Sabine Hossenfelder - What's the Deep Meaning of Probability?

[@frankperez1953]

I deeply admire this physicist. I'm an amateur or layman who is fascinated with classical and quantum mechanical physics. She helps me understand the big ideas of physics. What a great teacher/ philosopher.

[@I_dont_want_an_at]

she's a youtuber. A genuine physicist who has something to contribute wouldn't waste time on KZbin

[@sebastiangaviria79]

@@I_dont_want_an_at ...according to your own personal opinion on what contribution might even mean.

[@Inertia888]

@@I_dont_want_an_at you sound like an elitist

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

She is women having stupid thought. Her mind is full of Stupaid thoughts.

[@molnarboglarka9062]

@@I_dont_want_an_at No, she isn't just a youtuber. No need to downplay someones intelligence just because she is willing to talk to people in words they can understand.

[@xpkareem]

I love Sabine. She brings a no nonsense attitude to the physics community, which currently is lacking. Dreamers are great too, but we have enough of those.

[@nataliaturner4845]

I love her & Bernardo, both 💖 💖 Even though they're polar opposite in their pov 🥰

[@delq]

"Shut up and calculate"

[@communitycollegegenius9684]

That is one sexy, sexy piece of meat.... I love Bob.

[@sumsriv]

I think sabine is more of the norm. Dont get me wrong, I like her, but the influencers like NDT and Matt ODowd are so popular because they are dreamers and people resonate with that.

[@mt000mp]

@@sumsriv who's NDT?

[@tonyscalise4462]

These discussions are just incredible. Thank you so much for taking us on this journey in pursuit of the truth. I laugh inside a little when I think that the father of probability, Gerolamo Cardano, developed probability motivated mainly by his gambler friends. Now it’s central to our understanding of the universe and our own existence. Absolutely amazing!

[@mikel4879]

Tony S / No, it is not. "It is central" only to the WRONG understanding of the real dynamic of the Universe. The mathematical probabilities of the current time are the exactly equivalent of the useless epicycles of the wrong understanding from the time of Copernicus. They put you, blind you, and keep you on the wrong path of understanding the true real dynamic.

[@leonais1]

Probability is often a simplified model of things we do not understand or do not have the raw data to calculate. I think it might be fairer to say that probability is central to our modelling of the universe, humans can understand the models, but we may still have little understanding of how these probabilities are generated.

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@WiseandVegan]

I am sure we are not going to see this topic discussed here, this is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@HakWilliams]

Seems like gambling is where humans would start

[@nickgibson3451]

I am so happy Sabine is getting the media cred she deserves! The way she dives into subjects and isn't afraid to lose her audience going neck deep into nuanced truths behind conceptual models and theories that other popular scientists would rather talk about in flowery language to promote their next book is better for shaping honest communication between scientists and the public.

[@shroudedgrove4679]

She's dull

[@nickgibson3451]

@@shroudedgrove4679 okay, go buy michio kakus next book or something normie.

[@msunje9862]

@@shroudedgrove4679why do you think she is full ? What points had she made that can be considered dull

[@benjamink7105]

She's an attention seeking hack.

[@warrenny]

I like the positive comment. However, Sabine's real impact on the communication process is that she doesn't use any hype, no clickbait titles or language. She spends some time exploring common topics that seem like science but are not really backed up by data and facts. She's not afraid to say: there's no data that backup the claim. To address the dullness, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. However, Sabine's consistent manner of fact presentation has garnered her well over 1M subs. You can easily find more entertaining hosts.

[@woufff_]

Sabine is great as usual ❤

[@blijebij]

She rocks! :)

[@uninspired3583]

@@cosminvisan520 justifiably so

[@uninspired3583]

@@cosminvisan520 she's very good at cutting through bullshit. People who don't like her resent that.

[@jamesedward9306]

@@cosminvisan520 and you're just a moronic philosophic consciousness moonbat. See, aren't ad hominem comments fun?

[@jamesedward9306]

@@cosminvisan520 I'm sorry for your mental illness. Hope you will find your meds.

[@kf7137]

What is amazing to me is how I can listen to this and get a feeling of profound insight, even though I haven't really understood a thing.

[@CHANDANSINGH-qd8vc]

Same here

[@ewengilary7669]

Not understanding a thing is usually the mechanism that leads the brain to a feeling of profound insight.

[@grolmidri7759]

Sabine is great. And Robert Laurence Kuhn too. It’s like having a mental sauna - refreshing and challenging and you feel like it’s done you good.

