Does Superdeterminism save Quantum Mechanics? Or does it kill free will and destroy science?

[@garyha2650]

Getting through a video on superdeterminism determines you're super determined

[@unwovened]

I shall very much cherish my prize, thank you!

[@nziom]

I actually like her longer videos more

[@benbenson7300]

Nice one

[@stevenflanagan2995]

That was a random comment ;)

[@williamconrad1087]

I made it through the entire video but I took several different paths on which I wasn’t planning.

[@ludoviajante]

I love this channel so much, you have a talent for describing complex things in a simple and concise way.

[@kitastro]

i like people who speak sense

[@andregustavo2086]

Manda um salveeeee!! Amo seu canal!

[@Egonkiller]

Ludo, I love your channel as well!!!

[@francisbacon4363]

maybe she just understands the subject well enough to convey it fluidly

[@kyles3884]

Bullshit

[@Makebuildmodify]

In the double slit experiment isn't "measurement" another word for "interact"? When I hear someone say, "when we measure the particle it collapses the wave function." it sounds mysterious, but when I hear, "when we interact with the particle it collapses the wave function." it sound ridiculous that anything else would occur.

[@dahleno2014]

That’s a very good point.

[@rodmotor]

Does a Passive Infrared detector change the heat-energy it detects?

[@EGOPON]

What you say is true ONLY IF you accept Many Worlds interpretation. For example, when particles interact with each other, their wavefunction do not collapse but entangled. However, their wavefunction will be collapsed as soon as they are observed according to Copenhagen Interpretation. This is due to the existence of an apparatus, which is a classical object and there is a distinction between classical and quantum concepts according to CI. According to Many Worlds Interpretation, however, there is no collapse. Measurement is entanglement as well. So when we measure let's say a particle's position, we are entangled with its all possible choices. We observe only one choice because in a sense there are other worlds of us that measured other choices.

[@usr7941]

What does it mean 'interact'?

[@admiralduy]

@@rodmotor Interesting. I think the particle must have high energy to emit enough photons for the detector to recognize them. In that case, do the emitted photons interfere with the experiment? Does a large device near the split affect the experiment in some way? Did someone do an experiment or do the math for that?

[@asanulsterman1025]

I like the way this lady explains so that I almost feel like I almost understand

[@looli1327]

keword. "almost." LOL. This is top tier science communication.

[@dermotmeuchner2416]

@@looli1327as proven by the misspelling of keyword lol.

[@dermotmeuchner2416]

@@looli1327as proven by the misspelling of keyword lol.

[@jauharialafi]

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a physicist like you, Sabine. It’s such a shock for me to find out that so many scientists dare to claim one thing and deny another just because they don’t like it or understand it. That’s so un-scientific.

[@SevanStick]

The best are the ones like you who understand them all and like them all.

[@pretoasted]

100% agree. Not only was it nice to see an alternative idea/theories/viewpoint, but I personally didn't know about this 'free-will' constant that has been involved with so much, which honestly, was disgusting to find out about. To think that people who otherwise thought very logically, reasonably, and scientifically, would just toss in some unproven theory/idea/constant and declare it as reality/fundamental truth/law is a bit worrying. I can only hope things like this are kept to a minimum. If the scientific community as whole doesn't push back against this type of stuff, we'll run into situations as she mentioned where people fully buy into some of these 'scientific' concepts without knowing the entire thing is built upon an untested*, and therefore unproven assumption. *(I bet there are some interesting free-will experiments, but good look on getting any legitimate results that could be seen as conclusive, as well as withstand any simulation-related theory) To assume that just because no one has made sense of or found a pattern for something, does not mean there isn't one to be discovered... and to assign this lack of understanding to 'free-will', and then declaring it as a fact or even 'a prerequisite for science', is just like you said; completely un-scientific.

[@stevealexander8010]

I appreciate and mostly agree with you intent, but "un-scientific" is a term that riles me. Show me your objective criteria for "degree of scientficosity" and we'll have a point of discussion. My point is that the term is usually an ignorant cheap-shot critique. We should instead discuss the lack of even-handed rational skepticism (the core of the sci-method).

[@tonymorris4335]

Well, if Sabine is right they don't have a choice in the matter lol.

[@fahimp3]

@@tonymorris4335 She did not rule out compatibilism in this video and said as much.

[@davidcarmer7216]

I have to say that I've been loving the sense of humor you inject into these videos. Thank you.

[@dougsheldon5560]

She must have taken an anatomy class the way she hands men their heads :)

[@ivan-Croatian]

You are welcome.

[@Mp57navy]

Sarcasm is a sense of humor. :D

[@stevealexander8010]

Sabine is a hoot - there is no doubt. Love the desiccated-mummy-dry sense of humor, that translates well despite the culture barrier.

[@zandder]

Thank you so much for the clarification @15:15, the "detection" statement that is used in so many pop sceince books drives me crazy and took me a while to understand what they are actually referring to is INTERACTION. I REALLY wish people would stop using the detection term as it tends to make laymen (like me) think the whole damn thing is based on human detection. It is not, it is anything INTERACTING with the particle.

[@KalebPeters99]

Yes! The muddling of definitions between measurement/observation/detection/collapse and all the other terms used has been the biggest thorn in fundamental physics' side for a century. Everything is just interactions of one form or another! It's that simple!

[@cyanah5979]

Who detects the interaction?

[@noumenon6923]

Sabine is incorrect in her claim that “measurement/observation” is the same as “quantum interaction”, ….it is not. 1) If you imagine “quantum interactions” occurring independently of measurement, then you’re imagining metaphysics. Science can only know about measurement/observations. 2) There is empirically substantiated evidence that quantum interaction is not the same as measurement/observation, given the collapse of the wavefunction description . 3) Decoherence, which is quantum interaction with the experimental apparatus, does not cause collapse of the wavefunction, nor does it solve the measurement problem, nor does it determine why one set of values are observed rather than another.

[@dynapb]

Detection is just a particle interacting with a detector that can measure some property of the particle.

[@stampedetrail2003]

Yeah that one is still elusive to me actually. I've seen the double slit experiment showing the interference patter, and seen the double slit with light going through it. How come my observation of the slit didn't collapse the wave function?

[@jsfriedberg]

Thank you, Sabine. You've finally clarified the difference between the reality of an outcome, and our ability to predict the outcome.

[@mtgradwell]

I've been saying for decades that EVERY observation in QM can be explained deterministically. I was shot down every time, primarily because of Bell. Now, finally, a few decades late, somebody has noticed that Bell's theorem doesn't say what everybody insisted it said. And so now we have superdeterminism, which is just plain old determinism, but with a 'super' added presumably to help someone somewhere save some face. I don't mind, in fact if people were to attach a 'super' to everything I've been saying for the last few decades and not just in the field of quantum mechanics that would be fine by me. 'What a quantum particle does depends on what you measure" - of course it does. Quantum measurements are generally of tiny quantities which are only just barely detectable. The 'detectors' generally have internal states vastly more energetic than the things being 'detected'. Assuming they don't affect the particle being measured is like using a sledgehammer to measure eggs and concluding thereby that all eggs are flat at all times.

[@peabody3000]

i'm prepared to believe in determinism or superdeterminism but at the same time i'm not sure if it ultimately makes a real difference overall.. i believe in free will either way, and if the universe is indeed deterministic it's future is still incalculable at anywhere near the extremely fine-grained levels that determinism provides for

[@robertanderson5092]

Ditto

[@kajdronm.8887]

I'm not sure, if I understand you correctly. Does it mean, the result of the measurement is determined by the internal state of the detector?

[@Vexas345]

@@peabody3000 The universe made you think that the universe doesn't make you think everything you think. That's kinda messed up if you think about it.

[@randomizer2240]

@@peabody3000 We appear to have the free will to choose but the outcomes of the universe are predetermined because time only flows in one direction. Whilst you made your choice through freewill it can never be undone & would never have had a different outcome because its a one time deal. Whether you could've choose to do someone else is irrelevant becuase the fact is you didn't & you can never change it. In essence everything has a predetermined outcome.

[@Kong9901]

Just a clarification: I think that the compatibilists and the "No free will" group do not use the same definition of the free will. This is why for the former free will can be compatible with determinism. Perhaps many disagreements about the existence of free will come from the fact that people mean something different when they talk about free will.

[@andrewpaulhart]

All arguments about free will turn out to be arguments about definition. Pointless

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Yes in my understanding that is correct.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

I think much of the confusion is that we think about an outside observer and is dividing up myself and the universe as two separate thing. When we and every observer obviosly is a part of the Universe. So if the universe is determined so are you. And your thought experiments is often wrong because the observer must be a part of the system.

[@mikeyc8139]

You do realize you were destined to type that: you had no choice. Nor did I in typing this! ;)

[@fredygump5578]

Without exception, I have found that people who claim they have free will can't define it when scrutinized. But they just know they have it. The "I choose whatever I want" version of Free Will only makes sense in the Christian context of Calvinism vs Armenianism (It was wrong then, but people liked it so kept it alive.) In psychology/ criminal justice, it has become the question of responsibility for past actions, as in you did it because you are sick, not because you are evil...but this scenario fits firmly within determinism so can be ignored.

[@eddiebrown192]

Just an average layman with a curious mind here , and I have to say this video was brilliant . It really put a lot of the puzzle pieces I have collected over the years , together . Now I feel that I have to dig deeper into this … that’s good teaching .

[@adamsawyer1763]

This is not good teaching. Sabine is being dishonest with her arguments to get clicks. I don't honestly believe she actually believes that she has no free-will.

[@Brilgamath]

"I don't honestly believe she actually believes that she has no free-will." But she does actually believe that, doesn't mean that it should bear any consequences on her life. She also addressed that point in another video & interviews. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKG4kJhpn82SfLs

[@adamsawyer1763]

@@Brilgamath I don't believe anyone really believes they don't have free-will. You can say it all you want but it is literally impossible to live a functional life as if you have no free-will. It's not like belief in anything else, you have to use your free-will every day just to get by.

[@Brilgamath]

Interesting take. But once again I invite you to check the video I linked. You can believe in having no free will and still get by fine.

[@adamsawyer1763]

@@Brilgamath if saying "I believe I have no free-will" counts as believing you have no free-will then maybe. However, if you have to walk the talk and actually behave as if you have no free-will then your life would rapidly deteriorate as you'd have to refuse to actively be involved in any conscious thought process whatsoever. Without rational higher level thinking your options for action would be severely restricted. Relying on impulses from the subconscious only would lead to very short term oriented behaviour. Now you can claim till you're blue in the face, as Sabine does, that actually no - actively thinking about stuff is also all predetermined from the big bang. Then your refusal to actively participate consciously in thinking or doing would have been predetermined. You can go in circles like this forevermore. It's circular reasoning, it's not open to any possibility of scientific scrutiny. It isn't scientific yet Sabine dishonestly claims her stance is the only scientifically defensible one regards free-will. What we do know for sure is we can and do think and do and we can opt not to think or do and it makes a big difference. That difference is real and measurable and you can experience it in real time. So whatever the process is that allows that difference in experience and outcome is it definitely is something real and it has causal power regardless whether you believe in free-will or not. Same way as you're going to fall to your death if you step off a cliff while not believing in gravity. Science doesn't currently have the tools to objectively measure these subjective experiences of consciously freely-willed events but that doesn't mean something isn't there. Sabine is badly overreaching. Interestingly there's a parallel between: 1) the scientifically untestable nature of subjective conscious experience of freely-willed causation and 2) the scientifically untestable nature of whatever process (if any) that leads to quantum wave function collapse into definite outcomes in a probabilistic fashion. Rewatch this video with Sabine and you'll notice she is self contradictory. She says that you can't look for free-will in the quantum wave function collapse because it's acausal, there's nothing causing the measured direct outcomes. That bolsters her case that there's no free-will and drives her ascertion Bells theorem says nothing further about free-will since she already knows from quantum mechanics' probabilistic nature that there can be no free-will there and macroscopically everything is deterministic. Then later she claims that she's hopeful that new theoretical models of superdeterminism she's working on may become testable in future with new technology which will show that there is a deterministic hidden variable process underneath quantum wave function collapse. I.e it'll be deterministic all the way down. But that means she and science don't actually know what's underneath QM - which we know to be the case more broadly. By her own words she shows that her belief in no free-will is a faith based position for which she is seeking evidence which currently does not exist. But if anyone says they wish to search for evidence of quantum system involvement in consciousness and free-will she states that that is unscientific as nothing lies underneath quantum mechanics. That's intellectually dishonest, it's against the spirit of open curiousity at the frontiers of scientific knowledge and I don't like her attitude one bit. Watch it again carefully then come back here and tell me I'm wrong.

[@darrellirwin7201]

Great presentation! This may be the most intriguing and enlightening lecture I have ever found on you-tube! Thank-you! Made my Day!

[@josephbrisendine2422]

This is so good and helpful. I have been confused for so long how there could be different degrees of determinism. From the moment you said superdeterminism was just as deterministic as regular determinism I was so excited, because I could see a way to explain this issue that had made me feel like I must be misunderstanding something for many years. I read “what bell did” soon after its publication and tried to ask Tim Maudlin this question, but until now I never had the confidence to say that I didn’t think his answer made sense. Bless you for explaining so clearly and I love it when you cut loose like this, incredible video!

