David Albert: Einstein Was Right About SPOOKY Quantum Mechanics! [Ep. 433]

Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
Could physics serve as our best guide to metaphysics? What fundamental metaphysics is best motivated by quantum mechanics? And what’s the deal with the age-old feud between philosophers and physicists?
Here to shed light on all these questions and more is none other than David Z. Albert, professor of philosophy and director of the MA program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York. David is a prominent American philosopher and physicist widely recognized for his contributions to the philosophy of quantum mechanics and the foundations of physics. He has published four popular books and numerous articles on quantum mechanics.
In our stimulating conversation, we talked about his controversial PhD proposal, the truth about quantum mechanics, Einstein's affection for Ernst Mach, and who would win in a fight: a physicist or a philosopher?
Tune in!
Key Takeaways:
00:00:00 Intro
00:00:59 Judging a book by its cover
00:10:25 Department's opposition to David's PhD
00:19:09 Physics and philosophy
00:28:41 The experimental minimum
00:36:11 The past hypothesis
00:47:15 Other forms of logic in other universes
00:53:47 Popper’s falsification criteria
01:03:59 Physics and narrative
01:06:11 Audience questions
01:22:26 Existential questions
01:26:43 Outro
Additional resources:
➡️ Learn more about David Z. Albert:
💻 Closer to Truth: closertotruth.com/contributor...
📚 The Wave Function by David Z. Albert: a.co/d/hNiphE8
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 KZbin: kzbin.info...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #davidalbert

[@DrBrianKeating]

Is there "spooky action at a distance" or not?

[@amihartz]

I'd recommend people looking into the contextual realist interpretation as expressed by Francois-Igor Pris. The way he interprets quantum mechanics is both philosophically realistic and _very obviously local_ without evoking anything like hidden variables or multiverses or objective collapse or superdeterminism. If you step through the EPR paradox or Bell tests with this interpretation, there isn't even the appearance of nonlocality. The wave function is instead reinterpreted as representing the _context_ in which an interaction takes place, sort of like a coordinate system related to the frame of reference in which an interaction is being described from, and thus naturally has to be updated after each interaction to take into account a change in that context.

[@JohnKNMurphy-nz]

An unrecognized 1996 paper that has had little attention may hold the key. "Logic, states, and quantum probabilities" by Dr. Rachel Garden shows how inferences built on classical logic statements about classical properties differ from the inferences one can make about the results of quantum interactions. If she is correct, then there is no need to presume some ill-defined spooky action for the experimentally observed correlations to occur, and that those seeking to eliminate the possibility of spooky action are barking up the wrong tree. The proof of Bell's theorem depends on negation, whereas quantum interactions produce denials. When denials are included, then it is expected that correlations should be able to break the Bell limit.

[@kukublof5057]

there is not

[@maconcamp472]

Spooky action at a distance is the connection to the universe!! Just like the internet!!🛜 👻 Connect to your higher self and twin flames!! Heaven on earth is created here, through galaxy collisions !! Andromeda is like a drop of water!!💧 🌌

[@robertm3561]

I”d consider a possibility of such a great characteristic speed of some underlying structure of the universe(matter), that the transfer seems instantaneous to us? If it’s realistically possible, why not to consider it?

[@TheMikesylv]

No wonder scientists are having such a hard time figuring out the next steps in physics. They used classical logic to figure out quantum mechanics it showed them that parts of their logic was wrong but they can’t accept it because that’s how they got there. It’s a impossible loop

[@littlejerrythecagefighter1163]

Physics Fundamentalists: Philosophy is dead Also Physics Fundamentalists: Let me tell you why (in philosophical language)

[@costaldevomito]

This is so annoyingly true.

