God, in the tradition monotheisms, has never been proposed as a necessarily physical entity. To presuppose that energy must exist if God does is to say that God is contingent upon, or perhaps identical to physical reality. God in the Bible is defined as spiritual and immaterial. You're KILLING the Bible's conception of God by making a statement like that. "the difference between heaven and hell is that heaven is for those who have accepted our limited understanding and allow an all knowing GOD to direct our path toward its intended purpose." That's just a sugar-coated way of saying that Heaven is for those who aren't willing to use their brain to discover truths about the world, and that Hell is for people who want rational justification for what they believe. You're not helping the case for Christianity here, you're only painting Christians as complete and total idiots. Also, people really need to stop using that Psalm. Back in Biblical times the evidence for design was so undeniably strong that to deny it could justly be seen as a mental illness. It just isn't that way anymore. Atheists have sophisticated reasons for being atheists these days and Christians need to deal with them rather than fooling themselves into thinking that atheists are just willingly ignorant of God. I urge you to stop spouting things like this (that will convince absolutely nobody) and instead follow 1 Peter 3:15, and always be ready to give an answer for why you believe the things that you do. Go read some of the better Christian philosophers and apologists out there like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, J.P. Moreland, John Lennox, Greg Koukl, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, Craig Evans, Craig Blomberg, Craig Hazen (lots of Craigs), N.T. Wright (if you have a lot of time on your hands), and James White is the go to guy for dealing with cults and Islam.

[@monkeys12345]

***** cool story bro. you should take a interpersonal communication class to get your point across.

[@Returnality]

monkeys12345 What I said wasn't complicated if you're familiar with the terms I'm using, and if you aren't familiar with terms I'm using, then you shouldn't be making statements about science and God in any philosophical context.