[@EffySalcedo]

Our dear Sabine is a life saver; I saved lots if time just getting the facts from her trendy Physics briefings. I literally clapped my hands watching her briefings on Quantum Eraser without the gobbledygook 👏

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for the kind words, it really makes it all worthwhile to know that my videos are helpful.

[@colinbrash]

@Star Traveler incredible detective work. Thank goodness you are on the internet uncovering this horrific behavior, and thoughtfully warning all of us on KZbin.

[@41alone]

@Star Traveler I came for the science but stayed for the weird

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@SabineHossenfelder, kindly provide your email address, as I have an interesting proposition for you, Frau.

[@gustavobolson8261]

This is amazing! Ever since I did a course on Non-linear Dynamics and Chaos I though that, just maybe, some of the systems we are used to analyzing as probabilistic might just be chaotic. The idea of Superdeterminism surely seems like great motivation to study more of both subjects! Thanks for sharing this with us, Sabine!

[@IPlayWithFire135]

It's bizarre to think that chaotic systems can be as overwhelmingly unpredictable as "truly" random ones.

[@jamieg2427]

strogatz says hello

[@jamieg2427]

@@IPlayWithFire135 isn't it true that quantum mechanics is the only physical regime where objective randomness is widely considered to exist? if so, this makes the randomness of QM an aberrant property. then, some might find it unsurprising that the apparent randomness of QM is in fact the result of a highly chaotic system.

[@Dinofaustivoro]

@@jamieg2427 strongly agree with you and Gustavo

[@johanneskrv]

Please explain why? If the heisenberg uncertainty principle is true, then you can never have exact position and momentum at the same time in interactions. This in turn implies that in causal chains there is always some error in the initial conditions. Coupled with chaos theoretic phenomena (an error smaller than heisenbergs uncertainty term can cause an infinitely large error in finite time) this implies that often a natural phenomena can be completely indeterministic. Hence determinism is bullshit😊

[@XX-es8vg]

Thank you Sabine, your videos never fail to answer those lingering doubts and questions I have after watching others on the same subject. I love how you don't shy away from going just a bit deeper into things and even showing us an equation or two.

[@ivan-Croatian]

You are welcome.

[@klauswich3187]

I love your statement: "Now you all know that I think free will is logical incoherent nonsense" I could'nt agree more. I also love the statement: ""And in any case, throwing out determinism just because you don't like its consequences is really bad science". However, I might fall into the category of men having a strong opinion about things they know very little about 😉

[@AbsentMinded619]

It’s just as true the other way. Nihilists tend to want to throw out free will (or assume infinite universes) because they fear the consequences of their choices mattering. What’s scarier? That nothing matters, or that EVERYTHING matters? Biases drive what team scientists are on more than they care to admit. When the Big Bang Theory was being argued over, most religious scientists sided with Lemaître and atheists were mostly on team Hoyle.

[@borisreitman]

No, Free Will exist. Read the book "The illusion of determinism" by Edwin Locke.

[@wisejackproject]

I watched this video when it came out, yet understood nothing. Upon recently watching PBS Spacetime video on the same topic, this video made much more sense. I really appreciate channels like this, bringing such topics to the general public with better quality than your average science communication channel. Thank you.

[@MalcolmCir]

Yes. I had the benefit of watching that PBS Spacetime video, "Is The Future Predetermined By Quantum Mechanics?" first. I have to agree that video greatly helps set the stage visually for this argument in the Physics community presented so well in this video. Especially the emphasis on Wave Functions in Quantum Mechanics. Watch this one first: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3umg3eXlpiYns0

[@lucidhominid2190]

Wow, it's amazing to hear an actual physicist talk seriously about the kind of ideas that seemed intuitive to me back in college learning about the double slit experiments but was told to were obviously wrong and stupid. I kind of feel inspired to go back and finish.

[@gsyamsri8122]

Be careful, if you go talking with people and it appears that your idea is that the very source of all their income is about to be revealed as something so simple any random student can catch it the first time he hears about it, then they will hang you at the very first string available. Never do that! Don't claim such things! I mean don't claim it alone at their face. Go get friends before and claim it under a complicated name by a publication on Nature. So they will not understand what you say, they will fully support your "new revolutionary idea" and they will make a mess out of it the same way they did with quantum statistician laws. Even if your theory says they are dumb, they will support it fully and proudly claim later they were your disciples from the very first day.

[@Achrononmaster]

@@gsyamsri8122 applause is due for that superb Machiavellian recommendation on how to subvert a moribund orthodoxy.

[@falconeagle3655]

You guys didn't get him. What is infact intuitive is the hidden variable theory. And what Einstein said. To experiment we need very small system with nothing except the particle. It's difficult to do this experiment.

[@lucidhominid2190]

​@Matthew Morycinski Whenever people say stuff like that it just comes off as being upset that someone else might find something intuitive that they do not. The first time anyone encounters anything it is going to be unlike anything they have already experienced. Intuition isn't the same thing as prior experience nor is it synonymous with 'obvious'.

[@gsyamsri8122]

@Matthew Morycinski I don't agree. QM is in many way behind intuition, it's only a question of equations, and the result following these equations, but these equations are only statistical. You need no intuition, you need to apply the rules. Once you see the results, then you may find the results themselves unintuitive, but as log as you understand what you did with the numbers, it won't be rocket science for you, it's gonna just be as it is. And then whet it's a question of making sense out of these, well we don't know for sure. But some find one idea more intuitive than another, Einstein found more intuitive the hidden variables. Who are you to say that it SHOULD be unintuitive to be correct? It's wrong, we just don't know, but it seems what is said here,seems to me, more intuitive than the usual "wow MQ is so fucked-up you know, you'll never understand" bullshit.

[@IslandHermit]

Thank you for pointing out that "observation" means interacting with the particle/wave/system. Far too often that gets left out of explanations, which then feeds beliefs that the universe requires consciousness to function.

[@Augustus_Imperator]

how wouId that hinder superdeterminism anyway?

[@jdkhaos4983]

Your universe requires your consciousness to function, and the universe as a whole does not ;) Maybe it's not one or the other, but both. Each consciousness within the universe experiences its own "universe" independent of other conscious beings. But I'm just rambling, if only we actually understood consciousness on a more fundamental level.

[@garysteven1343]

Wish more people knew that... It's depressing when you have to argue with some who hears "quantum observation" and imagines a 4K camera capturing a small blue ball with "e¯" label on it... 😑

[@alienzenx]

@@michaelredl7860 Firstly, you don't know that the universe precedes consciousness, or even "life" for that matter. You have just assumed it. Since we have no idea what consciousness is, that is a bold assumption to make.

[@IslandHermit]

@@michaelredl7860 They typically use that very question to justify the existence of God.

[@remusgogu7545]

Can’t believe that smart people are still debating free will. But most likely they have no choice

[@nadirceliloglu7623]

Yes you are right. She is smart but makes a very odd and absurd statement about free will

[@sneeddeens9895]

@@nadirceliloglu7623 like what?

[@James-ll3jb]

Exactly!

[@James-ll3jb]

​@@nadirceliloglu7623 Why is it "absurd"? And why would its absurdity be an argument against it?

[@nadirceliloglu7623]

@@James-ll3jb why?? Seriously?? She claims we have no free will which is an incorrect statement. 90% of Physicist believe that counciousness is a strong emergent property of the brain giving DIRECT instructions to the norons and particles of the brain how to act@ Now if you don't know do first your own research! I am a Physicist and what are u???

[@kevinturner7509]

Brilliant work, Sabine! You're an Enlightenment icon. The medal is entirely unnecessary, because the reward is the content itself. I was entirely engrossed in the video and would have loved it to last even longer -- far longer, in fact. I wager many others feel the same. I find the topic of superdeterminism particularly interesting, and I love to see that it's one of interest to you as well. I hope to see more on it. Thank you!

[@leoelamri4054]

Yet I'm somehow happy I got the medal

[@Kenjuudo]

@@leoelamri4054

[@davidhand9721]

You have absolutely shocked me by saying exactly what I've been thinking about QM for a long, long time. All the way from the separation of superdeterminism and free will to the chaotic system of hidden variables. I was very nearly convinced otherwise through my deepening exploration of QM by the physicists that have explained it to me, but you've given me a reason to hold fast. Thanks.

[@sampark7324]

I have had a similar experience. Thanks for sharing.

[@antman7673]

Hidden variables seem reasonable, when they cannot be ruled out. So far I haven’t seen an argument.

[@jamesaritchie1]

I wouldn't use the word "thinking", if I were you. This is just complete bullshit. It's amazing how seemingly intelligent people get in completely over their heads when dealing with quantum mechanics. What nearly always does them in is trying to fill a knowledge vacuum with whatever idiotic theory makes them feel more intelligent, rather than being able to admit they don't know something, and have zero evidence to base their crackpot theory on. Quantum mechanics doesn't need "saved". It's getting along fine, and is completely healthy. It people with limited minds who need saved, but crackpot theories like superdeterminism are not the answer, they're just a symptom of a mind that is straining beyond its own limitations.

[@sampark7324]

@@jamesaritchie1 Actually superdeterministic QM is exactly the ordinary QM that does not need to be saved, but just follows logically, as the patient Sabine H has demonstrated. The amazing stretches of introducing consciousness and other such woolly notions into physics constitute the intellectual abyss, even though uttered by Bohr, Bell and other gray eminences.

[@sampark7324]

@david hand - your comment continues to spark useful interaction. It is a defect of the KZbin comment medium that such back and forth gets buried.. @Sabine Hossenfelder, thanks again for kicking this off..

[@milosinclair4002]

Wishing you were my physics professor!! Partly for your skill at scientific communication but also because you’re hilarious and a badass. I always look forward to your videos!!

[@milosinclair4002]

@@kensho123456 a cool person who is confident and brave!

[@jimc3891]

I really needed the medal. Thank you.

[@ewef9871]

Sabine, is the first person ive heard who re-iternated my belief that free-will is an incoherent concept. I am happy that I am not completely crazy. So many people just give me glazed over looks or just completely disregard this idea when I explain it to them

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

This is common among neuroscientists. And I find nothing to be afraid of here. "Free will doesn't exist" really means free will isn't a fundamental constituent of nature, just like the chair I'm sitting on, isn't, either.

[@Niosus]

As a software developer I also find that free will is overrated. Computers don't have free will. But that doesn't mean they can't make decisions. They make decisions all the time! They make decisions based on their current state and the input they receive. Even if you include some randomness, it's always pseudorandom in computers so they still just determine on the pseudorandom algorithm and its seed. The idea that some quantum noise influencing your decisions somehow gives you more agency seems absurd to me. A computer can fulfill whatever task you want it to do while being entirely deterministic. There is no reason to believe that our biological programming is so fundamentally different. And even if quantum randomness plays a big role in our brains: it is indistinguishable from pseudorandomness. As long as the pseudorandom generator obeys the same distribution, you can never distinguish the two and therefore doesn't have an impact on us.

[@andrewguthrie2]

@Ewef Yes, I get this too. My sister genuinely looks worried when I explain this to her 😂

[@joefioti5698]

@@Niosus I'm so glad other people see it the way I do.

[@ddmannion]

Beware your confirmation bias.

[@charles.e.g.]

I am so grateful to the superdeterminism of the KZbin algorithm for introducing me to you and your marvelous work this evening! I don’t believe in free will either, so I had absolutely no choice but to gleefully subscribe!! So happy to be here!!

[@orbitalmechanics3756]

There is free will, but only in things that doesn't matter.

[@livebungusreaction]

@@orbitalmechanics3756 how do you mean?

[@orbitalmechanics3756]

@@livebungusreaction e.g. you have a freewill to choose what cloth to wear , but no one can determine their own birth circumstances and upbringing. Whearas the former does not really matter, but the latter makes a lot of difference.

[@livebungusreaction]

@@orbitalmechanics3756 Okay I see I would agree. We do have free will just idk just because we can’t predict it doesn’t mean it isn’t “predetermined” it doesn’t make free will less special to me though? In the end I still have one outcome that is going to happen or potentially maybe not but as far as I’m aware it still only has one ending not multiple.

[@pratyush755]

@@orbitalmechanics3756 free will for only thgs that doesn't MTR means didn't get u sir..for which things we have free will??

[@georgesulea]

Thank You; I'm a layman, and thanks to your skill, I actually understood this. You are a great teacher.

[@NickMirro]

Well how great to have found your channel!!! Finally a good use for our TV set! The only thing I love more than physics, information theory and philosophy is Sabine ❤❤❤

[@UserName________]

Sabine is awesome. We are grateful for your existence and explorations :)

[@AndrewMilesMurphy]

Most definitely. I think there are super - determined aspects of reality, but for other things, such as our inner lives, super - determinism cannot explain those.

[@mirkojevtic988]

Amazing content. Watched it several times in awe at how you transform such difficult concepts into elegant explanations that are as easy to understand as they ever could be. Educational masterpiece, really. I always had a problem with quantum mechanics and the fact that what happens on the particle level just doesn't translate to the macro levels. It just doesn't make sense.

[@personalJoke]

I thought I was the only one watching this video over and over again.

[@cportable]

While it is counterintuitive, scale effects other non-quantum things too. For example the water strider bug takes advange if it's size and weight to have surface tension overwhelm other forces to walk on water. We cannot scale that up to human size, or even mouse size. Quatum mechanics are weird, but various things don't conceptually work the same way at different scales. People don't attach and detact from other objects like electrons do to atoms either.