[@amihartz]

Honestly, I love philosophy, but I don't mind physicists hate philosophers, because most philosophers don't do their job. They spend all their time going "ooo" and "aah" at philosophical problems without even trying to find a reasonable solution to them, or many just abandon reason entirely and devolve into mysticism (*cough* Kastrup *cough*). The worst of the worst try to turn these philosophical problems into physics problems and then lead physicists astray, such as the "hard problem" which has been debunked time and time again but most philosophers ignore the debunking and many have even started to try and convince physicists it's a physical problem, leading to people like Penrose wasting his brilliance on pseudoscience. While I do like philosopher, the overwhelming majority of philosophers are atrocious and only have a negative impact. It will be the year 4082 and they will still be talking about nonsense like the "hard problem" and "cosmic consciousness" and whatever.

[@amihartz]

@@Mentaculus42 Read Carlo Rovelli's paper "Relational EPR." There is no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Please, I'm just going to block you if you keep bringing up the Nobel prize. The fact someone got a Nobel prize in performing Bell tests does not prove your very specific philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. You are trying to raise your philosophical interpretation up to the level of proven fact by just pointing out an aspect of quantum mechanics was verified, which is irrelevant as all interpretations are compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell tests do not violate locality unless you make certain presumptions which are not part of quantum theory (value definiteness, i.e. separability, i.e. sometimes bizarrely called "realism"). One of the most common presumption is that there is some sort of superobserver which can see both particles "at the same time," which is not physically possible, and if you discard it there is never an inconsistency with saying Alice measuring her particle simply does nothing at all to Bob's particle and she is merely updating her prediction of what it will be in the future if she were to measure it.

[@amihartz]

@@Mentaculus42 My comments keep disappearing when they are more than a few sentences: just read Carlo Rovelli's paper "Relational EPR".

[@steveflorida5849]

@@amihartz read Hegoland by Rovelli. It's his physics understanding with his philosophical viewpoints too.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I would like to expleian why David Albert is wrong when he says that Bohr was wrong about the measurement problem and that we can hope to solve the measurement problem in the way we solve other scientific problems. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values ​​for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values ​​for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. 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 open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. 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 represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and 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. 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. Marco Biagini

[@geertdepuydt2683]

You are extremely confused, imvho. Can I verify your claim as to being a practicing physicist?

[@oaksnice]

@@geertdepuydt2683 How is that relevant? He's either correct or not. Being a physicist doesn't change the facts. So what is he confused about?

[@calvingrondahl1011]

Too long zzz.

[@joeschwartz9761]

Too much free time?

[@babygrand734]

I'm sure you know that the vast majority of highly intelligent people have very closed minds. Very nearly no one will even consider that the material universe does not exist. The existence of the material universe is an assumption. There is no way to prove it. Therefore, any open-minded person would have to concede that it very well might not exist. And anyone familiar with the dead end that physics has achieved should lean towards its non-existence. A universe that consists of experiences within consciousness can easily support all the physical laws that science relies on, including those associated with quantum physics. People today should at least be informed by the analogy with virtual worlds. That is not a view of a universe you see on your screen. It is a bunch of pixels. But, as I said, this is very very difficult for people to consider. It is terrifying, in fact. I admire your putting this idea forward despite the inevitable hostility.

[@TurdFerguson456]

See the name, always listen. I'll admit, at first I wasn't a fan of David, because I was uneducated and thought he was always saying a whole bunch of nothing! But As you, and I, figured out, he's an incredible explainer of the broad picture of a certain unsolved thing, subject, or theory, as it relates to logic and reason in physics. I relate him to Sean Carroll even though they explain a bit differently, they explain equally well and better than anyone. The longer the video the better when it's with David. It's enjoyable to see him milk every last ounce of thought out of an issue.

[@Corteum]

"Spooky" is just another word for "My understanding and my models of the world don't accommodate these observations". lol

[@innerfield5481]

Maxwell distinguished between flux and force. Physicists are only interested in force because they can measure it. When it’s not a force they call it quantum physics but Maxwell and Einstein would call it a flux.

[@Andres-is3lj]

what

[@Robinson8491]

There is quantum flux

[@nihlify]

What difference does that make? Just sounds like semantics

[@chriscurry2496]

@@nihlify Welcome to the fallout Bernardo Kastrup caused with his unscientific views.