[@dongshengdi773]

Exactly why science is also a religion

[@putyograsseson]

@@dongshengdi773 scientific community yes / scientific method no

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@WiseandVegan]

I am sure we are not going to see this topic discussed here, this is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@AltoidsYob]

@@WiseandVegan Go away.

[@philrobson7976]

Dr Hossenfelder knows her subject so well that even RLK seems to listen to her in awe and at one point got lost in the depth of her knowledge. She is wonderful.

[@johnnytarponds9292]

I really admire her painfully scientific approach to physics.

[@ibreakkidslegs]

"even RLK"

[@tristuscassius7245]

I agree. He even chuckles at a time during the interview from the excitement he felt from learning something from her...lol

[@diabl2master]

RLK?

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@meesalikeu]

as usual dr sabine lays it out clearly and concisely. thanks for the collab!

[@b.g.5869]

You realize this video clip is from about ten years ago right?

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

@@b.g.5869 It's okay, my understanding of physics only gets up to 30 years ago.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

As usual she is talking bullshit.

[@WJV9]

@@johnfitzgerald8879 - I think that is Sabine's main point is that we haven't made any real progress in particle physics in the last 30 to 40 years, also the 'Higgs Bosun" is not really well defined and it seems to be the only redeeming value in spending all that money to build and then upgrade/rebuild the LHC in Cern.

[@tearsintherain6311]

Nothing is more envigorating than discourse between two charitable and intellectually honest people

[@natmanprime4295]

Yes

[@TheCD45]

We need more Sabine in many fields of science, not just physics. I love that she can simultaneously do effective sci-comm for the public and call out nonsense in physics and science in general. And I like that she points out that just because certain mathematics can "explain" something, does not mean it's true or part of "nature", much more does not make something "beautiful".

[@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172]

I appreciate that Sabine differentiates between something being wrong and the arguments for something being bad. That's a kind of spirit we'd need in the political discourse.

[@Bassotronics]

I watch both channels and I got confused when I saw the notification of Closer To Truth but also Sabine in the same place. Lol

[@blijebij]

I know the feeling :D

[@fletcherward]

Great contribution to the conversation! Thank you. Good reminder that we’re at a “nope, not that” point in our physics. Not to be confused with a “thus that” point.

[@daveusaz7152]

I love sabine because she is not afraid to say/speak her mind

[@OCD-GIRL]

Like Donald Trump 💪

[@daveusaz7152]

@@OCD-GIRL Don't be ignorant

[@MrScientifictutor]

Always to great to hear her speak. Direct to the point and clear.

[@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038]

Finally, a real scientist! Wonders never cease.

[@shroudedgrove4679]

Wonders never cease? Lmao wtf was that??

[@petershelton7367]

Thank you Sabine I admire your courage in attempting to bring rational argument to bear on so may radical theories.

[@theriskid]

Wow... outstanding discussion, insights, and explanations.

[@vishalmishra3046]

At 1:45 - Sabine is always so accurate and corrects inaccuracies quickly before any confusion can arise. There is a big difference between similar and identical (e.g. probability distribution vs. wave function). We can only observe probability distribution but reality is based on the wave function.

[@Sirsonia]

TWO OF MY FAVORITES ON KZbin!?!!! Smashing that like button ‼️‼️‼️

[@davidmoroz2888]

So interested in this area. I remember when I was 13 and being taught about Probability by our maths teacher. Most amazing in opening my mind to our world.

[@dixondavies]

Many years ago, as an engineering student, I took a course named "the logical foundations of probability" It was facilitating, it pointed out the uncertainty of many things we assumed were absolute .

[@raymondfrye5017]

Facilitating or fascinating?

[@dixondavies]

@@raymondfrye5017 you are correct. The trouble with autocomplete, should go back and re-read before posting.

[@yaaobenewaah1697]

Like what? Any examples

[@yinspiron3348]

Was this class related to Carnap's book of the same name?

[@dixondavies]

@@yinspiron3348 Carnap's book was published in 1962 I believe. There may have been an earlier edition. My engineering schooling was from 1951 to 1956. (Yes, I'm an oldie !) It was a requirement that we must take one course each semester not related to our main studies. I chose this one and found it amazing. After your comment I went on line to see if the book was available. Couldn't find one.

[@tuckermoses-hanson2435]

6:54 In religious studies, it’s called a teleological argument, and it dates as far back as Socrates’ famous speech in favor of installing a particle collider beneath Athens.