[@martinkirchhoff1084]

It changes the Makrokosmos: radioactive decay changes often the Genom.And Planetary Atmospheres are mathematical Chaotic systems,so radioactive decay cause butterfly effects ( And i dont see,how browns molecular movement would smooth this butterfly effects away, as several people assume.)

[@jstanton7070]

Yea.

[@pratyush755]

Hi guys...does this video conclude ...we don't have free wil at all ...can someone pls tell..

[@moondoggie32]

Sabine, absolutely excellent, as always. Just looking at methodology, it seems a lot of science is filled with preconceived notions and if you dig deep enough, eventually small traces of circular reasoning. I think this is especially true when one approaches determinism with the attitude of "it must be so, because I cannot accept that it isn't." And therefore if something seems random, it must be because the boundaries we have drawn from inside our observer are being violated by some deterministic process from outside those boundaries. I don't see any way to escape that it is either random (not fully deterministic) or there is something (that could be deterministic or not) from outside acting on the observer. I think we can't eliminate non-determinism on quantum levels until such time as we discover an outside influence.

[@rylian21]

It seems that the lines between science and philosophy tend to blur quite a bit when dealing with quantum mechanics because the results appear to be contrary to how we experience the universe.

[@juanausensi499]

@@aaronrobinson5256 That's not the opposite of science. Can you design an experiment to prove or deny the existence of free will? Free will is just the subjective impression that we theoretically could have made another choice after making one, but because we only experiment every instant once, there is no way to test if we really could have done that. There is no physical manifestation of free will, free will is a philosophical concept and should remain in that realm.

[@michaels4255]

@@juanausensi499 "Can you design an experiment to prove or deny the existence of free will?" -- If the answer is 'No,' then both free will and determinism lie outside the realm of science because the scientific method will not be applicable to either one.

[@juanausensi499]

@@michaels4255 Yes and no. The concept of 'determinism' only exists because the concept of 'free will' exists. Determinism is the null hypothesis, is the assumption than causes precede and determine consequences. As an assumption, it can't be proved. But in practice, you don't need to bother. Physics is the same with or without free will. The interpretations of quantum mechanics are not science (unless we can prove them right or wrong) but narrative, so you can place free will in them if that is useful to understand what's happening.

[@pratyush755]

But does it means..our whole life is predestined by laws of nature and differntial equations..before even we are born??

[@nikgokuhil]

I reached the final line but dont deserve the medal. I need a break and then rewatch the video a few times before I can grasp it to some extent. The topic is very interesting and you explained it really well, but even double slit experiment confuses my brain after all these years

[@Thomas-gk42]

Keep up hope

[@stockbrk0153]

I throughly enjoyed your explanation on a fairly difficult subject. I enjoy learning about quantum mechanics. And you make it interesting and fun to understand. Thank you for taking the time to educate us on something I think a lot of people have an interest in.

[@ChaohsiangChen]

It's not difficult. Complicated, yes, and that is due to the mental gymnastics among top physicists to argue metaphysical ideas to fit their frames of understanding. Just ask why the speed of light is assumed to be constant across the whole universe when we only compiled averaged local measurement results, and you'll see holes in our understanding of physics.

[@tretolien1195]

This encouraged me to finish the section on Bell's inequalities in my quantum information theory book, thank you

[@ivan-Croatian]

You are welcome.

[@cagrulucyldrmoglustudent709]

I am sold, and that description of "trying the predict the weather for next week" really puts into perspective how much we know and what we should do moving forward. I am much more optimistic about the possible expansion of our knowledge in physics.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Hi Dr. Sabine, l finally earned your medal after hearing this about a dozen times. I don't worry about KZbin videos, I trust you and I leave the equations in your papers for Nicolas Gisin and Anton Zeilinger. This was great education, thank you. Hope you keep up working on the topic, and the experiment, you suggested since years, will be done.

[@wiesawnykiel1348]

You better not trust anyone...too much. Today's commentary on the fragment around 11.50: "Because the particles must have already known when they set off whether to choose one of the two slits or go through both." In a delayed selection experiment in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, we can insert the second beam splitter after the photon has left the first beam splitter. If we insert a second beam splitter, the photon moves along both paths at the same time (it must have information about the amplitudes and phase differences of both paths) and single-photon interference occurs. If we do not insert a second beam splitter, the photon follows one path.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@wiesawnykiel1348sounds like a quantum eraser. But is it in opposite to what SH claims here?

[@wiesawnykiel1348]

@@Thomas-gk42 Read it again:"Because the particles must have already known when they set off whether to choose one of the two slits or go through both." Now listen to this kzbin.info/www/bejne/amSWpXSchJmXmKM In this case, the photon is supposed to move in one of two ways, but we don't know which one. Therefore, the measurement only indicates which path it is. However, if we insert a second beam splitter ("long" after the photon has chosen one of the paths), interference will occur, which means that the photon had to move on both paths at the same time. MEANS HE COULD NOT CHOOSE ONE PATH, because you never know whether a second beam splitter will be inserted.

[@whiteboar3232]

I really loved this video. And I'm quite shocked by the number of famous scientists who, not getting it right, react in a very obscurantistic way.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I actually find it quite puzzling.

[@TheDendem]

Yes! I'm still schocked by that. But it seems every field has problems like that, science still needs humans to run and interpret it. This makes me wonder how much of my understanding comes from a trusted missundertanding source 🤔

[@pipertripp]

@@SabineHossenfelder It reminds me of Eddington's reaction to Chandrashekar's paper on electron degeneracy and it's implications for white dwarfs. His objection was just emotional, he obviously couldn't refute the science. This has the same vide to me.

[@emk7132]

Historians of science (physics and beyond), however, are neither shocked, surprised, nor puzzled.

[@erikziak1249]

@@SabineHossenfelder I do not. On the contrary, this fits nice into my worldview of human beings being very, very wrong about many things. And scientists are part of the group that we label "humans", so they suffer from the same cognitive biases that other humans do. Disclaimer: I am also a part of the "human" set. Cognitive biases apply to myself as well. At least I am aware of it, but that does not mean that I do not suffer from them.

[@atrus3823]

I love this topic-so interesting! When I first heard about the double-slit weirdness, I instantly thought, "this doesn't violate determinism at all. " We don't really know what is causing anything to happen on a fundamental level. I think where people get uncomfortable is thinking that our measuring is causing the particle to change paths, but maybe the measurement and the predictable particle path are just intrinsically linked. Here's a thought experiment: a human has their eyes covered from birth, and walks around with some kind of footwear that makes it impossible for them to feel anything about the ground they are walking on. They discover an attachment for their eye coverings that displays a strange image (it's a feed from a camera that points at a patch of earth beside them, feet out of view). When they walk around, the image changes. They might conclude that they are causing this substance to morph into different materials, but the ground was already all those materials to begin with. Their walking wasn't changing the ground, they were just seeing different parts of it.

[@colekam]

Assertions (from physics community) about any violations of determinism in observations made at quantum mechanical scales has little to do with double-slit weirdness. The probabilistic wave-particle nature of quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with determinism (ignoring other phenomena), and the physics community is completely aware of this. But, for this compatibility to hold, hidden variables have to exist. Qualms (from phys community) with determinism arise from Bell's theorem/inequality and the Bell experiments. The Bell experiments demonstrated that locally-hidden variables cannot exist - kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJTUi3uPpJyChNU (17m minutephysics video). This is experimental evidence that explicitly refutes determinism (of locally-hidden variables). The qualms aren't simply an interpretation of double-slit weirdness. This video asserts that the Bell experiments showed those results because the detectors were (and, so far, have always been) interfering** with the system they are measuring, and thus creating a smearing over averages. Her solution is to carry out experiments with more precise measurement systems that do not interfere with the systems they are measuring. **(much like if you were to try to measure your distance from a ball (A) on a frictionless surface by rolling another ball (B) towards it, and measuring the time to hear the collision. Plotting the distances over multiple rolls would show that ball A's position seemed random and probabilistic, but Sabine asserts this randomness comes from your inability to roll ball B at a precise speed, not due to ball A being a cloud with no real position. Her solution would be to just roll ball B slower so you are more confident of your roll-speed.)

[@FredPlanatia]

@@colekam thanks for finally giving a simple comprehensible example of what is meant by the hidden variable explanation for the seeming probabilistic (indeterminate) nature of the microscopic world. In your example the hidden variable would be the precise velocity (or deviation from your intended velocity) of Ball B, if i follow correctly.

[@ConcertsAtHome]

​@@colekam You can't you prove locally-hidden variables don't exist and I am all too often astonished that so many people who are really into science think you can.

[@red2alertone]

heisenberg principle is determenistic or probalistic ?

[@dalmationblack]

Superdeterminism doesn't just postulate that the measuring causes the particle to change paths though; it postulates that the measuring causes the particle *to have always been on a different path*. In your analogy, it's as though you could demonstrate that the materials that the ground was made of in the beginning depended on how the person chooses to walk later on. I don't think superdeterminism is inherently wrong or bad, but I think people in this comments section are brushing off the fact that it is still very weird.

[@mehranzahir1136]

Well I'm not convinced because all of that just went right over my head. I'm gonna have to rewatch this many times.

[@aarondavis8943]

Don't worry; if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't. It's my favourite saying because it means I understand quantum mechanics!

[@RajeshKumar-ry4on]

😃😃😃

[@theMosen]

@@aarondavis8943 Ah, but if you think you *don't* understand quantum mechanics, you also don't.

[@jettmthebluedragon]

@@aarondavis8943 well I don’t understand quantum mechanics but yet I understand determinism randomness and super determinism and all,it took was basic questions 🙂you just have to ask the RIGHT questions 😐

[@Laurencemardon]

Poor squirrel, his whole future is now that much more determined- he says he will have to watch it over again, and again. Doomed? To soon to say!! Got any updates for us on this Zahir? ❤🧟🧞‍♂️ from not-mardon , in Canada 🇨🇦

[@clementinodemendonca5978]

This has been one of the best Sabine videos ever, thank you Sabine for investing the time in its production.

[@mozzerianmisanthrope406]

Excellent video, Sabine! Such a fascinating topic within QM itself. Thank you for bringing us mind expanding lessons and most importantly correct analyses of theorems and other information that has often been interpreted wrongly for decades. Happy Christmas to you and yours - if you celebrate! ✌️

[@RiiDii]

The _weather in a year in advance_ analogy finally hit home for my understanding. The predictive weather models give us averages spread over seasons or months. However, if we measure the weather on a specific date next year, that probability distribution collapses to whatever happened. If we decide to destroy the measurement and not know what the weather was like on that day, all we have remaining is an average prediction. A weather erasure?

[@davidfdzp]

With enough sensors of humidity, temperature and pressure and enough computing power, the weather of a year in advance can be predicted with a high probability. This is not so clear for quantum mechanics, it seems.

[@jan.kowalski]

@@davidfdzp probably the problem is with scale, not with "enough" of something.

[@MightyDrunken]

@@davidfdzp True. Though I think this is thought to be a problem in physics because something like the electron is thought to be elementary, a single thing and therefore simple. If in fact there is more structure down to the plank length then the weather analogy looks more applicable.

[@priceringo1756]

You are super-determined to express your thoughts about Superdeterminism. Very symmetrical. Thank you.

[@jengleheimerschmitt7941]

I knew you were going to say that.

[@ElenaPapanikolaou81]

Sabine is doing the precious job of helping scientists and thinkers out of the bottle in which they trapped themselves, to paraphrase Wittgenstein. I am grateful for these videos. If I could submit one minor request, that would be a diagram/ schematic representation of the syllogism even at the end of the video , as a recap. 😊

[@lepidoptera9337]

Nah, Sabine is just a German four that appeals to lonely guys without science education. ;-)

[@Davidsasz1239]

Loved the video! I've been looking forward to it since I saw "Rethinking Superdeterminism" with you and Timothy Palmer. As a layman, superdeterminism makes way more sense than the unexplained non-linear quantum collapse. On an unrelated note, a topic I would love to know your opinion about is Carlo Rovelli's perspective of "Forget Time" (he did a lecture on The Royal Institution), that claims that time itself is not a fundamental in the universe, but rather that it emerges from the movement/interactions/relations of the fundamental elements of spacetime.

[@ofsinope]

Sneaking free will into the random fluctuations of quantum mechanics always seemed like a stretch to me. It's really a "god of the gaps" type argument. I don't choose the spins of electrons in my brain. Whether the process is random or predetermined, I'm not really in control.

[@tjentalman]

YES THANK YOU 👏

[@tjentalman]

I agree however, our predetermined conclusions only work if we identify with the humans (fragments of the universe) typing these comments (instead of the whole of existence). Maybe the whole of existence is choosing the spins without us fragments being individually aware of it...

[@Lightning_Lance]

A better version of free will would be if humans were partly higher dimensional. If a part of your existence (lets call it your spirit) is larger than the universe itself, and the physical human is connected to that. Then the part that's outside of the universe can make decisions or guide the physical human to locally change the universe in some way. That would be free will I think. Or at least it would be in relation to the universe (but not to the higher dimensions that we would be part of). But it wouldn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics...