[@mikeclarke952]

Why are there so many Fn bots in the comments? I think physics is lazy if concludes, "This is just how subatomic particles work".

[@evanplante]

What a wonderful guest! First, he's a clear presenter. But second, he comes across as a kind and humble soul. Thank you for bringing him on.

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Thumbs up! Enjoyed this philosophical perspective on physics and cosmology. And good to have David present in person which always adds a vibe to a podcast. The subject of philosophy should be back in vogue big time. We need much more scrutiny. If physicists after 100 years can’t resolve the same old simple questions (like the merger of GR and QP or an explanation of the double experiment) then something must be off. Instead of time and again trying and failing to get answers, we should stop and consider we may have been handed an incorrect question. You cannot find an answer if the question is intrinsically flawed to begin with. An Example? Take the infamous double slit experiment where we are taught to say ‘...we see objects (e.g. electrons) behaving both like particles and waves…’ Well no…that’s not true, is it?! We don’t see ‘electrons’ at all in the double slit experiment. What we see is the ENERGY associated with these particles (electrons) and it is this ENERGY (not ‘the particle’) that behaves in a dual way; because we see the particle’s ENERGY behaving either like the grid around the particle, piercing through both slits and interfering with itself of the screen behind it. OR we see the same Energy in the form of the point-like potential, associated with the particle when we actually measure it at one of the slits. Also, we must conclude both manifestations of ENERGY cancel each other out, like the inverse relation of Heisenberg’s dxdp>=h/2 . So then; there is no ‘particle mystery’ at all in the double slit experiment. It simply proves that ENERGY behaves like the grid in the QP world, next to its ‘potential’ function in the macro grid. A dual function thus. But it gets better; we have Sir Roger Penrose stressing likewise that MASS has the alter ego function of CLOCK in the QP world (he substitutes Planck’s E=hf into E=MC2 to reach this conclusion). So then, combined with the double slit experiment we can conclude that in the QP world the grid is defined by the ENERGYMASS, as opposed to its inversely related SPACETIME grid in our macro world. Simple. Why do physicists keep denying this obvious reality of duality of measures that the double slit experiment is presenting us. This is the ultimate answer. I hope renowned people like David can spread the word to the community. Because once you understand this, then you also understand where QP and GR meet.

[@szjozsi]

what Einstein meant spooky action was the immediate collapse of the wave function over space and time which requires 0 time. The entanglement is a consequence of that but not the spooky action he meant. However it is spooky as well. But the so called wave function is not a function at all it is actually a section of the C line bundle over physical space for instance R3. it goes from physical space to complex numbers. if it always were the case that the C line bundle over M is a product M x C the wave function would be appropriate term, but you cannot always do MxC at least as long as you stay in cartesian coordinates in the physical space. A C line bundle is more than just attaching a line to every point. A deeper topological analogy of this with the physical reality is indeed makes it reasonable that spooky action is real, just remember that space can expand faster than speed of light and spooky action is completely makes sense if you consider the universe only as subset (sub manifold) of the C line bundle (in mathematical representation) . it is just a theory of mine I may be wrong.

[@Mentaculus42]

The “Spooky Action at a Distance” that you mention is what I believe Sabine stated is what Einstein was talking about. But it seems that the general understanding or usage of the term is more generally applied to the Bell Test. Since the question was asked by the youtube channel, maybe some clarification is needed as to what was precisely meant by the question. Was it a question about which one?

[@gavinwince]

Great interview! As one who studies the foundations of physics/mathematics and ended up with degrees in philosophy I can totally relate

[@DrBrianKeating]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@coffee_drinker2912]

The Earth is flat = The Holographic Principle

[@petervandenengel1208]

When it looks like like a sphere, behaves like a sphere and is experienced as a sphere, it is a sphere. When one can walk right through a hologram, and the earth not. This proves it is not a hologram. Nor flat. You are confusing underlying principles with effects. A mathematician I presume? A blueprint is not the radio. Nor is it flat. The effect is not the cause. When the Galaxy looks flat. This is an approximation. Within the Galaxy it clearly contains spheres with in comparison a lot of (round, undetermined) space surrounding it. When you have no concept about why the Galaxy behaves flatish, arguing about the shape can be endless and fruitless. It is like an ape watching in the mirror believing there is another ape out there.