[@EmdrGreg]

I always enjoy Sabine. I can't say that I understand every bit of this stuff, but it is very interesting just the same.

[@azdjedi]

I'll summarize: LHC 11100110 probabilities 110010001 physics 10110 truth

[@tinypanther27]

Sabine has a very direct and no-nonsense way of communicating science. Always nice to hear her talk. On a different topic, Sabine seems to have regressed to an American accent here. Quanam.

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

Her statement that we can not access the wave function but only observe it through the probability function is highly illuminating on what seems to be a clear understanding. There is another talk in which one of the physicists shows how higher dimensional object will be detected in a lower dimension in the same manner, as access to a probability but not access the the deterministic process. An analogy is as if we are observing the 3D shadow cast onto our 3D surface from the higher dimensional volume. It's kinda a pilot wave sort of idea except.

[@TeaParty1776]

When man temporarily does not have the intellectual or physical tools to identify a particular cause, he must use probability.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

Probability would fail if there were more dimensions involved. Hossenfelder doesn't understand that. She claimed higher dimensions in her dissertation and got proven wrong. Since then she is on her spree of stupid claims leaning on an audience of intellectual misfits in the interwebs. Most of her fans are incels clapping for absolutely everything they assume to have a pussy.

[@8888Rik]

This is a wonder bit of video, and I love probability. I have a lot of philosophy and math in my background, and I was fortunate to be asked to teach statistics as well as courses in my own field of evolutionary biology. As most people know, statistics is applied probability, and probability is a type of what is called 'epistemic justification", in other words justification of an empirical statement about the "objective", external world. Particle physics is a great example of this, as are many general statements about evolutionary mechanisms and outcomes. Hossenfelder is one pf my favorite science youtubers, and I'm very glad she has been so successful.

[@amphibiousone7972]

Sabine is awesome she is great at explaining physics...one of my favorite educators. Sabine You're a Boss 😎🤝

[@pt5488]

I enjoy the question and answer style more than the lectures because it is more paced towards being able to relate and absorb information rather than what feels like in some videos as cramming sessions. I'm not a scientist by any stretch, but having a strong interest in science, I relate well to her straight forward, yet diplomatic and simplified approach.

[@stevenschilizzi4104]

Sabine you’ve done it again! Du hast’s wieder geschafft! (Yes, I know, it rhymes better with McCain, but still…) And thanks to Rob for asking the good questions! And yet you’ve left me hungry for more about what exactly we don’t understand about probabilities. I had always thought that probability reflected our limited information or limited knowledge. But quantum mechanics broke my certainty about this and now I’m left wondering “what the heck IS probability”? Does it even have anything to do with Heisenberg’s indeterminacy? (a better term I think than ‘uncertainty’). Is it that an indeterminate system “by measurement” must translate itself to us in terms of probabilities? And what IS the difference between measurement and measure? Does the first represent a physical process with use of apparatus, and by contrast does the second relate to “measure theory”, a theoretical abstract concept? - Questions and more questions! Sorry…

[@raymondfrye5017]

When addressing persons of her preparation and standing it might be better to use Sie...

[@diogenesagogo]

I cannot get rid of this nagging feeling that there's ego at the centre of quantum mechanics; a refusal to accept that we cannot know, & never will know, precise information about very small (low energy/momentum) things because we will never have the tools to do so. Any measurement technique must affect the object measured, thus rendering the information obtained incorrect. I'm sure this has been considered before, I've just never seen the reason why it's wrong explained.

[@Fractured_Unity]

@@diogenesagogo It’s wrong because it would put physicists out of a job 😆

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sabine is just brilliant. And she´s brave, honest and trustworthy

[@allenazar8609]

Sabine made Michio Kaku look like a professor of bad physics for dummies.

[@mikkel715]

Michio has went into a religious belief in his String Theory.

[@micahholt9895]

I never saw them competing. I find them both interesting. Michio is just crazy with his imagination. Sabine is down to Earth, but doesn't mind exploring topics on her channel while being realistic. I like how she pointed out that some things like the multiverse can be interesting as sci-fi but shouldn't yet be promoted as science since it's not testable. Plus, she exposes the flaws in others scientists instead of keeping this ultra-rational persona the public may give them but I don't think she is trying to humiliate them.

[@louismuller8724]

It's not science, it's more like a weird religion..identical to mad scramble to avoid the theological implications of the Big Bang.