[@monnoo8221]

the problem with your argument is that it is conflating scales and principles. Free will has nothing to do with the randomness on the level of quantum physics. Though it has to do with randomization, more precisely, mapping of data onto high-dimensional random vectors. Free will is a short notion for: there is no traceable physical causal relationship between saying "no" and the physical environment the "no" saying mind is emerging from. If you relate free will to quantum fluctuations you follow the path of a crude reductionist. Yet, there are countless ways to construct randomness in multi-level emergent systems. Those you rule all out, just as your famous colleagues, because you do not know anything about constructing thinking.

[@simesaid]

@Adrian Molière yes, but then it's also hard to see how quantum effects would influence the brain in any substantial way either, leaving us with an unpredictable yet fully deterministic human. One who for as yet unknown reasons has come to view his actions as somehow not beholden to the same laws as everything else in the universe. And here, while it may make sense for the general public to believe in such fantasy, for the life of me I can't understand how any working physicists also could. The arrogance is simply breathtaking, even allowing for the fact they don't control it!

[@aclearlight]

Bravo! What a fun romp through an historic question, and you brought me to much a sharper view of the conundrum. I wish you would expand upon the importance of being at (or stuck in?) "in the chaotic regime" as far as limiting experimental testing for hidden variables. Great work, thank you.

[@BladeOfLight16]

I believe Sabine is referring to so called "chaotic functions;" it's a mathematical concept. It describes a class of functions where any extremely minor variation in one parameter results in drastically different behaviors in the function (as you vary another parameter). The position of a double rod pendulum is a good example: the exact behavior of position as a function of time varies wildly based on the initial position and masses. (So the parameters of the function are mass, initial position, and time, and the function computes a position given a combination of them.) Mathematically, you can formalize "chaotic" behavior, but I won't get into it here. The intuitive understanding is enough for the moment. The problem with these in physics experiments is that any minor imprecision or error in measurement can drastically change your conclusions, since the math you're using to make predictions will make wildly different predictions depending on the exact values involved. This makes testing a hypothesis via experiment essentially impossible, since there is always some level of error that you have to account for and thus you can't test whether the real system's behavior matches with a mathematical model.

[@aclearlight]

@@BladeOfLight16 Very helpful, thank you!

[@0biwan7]

are you saying that under the 3 interpretations... 1. copenhagen: there is statistical independence, there are no hidden variables underneath the wave function, no spooky action at a distance. the loss of an interference pattern at a measured double slit comes from the instantaneous collapse of the wave function and forces us to reject hidden variables in order to avoid spooky action at a distance. 2. bell's hidden variables: there is statistical independence, there are hidden variables, there is spooky action at a distance. the loss of the interference pattern when there is a measurement forces us to accept spooky action at a distance in order to maintain hidden variables. 3. superdeterminism: there are violations of statistical independence, there are hidden variables, there is no spooky action at a distance. the loss of interference pattern when there is a measurement at a double slit doesnt force us choose between locality and hidden variables. we can keep hidden variaables and still reject spooky action at a distance if we drop our fixation on statistical independence.

[@PasseScience]

A remark: Usually in the concept of "state superposition" there are 2 concepts that are mixed with one another, the stochastic aspect of things, and the fact that a certain quantity is not well defined. In a superdeterministic approach we will by definition lose the first aspect (nothing is stochastic anymore) but we could still have the second: quantities can still be not-defined in a given setup. By example if the concept of position of a particle is an emergent property, we could perfectly have extraordinary regime in which it's not possible to define the position of the particle, but still have deterministic dynamic in this regime and during the transition to an ordinary regime.

[@jessicatriplev9802]

If something is undefined that doesn't necessarily mean that it's also probabilistic. The "wave" and the "particle" are analogies, not literal phenomena. I fully agree with your analysis.

[@Achrononmaster]

There is nothing in QM to suggest positions are not well defined. Just that they cannot be simultaneously _measured_ with momenta. It is not a question of emergence. Also, Heisenberg uncertainty has _nothing to do with what Sabine was talking about._ She was talking about day-to-day two slit experiment stuff. The issue is the determination of measurement outcomes, not uncertainty principles. Even in pure gravity there is absolute uncertainty - you cannot put more mass inside a ball beyond the Compton wavelength radius, a black hole would form - deterministically, no QM required (except for the "particle" concept, or instead of particles just consider planckian scale wormholes, then it is pure gravity).

[@georgesmith4768]

@@Achrononmaster The wave function is well defined, the position is not exactly becouse it is conjegate to momentum.

[@StevXtreme]

For something to be emergent they have to be supported by a more primitive system with deterministic rules. We go back to the "not able to measure well"/hidden variable point regardless.

[@Jesse_359]

I don't see how it matters if quantum mechanics is deterministic when you can't actually measure the current state. As a SYSTEM QM is not deterministic, even if its processes are, because of uncertainty.

[@korozsitamas]

Thank you for the medal! 🙂 BTW, I like your approach with your thinking. People shouldn't be afraid about this free will question, as it doesn't change your life. As you said in another of your videos, you can keeping using it as a thinking aid if you would like to, or as I like to call it, it is a concept that your mind can work with.

[@schmetterling4477]

Of course the free will question changes your life. It allows our courts to send you to jail for bad things that you have done. ;-)

[@jetfaker6666]

Obviously if you don't believe in free will then you don't think the question can change your life. But if you do believe in free will then it can change your life.

[@D0BR0VECE]

​@@jetfaker6666How so?

[@jetfaker6666]

If you don't believe in free will then you think nothing can change your life.

[@D0BR0VECE]

@@jetfaker6666 What do you mean? Our lives are ever changing, from birth to the moment we die. Nothing can stop that, let alone ones mindset.

[@LMarti13]

This video is an excellent example of what happens when experts in one field think they can freely comment on other fields with any confidence

[@georgefaulkner3640]

So how is she not an expert in the field of QM? You're obligated to explain

[@B00mano]

@@georgefaulkner3640 I'm pretty sure they're talking about how the physicists she mentioned had strong assumptions on free will.

[@tim40gabby25]

@@georgefaulkner3640 invited, not obligated.

[@georgefaulkner3640]

@@B00mano Sorry. Yes, it is the other physics experts who then think they are experts in philosophy and neuroscience, which also have made real contributions to the free will debate. One of the best, I think, is philosopher Daniel Dennett's idea that while naturalism and determinism are likely true, free will should be redefined to mean the evolved ability of more complex nervous systems to imagine future consequences and adapt to them with a wider range of responses.

[@sychuan3729]

@@B00mano There is nothing wrong with their assumptions. This assumptions are often not about "free will" or neuroscience or anything . It is simply that Sabine tries to describe them as ridicolous. Look she doesn't explain what is statistic independence for example. She immideately changes it to free will. Many people who disagree with her don't believe in free will also. Yes superdeterminism is possible, but it isn't like ever scirntist around who doesn't agree with it is idiot.

[@tellmey1]

thanks for the medal. i really hope that I one day understand this, I believe in it because I trust your mind, but idk much about the physics and bell theorem or the math

[@manfredbartels4124]

Sabine, you are my favorite explainer. You always make my day! Keep doing your great work because of there are too many ignorant people on this planet. 👍👍👍👍👍

[@ivan-Croatian]

Thank you. I'll give my best.

[@AmericanBrain]

Post 123! Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong. How so? Find out now - and yes DO FIND OUT. DO it now. Part 1. A man just argued with me that Sam Harris and Sabine actually does look at free will as long as there is “evidence” and he showed me some math math proof. I screamed at him And now at you as well: “ I showed you 💯% evidence of free will . I repeat : 💯 % above and beyond any science 🧪! You don’t seem to understand that science is forever probabilistic and never absolute. That means whatever you find in science for free will will forever be subject to doubt. Besides you can’t find free well using signs no mathematics. It would mean the Nobel prize of all Nobel prize is a big giant Einstein. Consciousness is the identification of existence. A simple as that. You can pick up a pen and validate that it exists. That is all the evidence you need. Or you could point to a flower or smell the red flower and exclaim if rational mind that indeed existence existence. But how do you know that? Because consciousness is the identification of existence. That means you exercise free will to make a choice between nothing and existence. This also means that Big Bang taught at high school is incorrect because they teach something comes from nothing. That is logically impossible in every way. It contradicts logic itself. So what consciousness identifies this is existence existed, exists, and will exist into infinity. In totality metaphysics: Existence, Consciousness, and identity. By the way how do you know the identity of anything in other words any truth? The methods of reasoning and logic. And indeed using reason and logic I’ve shown you at absolute level of certainty that there is existence, and you have consciousness that has free will and finally this is the truth as in the whole truth as in the absolute truth and nothing but the truth. I just spoke this out to Siri so if there are typos that it’s Siri’s fault. Extra notes: above you realize that consciousness is separate to existence. You can never ask how did existence come to me because that is to presuppose existence before existence which is infinite requests known as the error reductio as AbSURDum . Error ! No Desmond scientifically know how consciousness is: instead man identifies it as an axiomatic concept. All science and math have axioms. However unlike action is in science and math which always subject Goedel’s theorem in this case it’s an absolute axiom and not just a mere axiom but one that you validate. So this identical Consciousness is its own course as in you cause it and effect is thinking resulting in thought or behavior such as you can lift your right arm. Try it now lift your right arm ! It’s awesome his consciousness is finite and delimited which means you have it from birth to death. Consciousness is not the whole universe such as those in the east proclaim and today some people in the west proclaim. However existence is infinite. So there we go attributes of consciousness in full with absolute truth. There is no way to be skeptical about this or reject this because to be skeptical means you don’t have a mind with which to make decisions and therefore all decisions you make or Sabine makes or Sam Harris makes is de facto wrong. Does that make sense any decision that anyone that remotely doubts consciousness even by one percent will therefore have a decision which itself is in doubt. Spineless feckless weak man. Never be like the Dalai Lama who lost his entire gigantic nation of tibet. --- Part 2: please listen - ​ ​ A guy called ​ @Alexandru said to me "Mr. awesome commenter. Almost every good video on youtube has at least one of those crazies! You! ", THE VIDEO WAS SABINE ON DETERMINISM [BEING SO] JUST LIKE SHE HAD ANOTHER ON FREE WILL BEING 'NONSENSE' JUST LIKE SAM HARRIS ! Your own Sam! I replied: thanks for interaction. The video is good? So is Star Wars. But this is a place for truth - not just 'good video' - do YOU AGREE? If there is determinism [and/or you have no free will like her OTHER video - seen it yet] then your mother is open to be raptured senseless and neither you NOR her can complain because you are saying YOUR MOTHER has NO FREE WILL. However I am defending her honor and saying - yes she HAS free will "because" consciousness is the identification of existence: meaning you can pick up a pen and if rational , then identify it is "Something of existence" - i.e. existence exists. But to repeat how do you know existence exists? MENTAL PATIENTS DO NOT, A.I. has not, animals can not. Answer: consciousness is the identification of existence. This means consciousness is a "separate" identity that identifies a previous identity (e.g. validates there existence by picking up a pen. The word "validates" is wider than the word "proof"). So if one identity identifies another identity then it means there is Aristotle's law of identity (i.e. truth). But how do you know any truth? The methods of reason and logic. So metaphysics [what is reality?] : existence, consciousness [with free will] and identity [i.e. truth]. Epistemology [how to know truth , any identity?]: the methods of reason and logic. ETHICS: your [or your mother's ] inalienable rights to her life liberty and pursuit of happiness - as SOVEREIGN of her body, mind and life. U.S.A . SELFISHNESS: she can seek her rational self interest. She does NOT owe her body to anyone as a 'selfLESS' person - never! Why? All other species come pre-adapted to a niche environment BUT MAN must use his mind to sustain his life at every moment of life. Man does that by RE-ADAPTING the environment to yourself like "clothes" [even caveman], shelter [even caveman], tools [even caveman has the axe] and all the way to today - the "millions or billions' of items around you [millions of earth elements in your smartphone from AROUND the world; invaded and taken legally and put together in a factory in China or S.Korea, then packaged and brought to you where-ever you are like iPhone OR Samsung!] Fourth branch is : politics and a subset 'economics'. By the way you may argue YOU HAVE NO INTEREST AND THIS IS NOT SCIENCE . But it is ! SCIENCE DOES NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM! You get SCIENCE WRONG and you end up like NAZIS m*rdering people by levearging DARWIN 'incorrectly' using Eugenics. That WAS SCIENCE - just wrong interpretation of real science. By the way the correct politics is democracy. Why? Because in ethics you have inalienable rights so you need an elected government to protect you [anarchy means rule by strongest thug, so back to socailism-statism] The correct economics? Laissez-faire capitalism. Why? Above in ethics you saw you have a right to "think and act" [only man can dot that and MUST do that- i.e. man must have LIBERTY to sustain life and also pursue happiness meaning dreams and goals and live as you want]. So man needs the right to property (e.g. clothes - see above) : to acquire, maintain, dispose or TRADE your services or property [bear skin, iphone, mat, cat, hat or money]. A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without force or fraud. So there IS EVIL: force or fraud against you [except in self defense and/or justice which is fair]. finally man needs good art to magnify life because you have a mind [see metaphysics] and it needs to be nourished like your body needs to be nourished by food [no other species has to have this nor A.I.] So yes to the final fifth branch of philosophy : aesthetics. Do you understand? No one can harm your mother NOR you. NO ONE. NO ONE. So please NEVER AGAIN imply I am crack or wrong when Sabine is WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. The mind [consciousness with free will] is separate and unique - it is PERPETUAL FIRST CAUSE. That means NO deterministic universe nor super determinism. YOU exercise your mind [the act, the cause] and the effect is thinking resulting in thought OR behavior [like moving your arm]. Get it now? Go ahead: move your arm. You did that. There is no determinism and yes you have free will . Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong.