[@paddyrafter5214]

There are so many adverts in this video that it's almost impossible to watch

[@petervandenengel1208]

41:49 When cofee cools down, it needed to be in higher temperature than the environment first. It (entropy) is not an isolated property. When on the contrary ice melts for the same reversed reason, this is the time reversal of the previous process. Would you still call that entropy??? Entropy from what condition. Why would smoke evaporate into the air from a cigaret? It moves forward in time by itself. Because the gas concentrated in the tobacco could carry the carbon particles with it. Which is the reverse of its previous position. It does not matter whether it does that. But what matters is its first position was in the past of the second.

[@sunroad7228]

"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future"(2017).

[@joyecolbeck4490]

I did a happy dance seeing this to watch this evening. I've been dealing with fire alarm panel faults in a grade 1 listed building all day. ❤

[@tokajileo5928]

I always like to listen to David Albert he is so professional in reasoning and articulate in expression. Should attend more of such talks, debates

[@StardustlikeU]

Because of David Albert, this particular podcast episode has been a solid for me. I can just sit and listen to Albert talk all day long

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

[@RicardoMarlowFlamenco]

Entropy is a fundamental physical law (2nd thermodynamics) so when he and other philosophers speak “every fundamental law is time invariant”, they are meaning EXCEPT THAT ONE….so they can ignore the other laws and deal with the real problem which is explaining entropy. Also, some paper came out years ago showing a time direction based on atomic arrangement in some specific large nucleus. The idea that OTHER fundamental laws don’t need this one is, to me, a “non-problem”, philosophical nor otherwise. It is only an “entropy” problem, ie, a physical “law” that explains time direction based on initial conditions, perhaps one day to be revealed. A real simply thing to me was Penrose distinction between Big Bang singularity (low entropy) vs Black Hole Singularity (highest entropy). This “law” would explain the distinction.

[@farhadfaisal9410]

It seems that the status of the background theories needed (as pointed out by Duhem/Albert), in so far as they are not yet actually falsified in a single instance, may be assumed to be valid ('true') in order to draw conclusions about the status of a proposed theory at present (as to whether it is falsifiable/falsified or not).

[@josem.deteresa2282]

Aristotle himself debated the idea that logic might genuinely be up for grabs, he thought some Heraclitean physicists and Protagoras had proposed. He confuted this position or rather, he carefully explained away this problem in Met. G 4 (see Terence Irwin _Aristotle's First Principles_ or even better, Enrico Berti).

[@petervandenengel1208]

42:22 When a law is abandoned, you have changed the past. Because it travels with you. Had you not abandoned it, you would not have changed the future.

[@markszlazak]

Maybe Eric Reiter’s experiments are really telling us the illusion that is happening in quantum mechanics. He goes back to Planck then traces the historical errors that happened. Planck second hypothesis is revised and theoretical counters to it addressed. Once the problem is known and accounted for in experiments then the quantum effects disappear. Is Eric right.

[@christophergame7977]

Quantum mechanics does not attempt to "paint a realistic picture". It calculates probabilities of detections. We have yet to work out how to paint a realistic picture.

[@Mentaculus42]

Did you mean to say that certain “INTERPRETATIONS of quantum mechanics”, particularly some orthodox interpretations strongly avoid “realism”.

[@christophergame7977]

@@Mentaculus42 I am referring to quantum mechanics itself. It is just a calculus. It just produces numbers. It doesn't attempt to paint pictures, realistic or not. Talk of "pictures" and of "reality"/"no reality" is about interpretations.