[@maximilianotorro527]

No.

[@tomrobingray]

The use of the terms 'probability', and 'uncertainty' is a deliberate ploy to disguise the fact that the thing being measured is a continuous flow.

[@rayoflight62]

Probability is the best definition of faith for practicing scientists...

[@stevendavis8636]

I really like sabines commentary. Probability that will continue is high.

[@sweebos]

Sabine is awesome ✊

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@saracosta620]

I cannot follow what exactly is being said, but I find this discussion rather relaxing.

[@guillo888]

Sabine is amazing! And she’s really funny too

[@cinemaipswich4636]

Sabine is the best advocate of Science today. She does not stand for BS or costly Mega-Projects that drain assets from the more widely spread scientific community. They have more modest and important everyday problems to solve, and solutions to seek. Sabine knows what she knows, and she is not some oracle of prediction.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

Actually she is an advovate for flat earth. I guess her incel fandom doesn't care.

[@thomasconstructionco6579]

i love her opinions she so factual

[@eriksaari4430]

opinions arent facts

[@thomasconstructionco6579]

@@eriksaari4430 follow her youtube channel u will knw what i am saying

[@philrobson7976]

@@eriksaari4430 you beat me to that fact by a few hours. That is a fact, not an opinion.

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@SolidSiren]

She is able to be that way by carefully choosing her words such that she only says what one can, with certainty

[@axle.australian.patriot]

The more I listen to Sabine Hossenfelder the more I relate to her view of theoretical physics. She explains what I struggle to explain to others. Too many people place too much sole emphasis on logic in a universe that is not fundamentally logical. I would argue that the universe is fundamentally analogical and the balance of the opposing states is what emerges. > A little bit like mapping the positions of a true constant motion analog clock. We can't map any exact position of the hand, at best we can say that the hand passes through an infinite number of positions.

[@bob___]

Something that's overlooked about probability is that it's a branch of mathematics. Probability is a mathematical tool, but it does not describe the real world, because, fundamentally, probability describes effects in a manner that is independent of causation. That's what makes probability useful for describing circumstances where cause-and-effect are complicated enough to be difficult to track (as in casino gambling games), or where we don't understand the chain of cause and effect (as in physics).

[@santibanks]

Very good point! From the point of view of an observer, there is no canvas of possibilities with a probability assigned, there is only what is which is already the "outcome", even regardless if we "interfered" with it. Even the experiments which guided us to quantum mechanics in the end show the end result, not the canvas of possibilities.

[@davidrowewtl6811]

Took me three listens through to get to the point I think i appreciate what Sabine is arguing. Brilliant. Her, not me!

[@pjaworek6793]

Sabine, my stalwart science hero!

[@siddharthsingh5169]

Yes she is amazing

[@jennyanydots2389]

I bet her box smells amazing. Her bee whole also probably stinks like flowers. Her trousers are probably covered in sea men stains.

[@michaelbartlett6864]

As I have said for years now, the formula is R=I/Z, where R is perceived Reality, I = Infinity and Z = Zero

[@garyknight8966]

If R is 'perceived' reality then the formula should be more like R=Z/I . Unperceived reality may be your R_u=I/Z 🙃

[@michaelbartlett6864]

@@garyknight8966 Since any number divided by zero is really huge, infinity divided by zero is absolutely limitless - but I get your point! 😶‍🌫

[@mikkel715]

Sabine is in the top of all physics youtubers. Clear, interesting and understandable are Sabine. Eugene and Sabine are the best.

[@kiancuratolo903]

I love Sabine I had to click the moment I saw her since I love this channel too.

[@martymodus7205]

It's such a relief to hear Sabine out there calling BS on popular hypothesis that are based on irrational assumptions and lacking in scientific evidence.

[@Jordy120]

Great episode. Many thanks!

[@Vagolyk]

I can't say I understood much, but I'm glad they had an insightful discussion.

[@mindfulskills]

Robert, you're interviewing Sabine! Two of my favorite people on screen at the same time!

[@b.g.5869]

This was filmed years ago.

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@goedelite]

Part of what I find wonderful about Sabine is that her disagreements with the way physics has been pursued since the Standard Model are never personal. She does not place blame on individual physicists as does another theoretician who posts on youtube.

[@blijebij]

Is probability distribution not just a label for degrees of freedom? So from what angle probability is not clear? Great interview! Thanks you both very much!