[@trasadasyu2389]

Speechless. What clarity. I hope you receive Nobel recognition someday.

[@jeremyhorne5252]

Amen!

[@akhilsankar]

no, thats not how they determine a cantidate for the prize. not atleast until now.

[@justanormalyoutubeuser3868]

There is no Nobel for science education.

[@trasadasyu2389]

@@justanormalyoutubeuser3868 That is the reason you are a normal KZbin user. Cause you are only determined by your surface knowledge. She also is a scientist my ill-informed brother.

[@justanormalyoutubeuser3868]

@@trasadasyu2389 I know that, but unless she gets an exceptional result she is not going to get a Nobel. I do hope she will be able to prove her theories, but if she does it will have nothing to do with how clear her explanations are.

[@mitchgunzler3737]

Yes, but…this really just moves back the question of “how could that happen?” How could the behavior of a particle depend on the measurement settings? The answers to that question highlight what bothers the intuitions of so many people. For instance, we could have a modified version of Maxwell’s demon that decides which path a particle will take. If the demon can tell what setting the experiment will use at the time of measurement, it can choose to send the particle down a single path or both paths. This is problematic because it seems to require FTL information about the settings if they are decided after the particle has been sent towards the screen, an experiment which has now been done repeatedly by now. Alternatively the demon simply knows how everything in the universe is arranged and calculates the “random” choice of measurement by determinism, but this seems to violate non-locality or at least requires some kind of coordination with all the other demons around the universe making similar decisions. Which leads to how I personally think about this. Recall that special relativity introduced us to a “block universe” in which all events must have already been determined, because different observers will not agree on the order of various events. I picture this in terms of a “time outside spacetime” in which spacetime is assembled in a way that is consistent with the laws of physics. Maybe a kind of crystallization process or annealing, the way soap bubbles find minimum surfaces over time. In that case, agreeing with the laws of quantum mechanics is a “cheap” extension of the theory; the block universe “settles” into a shape that conforms to those laws of physics too. So the particle follows a path consistent with the measurement settigs because there is some additional phase or process by which reality makes the universe agree with the laws of physics that we never observe in action. We only see the (obedient-to-laws) outcome. So I effectively think “the demons all follow a common pre-agreed plan consistent with the laws of physics.” That’s problematic because it requires some such phase or process. Is the block universe formed “before” we experience it? How do we test for a process which in some sense must take place before all of our measurements? Is this a scientific theory at all or just a metaphysical assumption which makes me more comfortable with the incompleteness of my scientific understanding?

[@mitchgunzler3737]

I believe this is, or is close to, what some physicists mean by “the conspiracy theory.” The reason superdeterminism works is that a plan was laid out “before time” that each particle or demon can follow now.

[@pandawandas]

You've hit the nail on the head.

[@johnt.inscrutable1545]

This is one of the most enjoyable of your videos. I do enjoy your sense of humor and I’m happy you’ve decided to make KZbin a part of your illustrious career. I can envisage a day in the far future long after you have moved on making the equivalent of KZbin science videos. And when she refers to one of your papers or podcasts she say, “Yes, that gal again.” Please keep them coming. The educational perk and your opinion are a part of my day, InscrutableJohn

[@davidjames2083]

Oh Hahaha! I love this stuff sooo much Sabine. It's the best thing on the internet. And I don't care whether I've used my free will to watch it, or if that "decision" was entirely pre-determined and not a "choice" at all... I'm still glad that I did it 👍😅.

[@RussellCatchpole]

So good to hear a genius explain difficult concepts clearly & without shouting or gimmicks. You are now a favourite along with Matt o'Dowd of PBS Spacetime 👍

[@o1-preview]

agreed russel

[@thesecondslit1710]

And Crazy Lucid Nick, c'mon....

[@DemetriusSorvo]

Where are you watching shouting scientists with gimmicks? I want to see that stuff!

[@AkiraNakamoto]

@@DemetriusSorvo Could be Neil deGrasse Tyson and his alikes.

[@user-lu9hq6jv4v]

My favorite!

[@michielwaalboer3088]

@Sabine Thank you for this very clear explanation. When thinking about quantum mechanics I always "felt" that something like super determinism has to be examined as a viable competing theory. But indeed, most physicists desperately try to hold on to the idea of free will and therefore they don't take it seriously. You not only brilliantly expressed this feeling but you explained the underlying idea perfectly :)

[@schmetterling4477]

Why are you telling us that you never thought about quantum mechanics? We don't care about your intellectual failure. ;-)

[@sergeyromanov2116]

But getting rid of free will does not begin to solve superdeterminism's problems. It posits a grand and unexplainable conspiracy that somehow magically correlates all the random events, including experimental results, with each other specifically to make them look like non-local quantum effects. This is far more crazy than action at a distance etc.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sergeyromanov2116 There are no non-local quantum events to begin with. Quantum mechanics is perfectly local. What it is not is "separable". Locality describes a spatial property, whereas separability refers to a property in Hilbert/Fock space. Of course, Hilbert/Fock space are mathematical constructs. They only exist as abstracts in the human mind. Nature knows absolutely nothing about them.

[@sergeyromanov2116]

@@schmetterling4477 nah, you don't get to redefine standard terms.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sergeyromanov2116 Separability is a standard term. Your education in these matters is lacking. ;-)

[@MrDayinthepark]

Sabine, you make some of the most interesting physics issues accessible to engineers like me, and it is wonderful. If you become a superstar, it will be because of this. Understanding is good, communicating that understanding, is devine.

[@erictaylor5462]

There is no endurance required to watch your videos. Sometimes I have to back up a bit and listen again, but you're explanations always make sense in the end. You are a fantastic teacher.

[@insanityisme]

A great video as a treat on my birthday! :) I've always dismissed the possibility that choice has anything to do with quantum wave collapse and that it was really just the wave interacting with the measurement device that caused it to collapse. But I'd never thought about how the collapse is instantaneous so it doesn't make sense that the other slit would immediately know the state of the other slit unless something else is going on. This video definitely opened my eyes to some new perspectives on quantum behavior!

[@KalebPeters99]

Happy birthday! 🎂🎉

[@fluiditynz]

You make me smile Sabine. I label myself "Fluidity" on some forums, where as OCD is the other end of the spectrum. And yet I refuse Bell's belief. I'm no scholar but encountered the concept of determinism some 30 years ago and filed it into my personal belief categories as correct. From memory, my irritation with non deterministic thinking was that it permitted the common mistakes of scientific observation being meddled with by experimental bias. People forget the real-world granularity of bias from human intervention. Even the slight heat of a camera has an infinitesimal effect on an experiment with no in-place observer. Understanding the granularity of experimental bias should be automatic but in people's rush to get "correct" results, they exclude all the variables that don't fit within their human scope of perception. For example, dark matter. How do we account for it's interactions?

[@fifikusz2]

I have to listen it another hundred times and would not understand a bit of it, but I am convinced, that you are right. Und ich drück alle beide Daumen liebe Sabine, dass Du es erlebst, dass deine Kontrahenten sich geschlagen geben müssen.

[@vauchomarx6733]

Wonderful, I was really looking forward to this video! As someone with a philosophy background, it's embarassing to hear those unsubstantiated "free will must be real" arguments with such overconfidence. At the time of Newton and Leibniz, people may have tried to salvage free will via mind-body dualism or vitalism, but there was no question that a deterministic view of nature was consistent with principles of reason - the very reason that led to exact mathematical predictions in the first place. Even proponents of idealism, like Schopenhauer ("man can do what he wants, but cannot will what he wills") supported this view. If Einstein was right all along, maybe it's because (determined by the fact that, you might say ;-) he was more philosophically literate than some of his colleagues. In short, thank you Sabine, for bringing some sense into this!

[@ivan-Croatian]

You are welcome.

[@adamsawyer1763]

You "no freewill" nuts are utterly utterly insane. It's like this absurdist cult I've discovered on the internet. It's truly one of the most unnerving things I've ever come across. Freewill is tied so closely to consciousness. Every conscious thought involves some sort of choice and many such thoughts lead to physical action. Thoughts are consciously chosen and have causal power. I know this, you know this. It's the most basic fact of each of our existence. It is undeniable, yet you deny it. To deny free-will is to deny consciousness. It just doesn't work. It is madness. I'm sorry but it's abundantly obvious that you, Sabine and our cherished physics are simply wrong. We just have an incomplete understanding of the universe. It's like biblical literalism for the scientific age. Our scientific models are not the universe. If the models do not describe a known part of the universe then the models are incomplete. They do not explain consciousness, consciousness is undeniable. Therefore the models are incomplete. Therefore it is foolhardy to take the models so literally.

[@DobesVandermeer]

@@adamsawyer1763 What is your definition of free will?

[@gooblepls3985]

@@adamsawyer1763 You are conflating free will and consciousness while not providing a sound definition for either. Not a good basis for an argument...

[@adamsawyer1763]

@@DobesVandermeer we all know full well what free will is. I do not believe for 1 second the universe is deterministic or random. If you don't believe you have free will you're a lunatic.

[@theseal126]

Incredibly well made video!! Finally someone takes up this topic. I agree with everything you said and hope people will realise that the superdeterministic descripition is the right one. Sorry for bad english, im still very young but I am gonna pursue a physics degree at university when the time comes. Hope I can help clear this up in the future :)

[@danielstan2301]

isn't this superdeterministic principle the same as pilot wave theory? That is also deterministic and it says that the particle is simply guided by its wave the same way a surfer is guided by a water wave. So the particle(the surfer) goes via one slit while the wave goes via both slits and interacts with itself before hitting the screen . If you measure any of the slits(interacts with any of the waves) then it is normal to alter where the particle goes.

[@robertgoss4842]

Tough subject. Superb explanation. You do extraordinary work, Dr. Hossenfelder. Thanks a million.

[@dfearo]

I’ve watched this carefully 3 times now since its release and it keeps pulling me out of rabbit holes! Repeat as necessary.

[@The0ldg0at]

You are so much fascinating that it's feeding my need to learn. Keep up the good work.

[@CristianKlein]

17:44 Gosh! Finally someone who spells it out. Quantum theory is essentially "just" a theory of averages over a chaotic system. The comparison with predicting next year's weather is brilliant! Why all the non-locality when a simpler -- and may I say more intuitive -- explanation is possible.

[@falconeagle3655]

This is extremely generalized. There is indeterministic nature in quantum mechanics. Which is inherently due to quantum behavior of the particles. A lot of chaotic system can be explained by normal physics we do it for weather(duh). If it was only a chaotic system quantum mechanics was not required. She said the chaotic system as thats what makes it extremely difficult to measure superdeterminism. But it doesn't mean there is nothing quantum

[@stevendaryl30161]

I would beware of trying to summarize the issue so simply. The weird thing about superdeterminism, which from the comments here it seems that many people miss, is the time ordering of things. With super determinism, the variables describing a particle NOW depend on what measurements will be performed on that particle in the FUTURE. That’s weird, and it’s not simply determinism.

[@CristianKlein]

@@stevendaryl30161 That is not how I understood it. Rather, that at such small scales, the setting of the instrument *becomes* part of the state. Almost as if the instrument contains hidden variables. Imagine you would need a country-sized anemometer for measuring wind speeds. Of course the initial direction of the finn and the initial speed of the blade would have a huge influence on the wind speed you measure. At least that is how I understood superdeterminism.

[@stevendaryl30161]

But the weird part is that the setting of the measurement instruments may take place long afterwards. The most puzzling experiment, the one that superdeterminism was invented to explain, is the EPR experiment. In this experiment, a pair of particles is created. One particle goes off in one direction, where it is measured by an experimenter named Bob, and the other goes in the other direction, where it is measured by Alice. Superdeterminism essentially supposes that properties of the particle at the time of creation depend on the choices of what measurements Alice and Bob will choose to perform in the future. So it’s not simply that the choice of measurement affects the particle, but that it seems to affect the particle in the PAST.

[@TheDummbob]

@@stevendaryl30161 Didn't she say in the video explicitly that the dependece only happens at the exact point in time where the interaction happens? So maybe were missing something here. But maybe Sabine is missing something here. Because I would agree with you, I don't see how her explanation in the video translates (without nonlocal weirdness) to the case of two entangled particles. Though I can see how it works for the double slit experiment. But you are right, the two entangled particles are what it should be ale to explain

[@maxnao3756]

Thank you very much for this mind opening session. One interesting question may be what is ´probability’. The mathematical definition of probability used to explain behaviors of particles is maybe due to the fact that there is a physical process behind that is hidden to us at least for the moment. Like for radioactive decay. There may be something hidden deep under that can explain why and when there will be a particle emitted, and our ignorance translates into a higher level description of that behavior as unpredictable. Another way to say it: probability is a measure of our ignorance. This underlying fundamental “basement” on which all what we observe relies on, could be the one that indeed links quantum world to gravity and everything.

[@bryanlane7208]

Yes. On a macro scale, a coin flip is never 50/50, it's always 100% what it's going to be. Probability only measures our ignorance of the variables. Isn't it hubris to say that suddenly quantum physics is random? How do we know there aren't unknown variables?