[@missh1774]

That is not a philosophy 😒 (21:00)

[@TheMikesylv]

Isn’t the Mandela effect prof that the present effects the past. If anyone claims the Mandela effect isn’t real then simply finish this line “if you build it ….blank blank blank, then go find out how it changed (you should sit down while doing it)

[@KNemo1999]

If you build it... we'll need a bigger boat.

[@PapaDubs]

Absolutely fascinating Podcast. Coffee with Dr. Albert would be such an amazing experience. Wish I could sit down and ask all the questions I have about reality with Dr. Albert. ❤

[@quarterplay3675]

Physics is limited to the measurable/countable, philosophy. the infinite. We count/measure within the infinite but we cannot count/measure the infinite-

[@Mentaculus42]

42:30 “The fundamental laws don’t make any distinction” about the direction of time BUT there is an → of time, ⛬ the orthodox fundamental laws must be incomplete ‽

[@sylviarogier1]

Love listening to people like David and Tim. Thank you for this interview.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Yes, preserve! Unto all Whom belongs? Can be trusted with confidence!

[@david-joeklotz9558]

Superb discussion 😎 Enjoyed every minute. Dr Albert is always extremely interesting. Thanks

[@justincase4812]

For me, what he is getting at is the attempt to discover what the details are beyond the sub atomic scale that lead to emergent properties we see in classical physics with gravity for example. A guess a the riddle. Humans have a decent understanding of what happens at the micro and macro scales, and we are approaching our limitations to observe any smaller or larger than we already have. It's just something we need to accept. It's ok to not know everything.

[@dharmverma7595]

Isn’t it the consciousness and and its associated memory of the past that gives us a feeling of time moving in only one direction. As you yourself stated that if one did not know where the smoke started ( from cigarette or elsewhere) , both processes will be seemed possible

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

17:29 - I like this man.

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Your ignoring the superposition of remote viewing. That's the access for understanding the flexibility of time.

[@farhadfaisal9410]

Is Albert implying that quantum field theory is not Lozentz invariant and/or that the states of its amplitude can not be ordered by the 'proper time' (or 'tau') as an ordering parameter?

[@robbie_]

Very interesting talk. Thanks. (always very interesting when David Albert is present!)

[@JungleJargon]

Einstein spoke many times about the variable speed of light because neither time nor distance are constant so the speed of light cannot be constant over large distances.

[@advaitrahasya]

Great to hear from someone who knows the difference between a mathematical model and an understanding. Unfortunately, philosophies which descend from the Aristotelian misunderstanding which got us into this mess are not much help. Good to be thinking about these things though ;)

[@llothsedai3989]

What about the position of a particle retrocausality. It seems a simple test of the speed would be to add perform an experimental setup with the mirror left on the moon, a remote quantum experiment. Perhaps for the next mission.

[@CosmologicallyYours]

11:15 David Albert, "I was interested, when I was in graduate school, in working on issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics." It would seem that Academia would use coercion to prevent students from so much as to question the fundamental assumptions of the prior generations? (What history records are Published Conclusions based on their fallacious reasoning.) His point about when the Church leaders toured Galileo through the dungeons, showing him various means of torture? They forced Galileo to publicly renounce that the Earth moved. Humanity, (academia) better our grow this childish behavior before emergent General-AI passes out-smarts them -- passing judgement on their obsolete education system. Just as the criminal element of society hijacked health care and perverted it into a sick-care system. So too, the systems of "indoctrination" MUST be replaced by impowering the next generation with critical thinking that questions everything. Elon is right when he says, "AI must seek truth above all else."

[@bastardofthesun331]

Dr. Brian “Joe Rogan” Keating.

[@CharlesSagan1]

I deffo agree that the philosophical freedom based around a rigid foundation of ideas could be a hinderance, the example about Quantum Mechanics sums it up well. The freedom helped it blossom. However it would be worth noting that those great minds of the blooming QM started with a base themselves. So perhaps what was foundational for them Is exactly the best route for philosophical minimum in Our Understanding in the modern day, as well. That was also amazing question to ask Dr. Keating because it’s almost too subtle to a consideration, on the surface of Scientific discussion, not to take for granted the true significance behind that philosophy itself.