[@GamesEngineer]

No. They are different concepts. Take the infamous "Cauchy distribution" as an example. It has two degrees of freedom (its median location, and its scale), but it has an undefined mean and an undefined variance. And yet it describes a lot of real world physics, especially of spinning objects.

[@blijebij]

@@GamesEngineer Thanks a lot Jason! I go read and ponder about all you informed me about. Very interesting.

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@SolidSiren]

the statistic you are looking at will determine the degrees of freedom. They are correlated but not the same thing.

[@blijebij]

@@SolidSiren yes, I came to the same conclusion. thanks for your reply.

[@antoniusnies-komponistpian2172]

You can actually compare infinities to infinities. There is such a thing called Cardinal Numbers that describe how big infinities are. inf^n=inf, but n^inf>inf

[@mayukhmaitra9951]

Including infinities with a minus sign and that's the dilemma with the speed of light

[@mayukhmaitra9951]

Dilemma is... Newton's constant was like his cat nobody could say about that but Schrodinger couldn't bell the 🐈...

[@mayukhmaitra9951]

🐟 🐟

[@mayukhmaitra9951]

Ah now I understand from that dilemma this is on the history of science which has not been mentioned...and I misunderstood as something cooking...nice nice viewing

[@Lopfff]

Kuhn’s job: chatting with the smartest people alive. How do I get a job like this? Can I get a job reference please?

[@studleydewrite2942]

Perhaps your inquiry has eliminated you from consideration. Take heart,there was always a strong probability that you would never get a job like that,Lop,..that it has now become an undeniable reality should be no surprise.

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@BebopSpeaks]

Not the easiest job though

[@woodygilson3465]

In RLK's case, it's because (1) he's got a voice for it, (2) he's a scientist himself, (3) he has a background in media as a columnist for several publications, (4) he's also an internationally renowned corporate strategist. So good luck!

[@Lopfff]

@@woodygilson3465 Yeah, you’re right. Dammit. Damn it all!!!

[@octoberride]

One of the best episodes yet. Great job.

[@friedpicklezzz]

Great guest, and a great interviewer. 🔥

[@b.g.5869]

You know this was filmed years ago right?

[@donmc1950]

After seeing this interview I am glad I studied engineering instead of physics

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@odysseus9672]

"The probability distribution is the only thing we can observe." It's worse than that. We observe events drawn from the distribution and we have to reconstruct it by looking an an ensemble (large collection of) events.

[@David-rb9lh]

As a statistician , I can’t be more agree . You’re perfectly right.

[@georgecarr4633]

Sabine Hossenfelder... The queen of lucidity, in the realm of physics.

[@Showmetheevidence-]

The *problem* - so to speak - is that science is always trying to answer new questions/extensions of existing knowledge etc. But then people / the media take whatever the current model, knowledge or “answers” are as straight up fact. We need people to understand that science is fluctuating and evolving (& I find that fascinating myself). Hold onto your ideas, but be open to change as we experiment, observe and prove different or new theories.

[@floretion]

I once talked to a theoretical physics professor about the most mathematically gifted person working in his department. He said "You can ask him anything and he can calculate it. But if you ask him a question like: What is 'probability' exactly? He answers that he doesn't really know."

[@travcollier]

Maths is interesting... Most maths (including logic of course) are systems with absolute statements. However, from my POV, all knowledge is constructed by "probably approximately correct" learning systems. We are even constructed by such a learning system (evolution). It is just such an odd disconnect that the most useful tools for building models of reality seems so fundamentally disconnected. I'm definitely not an expert on the physics, but I have a sense that using a version of information theory which incorporates uncertainty at a base level to describe the physics will end up being the next big step. PS: I think we don't have access to any absolute truth. That's ok. It is pretty amazing that evolution has produced meat which implements a learning system which includes a simplified model of itself. A sort of recursive introspection. Pretty neat

[@krzysztofciuba271]

Another proof that scientists in general are philosophical idiots; ps. "philosophy" contra English Dictionary's explanation is a strict meta-logical axiomatic knowledge (like mathematics) and not a "feeling" or an "opinion" ('Our company philosophy",etc.or my own (dumb) philosophy of life is...i.e., BS). Consequently, their idiocy is revealed in the so-called Twin Paradox (Einstein's Relativity) or Schrodinger's Cat(QM) -check textbooks or literature: all BS except ...M.Sachs (Physics Today, 1971/2), not perfect yet but at least he exposed the total idiocy of anti-symmetry argument as on the assumption the Theory of Field is founded on symmetry, invariance (Lorentz) and covariance