[@teodelfuego]

De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave?

[@Khosann1]

But there is no outcome before you measure!

[@HanOnkel]

This is an excellent response.

[@aminboumerdassi2334]

Interestingly in statistics, probability has many different interpretations and hence has many competing definitions.

[@okaberintarou6798]

"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." -Stephen Hawking

[@matthewparker9276]

I must believe in free will, as it was predetermined that I would.

[@alpiffero]

Precisely

[@HR15DE]

Hmm. So we are biological robots after all. You can never actually choose something. Just an observer. Slave of a deterministic universe. If its determined for you to choose choices that will lead to you extreme pain and suffering. Theres nothing you can do about it but to experience those pain Scary. So at the end luck is the only thing that matters. Lmao

[@erikziak1249]

A nice example of a logical fallacy. 🙂

[@chaosmonkey1595]

@@erikziak1249 That's not a logical fallacy at all. It is absolutely consistent.

[@PinataOblongata]

It annoys me that this is true for everyone who fails to understand it's an illusion. The same as people who believe in an afterlife will never get to notice they never got one.

[@Ichthyodactyl]

This perspective sheds light on some personal issues I've had regarding mainstream discussion of quantum mechanics. It has always felt to me like 'missing information'. That an unrecognized amount of this apparent dichotomy is tied up in the concept of free will makes some sense to me. All of this really makes me wish I had continued with my science education though.

[@SolidSiren]

Not only missing information but misunderstanding lol

[@jasonmaxwell9762]

Nothing is predetermined. For the simple fact humans are only capable of observing the past. All the math and science in the world won't change this fact.

[@SolidSiren]

@@jasonmaxwell9762 that makes no sense

[@joshb2008]

Something that helped me wrap my head around quantum physics, like you said, is the idea that a measurment is an interaction. Things become less "spooky" that way.

[@jimipet]

explain how an interaction with the particle A can affect the behaviour of particle B millions of years apart in no time

[@juanausensi499]

@@jimipet It's easy, just deny that there is an interaction happening. Remember the pair of socks mental experiment.

[@jimipet]

@@juanausensi499 when I mean interaction I mean the interaction between the measurement device and particle A as the original comment mentions. So, I am asking to explain how this interaction affects a particle very far away instantly. This is the whole point of the ERP paradox

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

@@juanausensi499 - That doesn't work though. Bell's inequality shows it doesn't.

[@juanausensi499]

@@jimipet Yes, I understand that. Those experiments, as most ones in quantum physics, are easy to calculate but hard to interpret, that is, give meaning, that meaning depending on what set of preconceptions are we choosing to interpret qp, and those sets being all very unintuitive. For example, if you believe that the state of a particle is not defined until you have a measurement, then you probably need instant interactions to explain entaglement. But 'state of a particle not being defined until measured' is only an interpretation, not a proven scientific fact. If you think the state of the particles is defined from the start in the erp experiment, then you don't need any further interction between the entangled particles, and the apparent not definition of the states should be explained somehow else than by a fundamental not-defined-until-measured paradigm. That somethig else can involve hard determinism, that is, you never had a chance to make a different measure that the one you made. No matter how you try to interpret the results, you are going to end with something uncomfortably unintuitive. Some scientists feel hard determinism is more uncomfortable than non-locality, and some others feel the other way around. But both groups are going to obtain the same results in the same experiments: no experiment is going to say what interpretation is the correct one.

[@marcopolo9569]

I watched it through all the way. Thanks for the participation metal. I laughed, I cried, I thought I understood some of it. But it definitely got me thinking.... thank you so much....

[@robertf6592]

Thank you for this video. When I first heard the term Superdeterminism a few decades ago I was amazed that it wasnt the default position. Obviously in a deterministic universe we would be following the same rules. That should be what determinism means. Unless someone can show me free will defined in an equation in physics it should never be the considered unless it's shown to warrant consideration. Which the only thing it's ever shown is if you try to include it everything gets crazy. Take it out, and things make much more sense.

[@stephenhicks826]

Well, my brain hurts but I think I get it. Wow, what an amazing explainer of Physics you are Sabine. I am a retired Physics teacher. Thanks for taking the time to explain these things - yes I made it to the end!

[@kylelieb2977]

My brain hurts and I still don't get it. I find that I have to watch many, many of these type of videos to start to grasp some of these concepts, but I do slowly gain some understanding.

[@ponli7532]

I came to the realization of super determinism the first time I had to create a random variable in programming. The realization that there is nothing random, it has to be faked and then you have to test it that is has a probabilistic statistical distribution that corresponds to the sample size. This really hit home that everything has a cause and consequence, random is just the obscuration of perfect knowledge. This realization had a profound understanding of the universe and also I rely upon it in personal growth. I always regretted past decisions and actions decades after they happened, once I realized that it was the only action I could have possibly taken with the information I had , it was much easier to let go and be more productive for the unknown(to me) future than to regret the past . Free will is an illusion of the future but a very useful one that doesn't go away just because it's deterministic.

[@sagnorm1863]

I like the way you explained it. It seems obvious to me that every choice you make is influenced by your life experiences and your genetics. None of those are under your individual control. People that search for information themselves may seem like free will. But past life experiences taught them the skills and value of searching for information. So the choice to do research is also predetermined.

[@patriciaadducci6549]

Free will is a useful illusion? I don't think so. I think it's part of the Big Lie of ego which has crippled us throughout history. My life is dedicated to digging out from under this conceptual rock into the sunshine of truth. Just as Ponli says 'it was much easier to let go' --- yes to liberation!

[@pauldirc..]

​@@patriciaadducci6549Yeah free will notion seems absurd But i don't think our society is ready for this , knowing you have no control will drive people crazy like you are victim of laws of physics, If you get bad grades it was already determined If you are unsuccessful it was already determined If you are miserable it was already determined, you can't do anything It is already determined whether you will be successful or live your life in mediocrity and you can't change that

[@patriciaadducci6549]

@@pauldirc.. Our 'society' may not be ready for this, but I am. If someone thinks it means they can't do anything, they may be ready for my favorite question: What am I? Recovering from the myth of the independently existing self is what I'm doing and it feels great!

[@patriciaadducci6549]

@@avastone5539 A conversation can't happen without consciousness. I wonder if you're conflating free will with consciousness.

[@claudelegare3142]

I fell in love with you at a spooky distance. I love your sense of humor and your clear explanation of complex stuff. I'm not an expert in physics but I think I can tell when I see a real one. I'm impressed.

[@CarissaWyles]

Theory: the particles don't perform well under pressure. 😉 Anyone else out there great by themselves but the moment someone's watching you fall flat on your face? Thats what the particles are experiencing in the two slit experience. They have the freedom to dance a beautiful wave pattern when no ones looking, but the moment they feel eyes on them it makes them self concious and their movement becomes rigid. And we all know that eerie feeling that someone's watching you even when you can't tell where it's coming from - they get that same sense and that's how they know if a measurement is being taken. (Note: My theory has a prerequisite that we live in an animated universe where everything is concious. )

[@gehirndoper]

This is actually a good analogy, since just like the person experiencing pressure by being watched, the particle interacts in some way with the detector (else the detector wouldn't notice the particle). In that sense particles - unlike people - always notice being watched. ("Always" here ignoring that most measurements only have a certain chance to measure.)

[@credterfe]

Particles hate surveillance.

[@johnsinger1623]

let the particles run free for fuck's sake!!!!!

[@Kimani_White]

"Free will" just means a subject has a range of potential choices which aren't ontologically determined until they're consciously selected and enacted. It is the indeterminacy of the choice selection process which puts the "free" in "free will", while the subjective _meaningfulness_ of available choices makes them non-random.

[@xmillion1704]

Our inability to predetermine a given choice seems different to me from the question of whether we truly could have made a choice different from the one we made. I'm unaware of any method for investigating whether we really could have made a different choice. In my mind, it certainly SEEMS like I have free will when I'm considering options prior to making "choices". Just because no one is able to predict my choice until I actually make it, however, does not ultimately qualify as evidence against determinism being correct.

[@Kimani_White]

@@xmillion1704 If determinism were true, it would mean that it should be possible to predict events to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, based purely on knowledge of their preconditions. However, it's been pretty much established that, in principle, this isn't possible. At most, one can only make probabilistic predictions of outcomes.

[@xmillion1704]

@@Kimani_White Our current inability to fully comprehend all of the implications of initial states or understand the full nature of causality does not mean that such states and causal relationships do not exist. It may simply mean that we lack the sophistication and knowledge to use them to make predictions, it does not follow that they are impossible.

[@Kimani_White]

@@xmillion1704 QM describes our reality as probabilistic with indeterminacy being a fundamental feature of it. This has consistently been borne out by experiments over the past century or so.

[@xmillion1704]

@@Kimani_White You're describing our ability to predict the outcome and as Sabine explains, that QM outcomes seem random to us does not describe free will.

[@calinculianu]

This is one of your best videos ever, Sabine. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can tell this is your passion and your current research interest. That interest and passion and expertise you have on the topic really shone through here. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE to see more videos from you on this topic!! This was amazingly good!! PLEASE MORE VIDES ON THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM AND SUPERDETERMINISM!!! PLEASE!!

[@Ruan-ty6fm]

I've watched almost all your videos. This one was by far my favourite.

[@mheermance]

Thanks for making this video. I hadn't realized Bell's inequalities had an escape clause that would still allow hidden variables.

[@pipertripp]

You're defo not alone.

[@ivan-Croatian]

You are welcome.

[@jan.kowalski]

Honestly, there's no actual math or physiscs theory without an escape clause. Even determinism has one, which is an assumption, that we are not living in simulated world.

[@williamstephenjackson6420]

Sabine, this is the best discussion of this subject I have ever encountered. Bravo! By the way, the late Ronald G. Hadley was my second cousin, so I had many conversations on particle physics growing up.

[@artr0x93]

something I always wondered about "quantum weirdness" is weather it could be better understood as "it’s impossible to measure the state of a particle without collapsing the wave funcrion". I mean I assume it’s impossible to measure something without at some point e.g. bouncing a photon off it, so measuring always necessitates disturbing the system and collapsing the wave function. i.e. The trick to "simply looking collapses the wave function" is that it’s impossible to "look" at something sufficiently small without interacting with it In that sense it’s not very surprising. Or is something else going on as well?

[@DrZedDrZedDrZed]

That's exactly what the lessons of QFT imply. It's far less weird than it's made out to be.

[@nachoijp]

Yes and no, scientists have been trying to overcome that meassurement limit, and the real explanation is more complicated than what you said. But, at its core, it's exactly that, all the bells and whistles just confirm that explanation and gives it more precission, but they don't change the "simple" fact that we just can't meassure quantum objects without interfering with them.

[@dannyhermens]

You can't directly look/measure without interacting in some way. Any form of measurement always interacts to some degree ;) Sabine talks about this around 15:25 I feel this information isn't repeated enough, barely any videos on this topic seem to into detail there. I think a lot of people who think quantum mechanics is magic think so because "looking" equals consciousness, which of course: It doesn't

[@clmasse]

The hidden assumption of quantum mechanics is that the wave function is associated to the particle.

[@fredygump5578]

I think you've got it. We observe a single photon by having it hit a sensor, and the impact releases energy, which is converted to an electrical signal. It's kind of the same as if we detected cars on a highway by placing a giant wall across it and counting the number of times something crashes into the wall. It's a crude method, so it is not surprising that the data is a little hard to understand.

[@helloworldpoland]

Sabine is my fav female scientist mostly because she is right about the superdeterminism . I'm not only watching her videos but also bought and read two of her books 📕.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Good choice😉, her books are brilliant, and she´s a unique personality

[@suulix4065]

I REALLY appreciate your concise explanations Sabine, thank you! ✌️😁

[@goodegggreg8189]

I always thought the easiest way to describe the lack of free will is that the instant before you have a thought you have no idea what it’s going to be but you have it anyway. And that state is the same for all thoughts that come after that all the way up to the thought that is you making the decision to act, and then the action.

[@livebungusreaction]

Interesting idea. Yeah it’s just neuro circuitry firing and updating paths as you develop

[@FarnhamJ07]

I very much agree. The thing that finally convinced me was the realization that we don't get to decide which thoughts we do and don't have. Even if we can train/condition ourselves to think in a particular way, whether we 'decide' to do that is itself an thought we don't actively get to choose to have or not. It either happens, or it doesn't: there is no free will or choice involved.

[@anthonynapolitano7650]

as Marvin the android would say... "Life, don't talk to me about life..."

[@Gamerproinc]

When it comes to freewill; we have no choice in the matter.

[@ififif31]

That's basically Sam Harris' self described best argument for no freewill and its BS. Some thoughts do feel like they arrive spontaneously into our heads but the CHOICES that we make AFTERWARDS with said thoughts don't feel spontaneous at all. That's why non zero freewill feels natural and obvious (and it is). Not being able to fully control all of our thoughts does not logically entail that we cannot make any choices at all with those said thoughts. Moreover, if we are simulated beings in an experiment with non zero freewill, it makes sense why we would have certain programmed thoughts enter into our heads. Our Simulator is probably testing us to see how we react....But what do I know? ;)

[@laurilehtomaki]

I have always thought that determinism is the only thing that makes sense. I have never heard a good reason why something could possibly happen without a reason, randomly or with some randomness. About the double slit experiment: I think we don't just understand photons. We measure one slit and if we don't detect anything, photon must have went the other slit. Still results are affected. To me, only logical conclusion is that there was some physical difference, hidden variable. And that is that we don't understand the photon. There is something in photon or in environment that passes the other slit that gets affected by measurement.