[@Alejandrakoxxx]

the noise gate has the attack too fast, specially on the voice off the intro. Try giving it a bit more of release.

[@vebnew]

Time is on my side

[@jaz4742]

*wind picks up* "Is it?" *whistling in the distance*

[@vebnew]

@@jaz4742 yes, it is!

[@brooksroscoe2699]

So glad that David concludes that human mind will be able to understand everything. However, he should check this with Chomsky for validation. Not sure how this will hold.

[@jazzunit8234]

By designing the future by our design at the time from being part of time in a design you can design

[@nyttag7830]

Think about all the things we will never know, it's crazy 😁

[@palfers1]

This was the most excellent accompaniment to breakfast. KZbin at its very best.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@petervandenengel1208]

21:30 Great guest. One side remark: when Galileo offered the scientific solution for the first time to the world, to just observe the world and note how it reacted objectively, in stead of founding it on a believe assumption. Like religion usually did/ although it based itself on philosophy, which also related to observations creating a well balanced reasoning outcome. The problem was the bible never stated anything about a flat earth. The clergy just assumed that would be the case. So Galileo was prosecuted for nothing - and your assumption philosophy is based on fantasized assumptions, as if Galileo proved this (no he advised to observe first without biases/ not that having theories about the observed was false, otherwise Newton would never have come to his explanation of gravity, just observing does not answer all questions), is incorrect as well.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@david_porthouse]

My guess at the riddle is to say that we know for sure that we need a nonlocal theory. Just playing round with the Minkowski formalism, we can see that there are two ways to travel faster than light. I suggest wavelike behaviour is in one of the ways, and there is orthogonal tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way. TBM comes into action during the nonlinear interaction between the wave function, the electromagnetic field and any propensity towards unstable or chaotic dynamics. The simplest system I can think of to exhibit this is an alpha particle colliding with two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. Unfortunately any computer simulation of this will need to run in dozens of dimensions of configuration space. We just don’t have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms. Quantum mechanics is comprehensible and imaginable, but we are beaten by the numbers. I would suggest that the collapse of the wave function is indeed a real physical process, but it is a nonlinear collective phenomenon requiring computer simulation in exponential time. David Albert’s professors were right with hindsight to constrain him from work on the foundations of quantum mechanics. He would have needed some big new idea like TBM which I date to 1979 by my memory. He would have needed proficiency in computer simulation. He would have needed to know how to publish his simulation. It’s not easy, and then the configuration space issue could make it impossible.

[@gravityalchemist6599]

I love that Professor Albert used one of his wife's paintings on the cover of his book.💕

[@2nd_foundation]

Please take a good read of the article in arXiv by Prof. Unnikrishnan, reconstructing quantum mechanics without foundational problems.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Shepherd will say, step forward. While thy eyes are close. Now HIS VOICE WILL GUIDE THEE!

[@thebends6580]

I would love to hear his take on the UAP phenomena, just for fun.

[@steve112285]

59:53 It seems to me that you don't have to assume other theories are true. You just need to say the assumptions you're using are the most predictive theories that haven't yet been falsified. You're not proving something is false. You're showing it's more likely that it is false.

[@oliverjamito9902]

My pop David Einstein thank you for attending unto our OWN! Love you too! Remember WHO SAID IF YE LOVE ME!

[@martinkaufmann4067]

1:20: Bohm's theory of a pilot wave gives up the classical view of reality, too. It is non local. So what?

[@petervandenengel1208]

59:21 That is nonsense. When scientific laws have later been replaced by better ones (so the old ones were incomplete, or in a certain sense false) this did not mean earlier assumptions had not functioned. Like before the invention of the metric system no one knew how to handle distances, weights and content. Maybe the mile is based on a false assumption. But it still works for the purpose. Bloodletting however made no sense at all. Although perhaps people believing it would do them good, were still relieved by it. In short: one cannot state all future nondiscovered scientific laws, can be found sooner by falsifying the existing ones as quickly as possible. So, what are you left with. With nothing. This is an expression of crazyness. Being totally unrealistic. A confused mind.