[@travcollier]

@@krzysztofciuba271 IMO, most philosophers don't have a clue what knowledge is or how it is actually acquired. As a result, a ton of what they concern themselves with is similar to theology... "Deep" thinking about a non-existent thing. At least Dennett makes his students learn some basic automata theory. That's a start.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@travcollier" "Deep" thinking about a non-existent thing." You only prove u've learned anything at School like them; I smell that for you it exists only that you see, smell, touch and hear - i.e. the 1st kind of knowledge: by acquittance, that of animals but some apes can even faster,i.e, they learned about the invisible principle of induction; in science, one gets the knowledge about your "non-existent" things as not known by this acquaintance but only by deduction (formal science) or reduction(called by some, induction) plus analogy, etc in extra-natural science. Also, Mathematics Dictionary gives some clues on it under the term "Predicate Calculus"- more in Scientific Semantics by A. Tarski, AD 1936 (for formal science, but it can be applied to any axiomatic knowledge). I bet you don't know the meaning of such abstracts as "truth"(defined formally by Tarski only in AD 1933-John 18:38), "being" or "one", "relation", "photon", "electron", etc.

[@travcollier]

@@krzysztofciuba271 Nope. You are way off base. My first comment in this thread says pretty much where I'm coming from. Knowledge is predictive models built by "probably approximately correct" learning systems. Ultimately, that's all we have access to. Many artificial frameworks like most maths are odd since they are axiomatically purely deductive. But pure deduction can't be grounded to anything outside the artificial system. Anyways, from my POV, there is quite simply no absolute knowledge. It is all built by (or grounded on) inductive processes and possibly incorrect. I'm OK with that, but most people seem to have a visceral repulsion to it (which doesn't mean it isn't correct.)

[@mailtorajrao]

Sabine is the best!

[@Zagg777]

I believe that Kant had it right about modalities: They are categories of thought, not characteristics of things as they are in themselves, independent of out apprehension of them.

[@charlesrothauser1328]

Emmanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

[@georgesheffield1580]

Of most people ,but not all .

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@tarekazzam389]

Probability as relative Frequency. a) One Experiment with 1000 Particles at the same Time. b) Or one Experiment with one Particle repeated 1000 times. Are the Cases a) and b) equivalent in A)Classical Physics Experiments or in B)Quantum Physics Experiments , Probability as relative Frequency. a) One Experiment with 1000 Particles at the same Time. b) Or one Experiment with one Particle repeated 1000 times. Are the Cases a) and b) equivalent in A)Classical Physics Experiments or in B)Quantum Physics Experiments , respectively?Probability as relative Frequency. a) One Experiment with 1000 Particles at the same Time. b) Or one Experiment with one Particle repeated 1000 times. Are the Cases a) and b) equivalent in A)Classical Physics Experiments or in B)Quantum Physics Experiments , Probability as relative Frequency. a) One Experiment with 1000 Particles at the same Time. b) Or one Experiment with one Particle repeated 1000 times. Are the Cases a) and b) equivalent in A)Classical Physics Experiments or in B)Quantum Physics Experiments , respectively?

[@noteverymonday]

You can believe in what you want. It has nothing to do with science.

[@velcranell4860]

thank you Sabine

[@theotormon]

Sabine doesn't know. Robert doesn't know. The commenters don't know. I don't know.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

[@simongross3122]

I worry about people who do know.

[@LudwigSauerteig]

Contradiction ?

[@handleunico]

We're sitting in the PLATO CAVE. We strive to understand the shape of objects from their shadows. Over time we will certainly continue to make progress in understanding reality but for the majority of us it will be a matter of relying on the best minds who, only with hard work, reasoning and experiments, will sooner or later manage to free themselves from the chains and access the levels superiors of knowledge. Probabilities are the way in which we try to give reality to a phenomenology of which today we only perceive projections.

[@jessstuart7495]

Probabilities are not real physical quantities. They are just a way to describe the likelyhood of obtaining a particular measured result. Wavefunctions are just a mathematical tool to calculate probabilities. Assuming wavefunctions are real physical things requires a huge (and in my opinion, unjustified) leap of faith.

[@simongross3122]

And there seems to be a willingness to deduce an entire probability distribution from a sample size of 1.