[@gilgamecha]

I can't tell you what a relief it is to hear Sabine say Bell's inequality does not disprove hidden variables. Reading Bells paper I always felt the statistical independence assumption was very weak.

[@schmetterling4477]

Can you show me a hidden variable theory? Just one. ;-)

[@Thomas-gk42]

​​@@schmetterling4477pilot wave?-ok, doesn't work well. Superdeterminism?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Thomas-gk42 "Superdeterminism" is a nicer term for "goddidit". It only appeals to idiots. ;-)

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@schmetterling4477 so Bee is an idiot and a preacher? I'm no physicist, but I know, that she has suggested experiments for evidence, which were not done so far

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Thomas-gk42 "Bee" is a troll. She is only interested in her view count and KZbin income. It doesn't take much to notice that. ;-)

[@thomasflagg7209]

I love your presentations. It amazes me how much people know.

[@wetguavass]

no one knows ...

[@spidalack]

One of the most frustrating things to me on science videos is when they skip the math. Thank you for NOT being one of those channels. The math usually makes it SO much easier to understand.

[@shishkabobby]

I love this video. I spent many nights running helium atom scattering experiments. The standard description of the source treats atoms as particles. The expansion of the particles produced a beam that was about Mach 250-300, limited by helium condensation & pumping speed. A millisecond latter, said atoms scatter from atoms surface to produce clear diffraction patterns (as well as phonon scattering). This forced me to think hard about wave/particle duality as I collected data. A millisecond after that, the helum atom was detected by an ionizing detector, which counts individual particles. Your explanation is very lucid.

[@abomidog]

I love that your videos aren't overloaded with unnecessary visual stuff and background music or ambience. I feel there is so much of that on this platform already and it's overstimulating.

[@erikhelman7930]

I’ve always been a fan of free will even though I’m not a physicist. But I enjoy watching science videos like yours, and I really appreciate the effort you made to explain your position. I’m not emotionally comfortable with determinism, but I must consider it in my quest to understand science as best as possible.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

Also not a physicist, but attempts to say the universe is deterministic seem to be a big stretch, since quantum mechanics calculates probabilities, not certainties. I recall reading one physicist saying that if we have complete knowledge of the quantum state of a system, there is at least one measurement we can predict 100% and at least one that will be random.

[@traywor]

I was as well unconfortable with the idea of determinism, untill I tunneled down to understand, what free will actually means. I suggest instead of depending what science will say, whether or not the world is determined or not, you could analyze what free will actually is, and therby just forgo the dependency. e.g. for me the question about free will is very bad posed and I understood that the value I put on it, doesn't actually change my life in a meaningful way. I am curious, what you think, the value of free will is to you.

[@emmer4407]

@@nmarbletoe8210 If everything is being simultaneous determined and you are a part of that everything, you cannot measure any certainty. You are a variable and are within the experiment. It requires an objective view from outside the system, which is impossible as any observer is entangled into the measurement.

[@OMNIPHEAST]

@@nmarbletoe8210 until 100 years ago, physics said everything was predetermined. Newtonian mechanics says, given the information about everything in the system we know exactly how the system will evolve over time.

[@dadw7og116]

Thank you so much for your presentation. I agree with you 100%. When they force fed us this stuff in undergraduate school (back in 1971) it seemed like it was just a mental game. But, That was only based on my gut feel. Thank you for explaining the counter argument in a way that is easy to understand.

[@AmericanBrain]

​ She is wrong. Her stooge @Matthew Brown said "I tried". i told them- Tried what exactly? You said "you are dead set in your way". But I told you - it is Not about me : I could literally be a deranged lunatic newly released from mental hospital with high I.Q. ? How would you know? What you CAN KNOW - using the universal method EVEN IF YOU'RE getting this in outer space (e.g. international space station or some secret U.S. mission further into outer space ) is using the universal method of reason and logic - that I have you "not just the truth" BUT the WHOLE TRUTH as in the absolute truth as in truth throughout SPACETIME [do you know what that is] ? Existence! So whether you go back in a time machine in a gedankenexperiment 3,000 years back OR ZIP THROUGH A WORM hole like Jodie Foster to the other side of the cosmos and find SENTIENT ALIEN life that are NON CARBON based with biological sensory apparatus that even sees at the quantum level - they will ALSO have to abide by: 1. Existence exists as a conclusion 2. Consciousness with free will IF they are able to make decisions 3. Aristotle's law of identity : truth EVEN IF THEY HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER heard of Aristotle in their gazillion years of evolution ! The above is metaphysics. But how would they discern any truth again? The methods of reason and logic. BUT WHAT IF THEIR LOGICAL METHOD [MEANS CONSISTENT within their system] uses TRINARY math [not binary] or some other symbol OR even yet unheard of linguistic and computation ? Then what? They would STILL have to use reason and logic [logic being a consistent system within their framework] so "invariant patterns" can be discerned such as "e=mc^2" for example - or everything I have said in this post! And they would have to have the ethics of individualism: like U.S.A - inalienable rights to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So if they practiced drone communism or Afghanistin/Dark-Ages oppression or Putin-dictatorial regime: it would "still" be wrong, absolutely a "Wrong" for there is "right versus wrong" [Aristoltle's law of identity] And the only correct method would be a democratic government with capitalism in economics as their property rights come from their right to life in ethics: a mind to think and act on the conclusions of their thinking to sustain their life. UNLIKE ALL OTHER ANIMALS that come pre-adapted to a niche environment, man in CONTRAST must by his unique identity - READAPT nature to his way [from first man creating fire or cloth - to modern man using smartphones and youtube or facebook!] Man or all sentient life must invade their planet's resources for that is the ethical good: the virtue of selfishness [seeking one's rational - keyword: rational - self interest ]. Finally they would need aesthetics: for a rational man with a mind [remember the spiritual non mystical quality that is separate with potency meaning free will identified in metaphysics?] The mind needs to be nourished with art like the body with oxygen! _________ BONUS ​ ​ -Ready for math? Just wrote you but one man keeps asking me several times "what is free will"? So in this latest reply I add math and physics as well that will interest you. I replied: Free will is an identity that is all inclusive with "you" - one package deal : you, your mind, spirit,soul, "call it any label if you like" -but it's all "Consciousness": embodied, embedded, enacted - separate spiritual (non mystical) entity that is perpetual first cause [you cause it]. The above is the absolute truth. How and why? Because man can know what is the concept of truth (Aristotle's law of identity). This exists because man has a mind that can identify existence (act of free will, of consciousness) to distinguish something from no-thing-ness to reach a "valid" conclusion "if" rational man [e.g. mental patients can not do it; A.I. DOES NOT DO IT. ANIMALS CAN NOT. But all man CAN ; even those that are "Rational able" do it - exercising free will albeit it illogically -to state "there is no free will" such as materialist scientists -i.e. woo woo . ____________________ My latest research suggests "probabilistically" the mind of man is the "Free energy principle' - a meta Markov Blanket in "mathematical info-theoretical" physics that can be discerned objectively using math and "subjectively" as mind. The analogy is like thunder and lightning; or the Heisenberg principle - two ways to look at the same entity. This is analogical with Freud's "psychical energy". It is analogical with a precise energy calculation that Sir Roger put forth where e(h)= h bar / t in his Orch O.R. formulation. However I only use that as metaphor here to make a point of something 'distinct, separate but real'. Sir Roger calls the mind of man "non algorithmic, non computational" and uses Goedel and Turing's theorem to prove it. However I do it easier, simpler and better and only I have absolute truth [math and science are always probabilistic truth not absolute; whereas I have absolute truth you can ascertain using universal method - reason and logic]. BUT WARNING AND PROBLEM: all analogies with the mind of man fails because it's sui generis: there is nothing like it in the known cosmos! Thunder and lightning are two ways to look at the same phenomenon but neither are sentient-with-perpetual first cause. Only you have that - consciousness with free will.

[@AmericanBrain]

@@shryfee7030 Huge thanks for the response. I really appreciate you. There’s some errors in your reply but it may not be fault. I’m going to dictate this to Siri so if there are errors of grandma then I apologize and if it’s Siri’s fault. Firstly I am presupposing quite correctly that science 🧪 can never find the truth because science 🧫 is not the ground floor of reality. I keep saying that over and over and over again and many many responses. On KZbin I have over 130 posts on Sabine’s page -saying this over and over and over again. Science 🧪 is like an instrument such as a telescope or a microscope. It is extremely helpful. However it is the observer with a conscious mind that uses free will with the methods of reason and logic that was interpreter information and reach Valid Conclusion. Mind you that science conclusions are always on the “probability scale” . The core of all truth is based upon using reason and logic - in other words using word games. Just like other games such as football they were rules of the game in this case the rules of logic. To do any science 🧪 or math 🧮 needs you to presuppose that you are a person with the mind come up with consciousness and free well that could interpret the data. For example you need a human mind to generate hypothesis. The computer cannot do this. You need a human mind to design control and separate that from experiment. The computer cannot do that. You need a human mind to interpret data but a computer can collect data for you. Do you need a human like to reach Conclusion and defence a Pfeizer’s using the methods of reason and logic in all things at all times. In other words there is no signs of math that is even possible without a human mind first and foremost as the ground floor. By the way it is important to understand that the moment you have math or science without the above is the moment to enter fantasy. For example you can write works with great grammar and consistent logic and it’s called “Harry Potter” and make billions of dollars. But that is still fiction. Similarly you can use numbers to create a consistent and brilliant system called string theory which says reality is multi dimensional over nine and multi-verse. It is fantasy and you see this fantasy played out in the movies right now in Spiderman with Doctor Strange. Or you can have physics do it on its own and one of the currency rooms is many worlds. That means universe splitting 1,000,000 times per second with you in each of them. Again we are back to fantasy with Doctor Strange for the rest of marvel comics with the Infinity Stone and Avengers . --------- So what is reality and how can you know it? Consciousness is that identification of existence. For example pick up a pen 🖊 and ask yourself right now whether it is of existence? If you are a rational man then you will reach the valid conclusion that the pen is of existence in other words the pen 🖊 exists. Therefore you auto-validate consciousness because I repeat 🔂 “consciousness is that identification of existence”. As one “identity identifies the other identity” in other words as consciousness identifies existence then it stands to reason that there is Aristotle’s law of identity caught up in other words : In the cosmos there is truth. ( Technical detail: Specifically their regular patterns man’s mind can extract from these patterns, in various patterns and call it truth.) But wait ! How can you come to know any truth like the above which is metaphysics all the identity of anything? The simple answer is the methods of reason and logic. This is the only way man can reach any valid conclusion on any subject whatsoever at any time in every time. Man has two faculties of mind ; What is called rationality which means the methods of reason and logic that must be used with great effort in the correct method andin the other faculty is emotions. Emotions are always automatic. Faith is a feeling of certainty about what something means and many human beings incorrectly use this faculty to reach conclusion such as it feels like the earth is flat or it feels like it’s an angel on your shoulder. EMotions a very important but they’re never the way to reach Valid Conclusion. Emotions a very helpful to act on the conclusion such as motivation and action.. For example you can use rationality to reach conclusion on which person to love and emotions to laugh with all your heart all you vigor. Therefore to summarize and to conclude : yes man can know reality because the mind of man is potent - and you are not impotent . I repeat : your mind , you are not impotent . Consciousness cannot identify itself Without being a contradiction. Therefore consciousness must be separate to existence, must be separate to the brain. This means consciousness is potent: in other words you must exercise free will in order to make a choice between right and wrong. And because of Aristotle’s law of identity you know if there is right. Such as earlier you identify that pen 🖊 is of existence and it’s not a floating nothing-ness. And you know there’s a methodology you have to use, after having learned it and practiced it called : reason and logic, man’s only way to reach Valid Conclusion. Metaphysics means what is reality? Existence, consciousness with free will, and Aristotle’s law of identity. Epistemology means how can you know any truth like the above or any truth whatsoever? Answer is the methods of reason and logic. This takes effort and a formal system. Just so you know the above lead to ethics. Ethics is objective and not your feelings. Mine has it in alienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why? Because an individual of a species that can think must indeed think an act on the conclusions of your thinking to sustain your life at every moment of your life. Therefore of the universe you must de facto have a liberty to think and to act . The above lead to politics as in what is the right political system objectively regardless of your views or your perceptions or your feelings? The answer is democracy because you need a government to protect your rights found above in ethics. Then what is the correct economic system regardless of your feelings or your values? The answer is capitalism because your right the property is a corollary truth : which means a self evident truth that comes from your right to life in ethics. See ethics above. Whereas all animals come pre-adapted to a niche environment in contrast man must re-adapt environment to your values. Everything around you and even on you is from the environment that has been re-adapted to serve you and you’ve paid for it directly or indirectly. From the first man that had to hunt and kill a polar bear for clothes and warmth to build shelter later discovered fire and create tools to fish and to Hunt and to protect oneself to today man with a vehicle and a house and all the modern comforts. Man has the right to acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or your property like your hat, mat, cat, iPhone or your money. A trade is a meeting of minds between two people Without force or fraud. So there is evil and evil means the use of thought of against another man except in self-defense. Finally the fifth branch of philosophy is man needs aesthetics. Why? In Metaphysics you identified man has a REAL mind and just like man has to feed his body, man also has to feed his mind - and art magnifies man’s life. The problem is many human beings mistake fiction for fact. You’ve also done back until now until I’ve corrected your entire life from this moment onwards .Above of gave you examples of mathematicians or even scientist turning the subjects into fiction and not being self-aware of that. All subjects at university Are like trees in a forest but all the trees must be coherent and conform to the forest floor and that is philosophy which is the philosophy outlined above. There is no science or math without it conforming to philosophy using the methods reason and logic to be consistent in a system. ------ The above means life is great and the above is separate to anything you’ve ever heard before in your entire life over here ever again. It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the entire cosmos throughout space-time and your life. You are owed nothing for being a life but because you have a mind with people you have control to set goals to take massive action with great emotions, to be rational in your actions and your sub-plans to achieve the main project plan and achieve results in life with potential spouse, with wealth, with health, and with all other things that you put your mind to. However Nothing is guaranteed because reality is not magic. Reality is better than magic because you have control and you can take action and you could see the results and he could and improve upon the results. Q.E.D