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is impossible unto HIM? Aren't ye all IN FRONT! Through HIM, by HIM, and for HIM.

[@jennymiko]

Thank you! 😊🙏

[@DrBrianKeating]

You’re welcome 😊

[@jennymiko]

@@DrBrianKeating 😊🙏💜

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Complexity puts an end to going back. Eddies of space/time along a continual straight path in a sea of waves.

[@oliverjamito9902]

David will say, before movement. Don't mind these principalities being ahead!

[@Thor_Asgard_]

I came for the physics and left wondering about that Hungarian pastry 😅 As someone that lifes there half of the year, i really dunno what kind of good pastry we have...

[@adocampo1]

So much philosophy, so much science, so much techie, everything great. the next stage is experience, mysticism.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Brian HOW'S MY BOOK? Sent forth throughout the Clouds!

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is EAST AND WEST? Beloved balance! Now what is NEWS? Bring all journalists in front to bring forth clarity, coherence, adequacy, evidence, and witnesses. What is NEWS?

[@TheMikesylv]

Is he saying relativity you have to use the arrow of time and quantum mechanics you have use all time circle time

[@oliverjamito9902]

David will say, Lord without thy FOOTSTOOL all we see can't exist!

[@petervandenengel1208]

55:03 Falsifiable IMO is a mispronounced concept. Maybe due to the old English use of wording at the time. What it actually means is veryfiable, based on supportive proof or not. I can imagine the discussion at the time went like this. "So you want this concept to be veryfiable. If it is true or not?" Popper was a sceptic. So he replied in denial. "No. It should be falsifiable. Be able to be proven wrong first. If you cannot do that, it is not true." How do you mean. Disprove gravity? Or prove it exists under certain conditions. And not under others. That is not exactly falsifying it. But testing it for its conditions. Which is veryfying. They were using the wrong vocabulary. But driven by the disussion with a sceptic (there probably was a lot he did not agree upon at the time), they landed in falsifiable as an agreement on the subject. They had not been thinking through carefully. Because testing on conditions and properties, could support the theory, or not. Verify or falsify.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Remember Trust comes with confidence!

[@oliverjamito9902]

My Host Brian HOW'S MY BOOK?

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

so the important thing that migth be non obsvious in my llittle rambling statement there, is what logic is, what it can do. and the issue is really that logic can only really ever assume its conclusions formally, in which case it is mathematical logic in a way, even if it is put in words, implications that are derrived just become results of operations just like in basic mathematics, now if we are to use logic in a rigorous applied to nature, to try to figure out what is going on, we have the problem that what we are going to be reasoning about is somthing we do not know about, we do not have the forms necessary to start applying logic even if we had confidence in our ability to do so. usually logic is just applied to arguments or mathematically well defined statements that boil down to assumtions at simple as the basic postulates of classical logic, something like, the cup is on the table or it has fallen to the floor, or maybe there is no cup either on the floor or the table, the nature of the meaning of those statements is easily understood and is binary with regard to the status of the cup, but in the real world we apply this linguistic destinction intuitively and imperically, we simple check that when we look at the cup, we see it either on the table or not and experience ourselves thinking "yes it is on there", or "no it has gone missing". this idea of matching patterns and applying logic to nature works fine in the direction from our arguments and categories, our definition towards feature of the pattern of nature that we appear to be able to understand in simple terms, but what we are asking for in determining what the cup really is, or how nature really works, is moving in the opposite direction, from the form of nature as a formal object, towards definitions that can be reasoned about using logic of whatever form is appropriate, this subtly switch is hugely important and sometimes subtle to most people, but it becomes essentially impossible to apply logic in this latter case, becuase we do not have a pattern in mind that can be formulated simply and reasoned about, we have an unknown patter for which me must construct definitions to apply logic to, which is a totally different business. it think a lot of conceptual and methodological mistakes, involving applying theorems incorrectly to the subject as a whole comes from not appriciating this difference.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Before movement! Obviously has an aim. Now asked thy aims resting upon? Yes, including all these principalities who are ahead! Keep watch