[@winstongludovatz111]

For one thing the wave function is defined on configuration space which is certainly not physically real such as e.g space time. For example it does not have a definite dimension, the dimension it has depends on the "system" it describes. Obviously therefore the wave function is a mathematical abstraction, a descriptive tool, not a physical reality.

[@ralphacosta4726]

I love that she's willing to point out when something isn't science, or scientific. I've seen it in non-scientists; it should be REALLY discouraged in scientists.

[@janicebeams4809]

Most of the interesting physics happens within our solar system. Keep up the interesting videos, Sabine y Señor Kuhn.

[@WiseandVegan]

This is what they don't want you to know: The Connections (2021) [short documentary]

[@stretch8390]

We don't have any black holes in our solar system though.

[@therick363]

Most of the interesting physics happens in our solar system? So everything else out there isn’t interesting? Bold .

[@janicebeams4809]

@@stretch8390 Have you been to a black hole?

[@janicebeams4809]

@@therick363 Go for it. Go!

[@Life_42]

Sabine is so amazing!!! I love following her channel so it's kinda strange to see her whole! Lol

[@wallstreetoneil]

My degree is in Statistics & Probability and I've thought about this issue a bunch. I sort of concluded that 1 of 2 things has to be true: 1) We live in a simulation as that is how you would program it to be so we have randomness, 2) This is an issue of Infinity meeting Discreteness - i.e. we draw a number line so that we cover all the numbers between 0 & 1, but when we look closely, there's just no way to draw that number line - it's tiny segments of discrete space. So now imagine we live in this 3D + 'time' universe, the number line is the 3D space, but space can't be continuous, even though we think it is, so it expresses itself as a quantum foam, which appears to bubble in and out of existence when viewed closely enough, so we view this as randomness / probability but it's really only able to be in discrete spots, like numbers on a number line that don't require infinity and limits to write down - so it's not really random, but it appears that way in order to express itself in our 3D world. The existence of Blackholes leads me to believe that #2 is more likely true (but not necessarily) because this is the 3D + time universe showing us that this is actually happening - i.e. beyond a certain point, Continuousness is an illusion (or other Dimensions are required), and we compactify down in Dimensions to a specific Dimensionless point on the number line - like the integer number 2 on the real number line. If you think of the thing we call the Integer 2, we can approach it from both more than and less than 2, and we can forever approach it forever but never get there - UNLESS we leave the 1-dimensional world of the Real Number Line and step down to the 0-dimensional singularity of 2. So what we see as randomness is the universe telling us that the number 1/3rd doesn't really exist - but what does exist is actual discrete numbers close to 1/3rd that pop in an out of existence to show you that the Space we occupy is Discrete - which kind of feels insane when you think about it - but we created Limits & Calculus to make sense of things and to calculate and just state that 1.999... is in fact equal to 2 - but it's only true mathematically because we have chosen it to be true. Our universe seems to be pointing out that it is not true - it's either a simulation, discrete, or there are other dimensions - so we've just applied Limits & Calculus to compute and it works.

[@mymyscellany]

I like your thoughts on this.

[@garyknight8966]

As a mathematical physicist I agree that there are real numbers, specifically irrationals, that are only our symbolic placeholders for an arbitrary convergence of rational numbers. But I would caution against doing rational numbers out of reality. They, such as your 1.999 or 1.9999 are as 'natural' as the number 2. But where we speak of 'continuity' - through the irrationals to which rationals can give arbitrarily good approximations - means, on my interpretation, that it is wrong to exclude a number such as 1 from the domain of a continuous function like x(x-1)/(x-1) . What this has to do with probability is related to the ergodic theorem, where all available states must be explored or in principle explorable by a given system of study. I maintain that the 'real' but irrational state variables have no physical meaning. Pursuing this question may have some promise of putting renormalization theory back on a sound track (which it left behind in 1947, notwithstanding the Noble prizes for QED).

[@SolidSiren]

0:24: 1000 times yes. We don't really understand probability and how it should be regarded. Some claim this kind of view is a result of not understanding the theories or the problems. I completely agree with Sabine and I think it is them who aren't understanding things from the proper perspective.

[@chester-chickfunt900]

It is amazingly pleasant to listen to highly intelligent people discussing complicated topics in a calm and rational way. Next stop...Jerry Springer's channel. Yin and Yang. It shall be so.