[@AmericanBrain]

@@shryfee7030 Stop rambling and get to the truth? POST 132: Sabine and Sam Harris are wrong [and I have over 130 main posts on Sabine's thread on free will about this]. But ​ like you the reader- this morning a man said and I replied to him BUT TO YOU AS WELL! ​ @Vinx.909 You said "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . You then carried on to give brilliant logical explanation like the other guy above - so huge thanks. Your logic is impeccable but devoid of reason. Therefore you are wrong. Man needs the twin engines: reason and logic to reach valid conclusion. You can write consistent logic and grammar and end up with Harry Potter. It's still fiction . IN MATH you can do that too and end up with STRING THEORY: multi-verse and multi-dimensional reality of at least 9. And that is like DR. STRANGE AND SPIDER-MAN IN THE MOVIES RIGHT NOW. FICTION ! FICTION FICTION ! In physics , you can "solve" the 100 year dilemma as many have done of Schroedinger's cat in quantum physics by saying it's both dead and alive; a quantum is both particle and wave [contrary to all logic] by saying the universe and you split a 1million times per second and we are back to INFINITY WARS/AVENGERS/MARVEL COMICS - Dr. Strange: FICTION FICTION FICTION. SO when physicists say MANYWORLDS is or may be correct they are WRONG [and the word "maybe" does not even apply]. There is only existence. But how do you know ? Let's find out. Let's start at the beginning when you just said -> "here's how we "prove" that materialism is correct" . ___________________________________ But that's like "proving pigs have wings". It's an impossibility. In fact - it is "more possible" to one day prove pigs have wings (or fly) due to prospective genetic engineering or "creative trick like putting artificial glider wings on them" and throwing them off a aircraft THAN materialism (the key suffix being "-ism" which means the totality of reality just like feminism does not mean gender equality but means superiority of women with laws to enforce this faulty false concept or just as worse environmental-ism). 1. All science is dependent upon assuming there is existence and you are a person with free will that can exercise it to generate hypotheses [computers can not do that], separate control from experiment [computers can not design this not even in VR mode as it takes a mind with free will, a spiritual non-mystical quality with potency not impotent]. It needs man's mind to interpret the results and form conclusion then defend the theses [computers can not do any of the above BUT can help collect the results and within narrow limits analyze results if subject to algorithm like gas particle equations or certain sociological things like traffic congestion and smart-city light-traffic control] IF computers could induct you can fire all the coders at trillion dollar tech companies and have a mega computer self code [think about it - it's only coding; surely this limited task can be done by computers? Answer? No. It needs man ! There are "coding tasks" computers CAN do but it is man that must induct and interpret equivalent to science above]. Conclusion? Materialism or variations like modernism, post-modernism etc. are all wrong. The mind of man is NOT physical and NOT the brain. The mind is most likely dependent upon the brain and maybe a self emergent but potent quality from the working of the brain. The words in this paragraph only like "maybe" or "most likely" are concepts of science which always probabilistic AND NEVER the ground floor to grasp reality. Science and math needs to assume there is reality: existence, mind [with free will - a spiritual but non mystical quality] with Aristotle's law of identity [truth and the above is it] to even "do science or math". How to validate you have a mind that is potent and indeed separate spiritual but not-mystical? Pick up a pen. BOOM! If you're a rational man you will know the pen is "in and of existence" as opposed to a no-thing-ness. Therefore - the biggest line in all of human history coming up: consciousness is the identification of the pen! JUST KIDDING! -> Consciousness is the identification of existence. This is the correct line. It therefore means MANY things so pay attention. a. Consciousness can not identify itself (circular logic, error of logic) and therefore must be SEPARATE to existence. b. The fact consciousness is engaging in an act, an action, a verb, the "identification" means it is potent (not impotent, not passive) meaning you exercise free will to make a choice between "no-thing-ness" and existence. c. But it is "you" that makes that choice so consciousness is NOT the universe like Nobelist Wheeler assumed or genius Freeman Dyson or his friend Deepak Chopra. Existence is a separate identity and not conscious. The pen exists in and of existence so the broadest concept of the entire cosmos is existence exists which means it existed, exists and will exist into infinity. You can NEVER ask "how" because that is to presuppose existence-BEFORE-existence , an error of logic. And you can therefore NEVER say "maybe the pen is a simulation and so are all things like in Matrix movies - how'd you know?" Because this is return to God argument: who created the simulation ? And the simulations's simulation ? And their creator's creator's creator? Reductio Ad ABSURDUM is a known error of logic. So you can only validate [like the word proof] - that existence exists by "identifying" the pen is of existence [which only a rational man can do: A.I. can not do it, animals have not done it and mental patients can not do it as irrational]. However people that are prospectively able to learn the methods of reason and logic CAN DENY "FREE WILL " [like you] whilst USING FREE WILL to make that denial. To reach ANY CONCLUSION even if wrong needs a "choice" making capacity in man: free wil. Therefore you always have free will but need to learn, master and use the correct method to reach VALID conclusion and that is is reason and logic. Now let's conclude and summarize! In conclusion : what is the ground floor of reality called "metaphysics"? Existence exists Consciousness with free will [as this identity identifies the above identity: which leads you to the below] Aristotle law of identity [there is truth of the and in the cosmos - i.e. invariant patterns that man can glean using reason and logic to "identify' such "identity"]. Existence, mind and identity. Q.E.D.

[@AmericanBrain]

@@shryfee7030 Happy Monday. I just told a mystic that mentions yoda - that you do the same thing as I told some scientists that: neither mysticism - no mysticism with muscles such a science and math, neither is the way to grasp the nature of reality like you have done. I told the Mystic and now I tell you, the same thing I tell scientists : “ You are incorrect. In logic a pen 🖊 cannot be long and short at the same time in the same context. There is only existence. He could pick up a pen and validate that it is of existence. Art is fiction such as Yoda and Star Wars. Fiction is not fact. You don’t seem to make this distinction. Plato later KANT was wrong. There is only existence because you can identify Existence Exists - such as my picking up a pen 🖊 or smelling a rose 🌹 or just pointing to something 🖼 . That means you “can validate” something exists vis a vis nothing. This is the closest concept to proof. There is evidence. Only a rational man can do this because artificial intelligence cannot do this, nor animals, nor mental patients. As one identity can identify another identity then it stands to reason there is - Aristotle’s law of identity: truth. But how do you know any truth? The answer is the methods of reason and logic. In conclusion above you found out that man has a potent mind - not incompetent mind. However to reach Covid Conclusion magnus for Learn for my logic. You have not done this ever in your life. Hence you are being sweet and manipulated by any movie or any Easton nonsense. Consciousness is separate to existence, and it is not the same thing as existence. -> If consciousness identified nothing but itself such as those people that say the “universe is conscious” then it’s a contradiction in logic, cold circular logic, and error. Note 📝 Deepak Chopra, David Bohm you are trying to replace God or the universe that is conscious but that’s the same thing back to fiction and nonsense. Non-dualism is wrong . There is only existence. Concept of the entire cosmos. Everything is off existence as a post to nothing-ness Such as The era called- simulation hypothesis. That means the universe is not conscious at all and David BOHM is wrong. ->> You are conscious and therefore Consciousness belongs to you from birth to death. You can never ask how existence comes to be because that is the presuppose Existence before existence. Error. Therefore existence always existed. Whereas - existence is infinite and exists throughout space-time, in contrast “consciousness is a separate identity that is from existence but separate to existence just like you are from your mother but separate to your mother”- is delimited to your life from birth to death and belongs to you and you are perpetual first calls when you exercise consciousness such as exercise “free will to make a choice” between wrong right and the “effect” is the action of thinking or doing like raising your right arm . ->>> There is no other force , Chi , Ki , Prana- nor any of the force like in Star Wars because that is fiction fiction is not fucked so you need to get this correct. --- In summary and in conclusion this is a Metaphysics cola which asked the questions what is reality? ->>>. The answer is : existence, “consciousness of free will “ and identity. Remember consciousness has to be exercised using “free will” to make a choice between nothing in existence and reach the correct conclusion that there is “existence exists”. Therefore all things eastern were wrong, or wrong, led to poverty death, death and destruction like this smashing of Tibet and the loser losing The entire nation called the Dalai Lama. Therefore everything that I’ve said about metaphysics and then I certainly talked about epistemology- which means how do you know any identity, how do you come to know any truth like the above? Answer: the methods of reason and logic which is the complete opposite of the method of emotions. Emotions are automatic such as intuition or faith. Faith means that feeling of certainty about what something means. Do you see that in your movie Star Wars how do you sister wrong faculty of mine to reach any of Conclusion. I repeat the eastern world did that for thousands of years and it’s a complete failure resulting in mythology and myths such as Chi energy and tricks that Shaolin monks do. Put that monk into a UFC ring they will get beaten and battered. Put that monk up against MIKE Tyson and I will get smashed in the ring. The Eastern world is full of scams and tricks that the monk well the 1 inch punch and the paper will snap. Try it yourself using a cereal 🥣 box and you’ll see how easy it is. Add some sound effect using iMovie app which is free on your smart phone and put it up on KZbin and you’ll get many many many subscribers. Human beings that so easily scammed. Even physicists and scientists are scammed. Science is not the ground floor to grasp reality. Science 🧪 and math are like instruments such as in telescope or a microscope. Instruments are very very very useful . But it is the observer that was reach Conclusion using the methods reason and logic and signs no mask and independently reach Conclusion. If and when science which is independent conclusion such as many world did you end up in fiction such as Harry Potter. Or if Matthew reaches Conclusion did you end up infection such as string theory and multi-verse wish you could see in the fiction Doctor Strange and Spiderman in the movies right now.. For example using a telescope you might see two planets and be startled. But it takes a human “mind”, not the brain but the spiritual “quality with potency” called the mind using its “conceptual” faculty to realize the two planets 🪐 🌍 are in fact the same single planet that is behind the star 🌟 who is light photons that reflected off the planet have Being bent around the giant star 💫 because of Einstein’s theory of relativity at arrives at your telescope creating the illusion of two stars whereas if you do the mathematical 🧮 calculation it is in fact just one star. Indeed this one the Nobel prize, not Einstein because he only proved it theoretically but not practically. Sir Arthur Eddington won the Nobel by proving it using a telescope 🔭 . So above we have proof that there is only existence. There is no dualities unless you were saying it’s property duality which means there is brain and somehow there is a point that separate but potent quality that work together incorporation then you are correct. There is no dualism which means there is no substance dualism: but there is “property dualism “ as there is -brain and there is mind and it is likely that the “ mind depends upon the brain 🧠 “ because specific damage to the brain resulting consistent type of damage to the mind.

[@AmericanBrain]

@@shryfee7030 Please do read it because I really do think of you and I wrote it and I wrote it with editing and such great diligence.

[@jasonrobley2109]

You're a great teacher, also liking your dry whit. Thanks for the thoroughly enjoyable production value and content.

[@wiesawnykiel1348]

around 11.50: "Because the particles must have already known when they set off whether to choose one of the two slits or go through both." In a delayed selection experiment in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, we can insert the second beam splitter after the photon has left the first beam splitter. If we insert a second beam splitter, the photon moves along both paths at the same time (it must have information about the amplitudes and phase differences of both paths) and single-photon interference occurs. If we do not insert a second beam splitter, the photon follows one path.

[@nikolayzapryanoff1032]

I guess she would argue that your measurement outcome was super-predetermined, that whatever you do, the outcome was going to be what it was going to be, because your intervention in the MZI was also predetermined. That's the illusion of free will. What I fail to see is how come she argues that her notion of superdeterminism is applicable to the quantum scales, but when it comes to typical statistical experiments, e.g. the control groups in vaccine study, she would argue that ''people are not quantum particles''.

[@wiesawnykiel1348]

@@nikolayzapryanoff1032 The fact that the intervention in MZI can be determined in advance is some "nonsense". Probably no "normal physicist" assumes that if someone chooses variant 1 in every measurement using a random number generator, we insert a second BS or 2, we do not insert a second BS, this choice is already determined in advance by the initial conditions of the universe.