[@oliverjamito9902]

David will continue on even after rest from thy labor. Shared "i" AM come forth! Unseen nor seen

[@oliverjamito9902]

Time what is mistake? Lord thy Time sent forth! To bring to remembrance and comes with comfort Thy Love with patience, mercy, and grace! Time will say, remember HE HAVE LOVED THEE! Instead to bound hands and feet upon all dry grounds nor the world.

[@nulliusinverba4942]

Composed and brillant guess.

[@dougg1075]

Love this guy., he’s like a scientist in a movie .

[@oliverjamito9902]

Some will say HOW? Nor why? Through HIM, by HIM, and for HIM! Including all that are made that are made including all Thy shared Feet resting upon all dry grounds nor the world.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Beloved is like close thy eyes! Shepherd come here. Beloved follow HIS VOICE!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Where your Treasures is there your hearts will be also! Unto all who have an Ear let them hear!

[@bobcabot]

...one thing is for sure: he did say it in German! ( He was German not american no matter how hard you try he will never be american.

[@mechtheist]

Where does he send papers with 2 equations?

[@oliverjamito9902]

Students shared "i" AM will say, resting upon will be DETERMINED!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Creation will say can ye be trusted?

[@oliverjamito9902]

David will say remember being together?

[@TurdFerguson456]

Why do I think there are probably other universes? Because there's this universe. 💥 😎

[@user-mv3or2mc7w]

59:15 scientists working to prove false as principle and maxim has not been the case enough to make this general assertion true as I see it. I see it that rather pets are kept and aren't sent to be euthanised and when the assertion does apply it's aimed against others efforts but not applied to selves. This asymmetry in practice seems obvious to me.

[@igorsawicki4905]

Is it a fresh video?

[@LenSklogW]

❤❤❤ I am living with my inner boltzmann

[@tsunami6082]

Didn't the father of Logic, Parmenides implicitly argue that Logic was related to meaning, to what we could understand? For it is the same to think and to be. One cannot think P and Not P, so one cannot know what it means even if one claims that observation shows it to be True. The acceptance of P and Not P undermines meaning. Without the Law of Identity any word can have any meaning or no meaning at all and understanding and communication becomes impossible.

[@KRGruner]

Outstanding.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is false? Brian will say, What is TIME is for? If there's false there's true!

[@Urbewusstsein]

No that’s not true ,prof. dr. Hans Peter Dürr did explain it get the right informations

[@oliverjamito9902]

Creation will say, ye all are HIS GLORIFIER!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Creation will say remember without ye all. Who else will glorify HIS CREATION made just for thee all?

[@oliverjamito9902]

Brian How's BOOK? Brian forgot to put "MY" BOOK.

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

the philosophical minimum is simply, to appriciate that logic needs to be straight forward and clear, and that logic is no substitute for nature. you should however understand that the is no logic that can root our thoughts about models, maths or ideas directly to ontology and what is, and that this is universal in the realm of ideas and what makes experimentation indispensible, even if not sufficient for gaining understanding. also there is no pronouncable argument that cannot be investigated as flawed when it comes to talking about the stuff that exists out there, proof only exists with rigour within bounds that can only be simple enough to work on paper, and never truely induced to work for natures forms, because they are unknown to us in their absolute form. that is it basically. beyond that imagination can run in any direction and probably find something interesting if not always productive, it must be said that just because logic is not a sufficient tool for figuring out the world, and that we may never have a final answer or any coherent way to check wheter we do, trail and error, and imagination can surely make a dent in infinity small enough for us to marvel at.

[@jmanj3917]

26:06 ...What about two equations..? 😄