[@diogenesagogo]

when I was about 16 I picked up a book in our local library by George Gamow. I can't remember the title but it looked interesting. It was about infinity & how there are different forms of it. This confused the hell out of me, but when I read his logical explanation - e.g. why the sum to infinity of 1+1+1+1 ..... is obviously twice that of 2+2+2+ .... it made sense. Sort of. I gave up on the book shortly after, but I think I should have persevered. Perhaps I should try again (albeit 56 or so years later).

[@stevenjbeto]

Another ‘I am dumb’ question: How does the Probability Model differ from Deductive Reasoning?

[@GradyPhilpott]

Google is your friend.

[@r2c3]

the former is inductive and the later is not... or the later is the proof of the former... other opinions are welcomed...

[@jamespower5165]

Any conceivable universe would follow some principles of deductive logic. Probability on the other hand is a kind of mathematical shift that needn't work but miraculously enough does in our world. Even the definition of Probability is ridiculous. It is a limit as n->infinity of something. Which means that in principle no experiment can determine it or even if such a limit exists. Yet this fantastic assumption not only works as an approximation when more knowledge is lacking or more calculation is cumbersome, it seems to be a part of the fundamental make-up of our universe via quantum mechanics. Probability is a contingent quality of our reality. Logic is a necessary quality of any possible reality

[@antimaterialworld2717]

True deduction is based on factual knowledge of some object . Probabilty makes assumption about nature of that object reality based on some limited observation. So it is inductive method. There is no pure deduction in empiric science. But if we look to spirituality which is based on revelation. Everything is deduction then.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@antimaterialworld2717 Revelation knowledge is the illusion of knowledge.

[@mickmickymick6927]

Much better than the previous video between the two, thank you.

[@kludgedude]

Man sees probability God sees certainty

[@chad0x]

big fan of Sabine. Her channel is great!

[@binbots]

The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.

[@michaelh.sanders2388]

The brute fact is that we are the product of this Universe.

[@GradyPhilpott]

We are the universe.

[@blijebij]

The (physical) universe it self might be a phenomena within reality it self.

[@JLP4444]

Enjoyed that. I just often wish Sabine would go one step further in her explanations. In this case, to give some sense of why scientists thought the fine-tuning was so improbable.

[@EddieA907]

Thank you for this. The Doc H. I love her insight.

[@kricketflyd111]

Sabine say's no to Robert's gobbledygook! 😮

[@haniamritdas4725]

I think the problem is with normalization. The equations for probability are analytical continuous expressions of discrete combinatorial relations, obtained by normalizing the equations. But in combinatorics, the coefficents are expressive of discrete linear components. Normalization removes the context of particular combinatorial bases for analytic expressions. Essentially we discard arithmetic to get the analytic power of Taylor series, and we get approximate results, with error ranges. The error ranges themselves also being defined precisely by what is discarded by using differentials instead of combinations of rational proportion, they were also once arithmetical in principle. In short, we throw out specific rational solutions in the search for specific rational solutions. But you can only average your way to a mean, not an arithmetically discrete answer to a question. If we knew the underlying arithmetic of phenomena with their patterns of discrete local values rather than their Fourier coefficients over an infinite range, then we would call the equations classical rather than probabilistic. It's the same math, but we only have ever taken shortcuts to precision in lieu of understanding the deep properties of combinatorics. We got stoned by Newton's alchemical mystery and lost our way in the sigma sea, the lull of the wave equation, the standardization of deviation from the norm. Standard deviation from the norm is a good way to measure compliance with prior understanding, but it's a poor substitute for an exact solution to a given problem in context of discrete components.

[@paulh7855]

Love your approach. Perfectly said.

[@peterchindove7146]

It would be great of we could have debates like these between physicists and mathematicians - using actual papers, making calculations..these are deeply important questions.

[@jianchiwei5379]

Love your smiles when you are thinking, you are pretty Sabine!

[@sorover111]

I loved this. I think you could describe her argument as "Hey guys... What are we doing here?".. Like you might do if you observe a room full of your peers with magnifying glasses starting at the same part of the wall for hours.

[@Rene-tu3fc]

Sabine is great. wish her videos had lighting as good as this one

[@fins59]

Yes I've noticed that her lighting is very flat, no key light plus fill.

[@uubuuh]

and this better audio

[@jackburgess274]

Probabilities are not observable, either in QM or anywhere else. In QM, as elsewhere, it is frequencies that are observable, not probabilities.

[@mr1234567899111]

Thanks for the clarity --

[@andrevigneault3617]

Hi Charles its a pleasure my brother.

[@SuitedPup]

The point at 3:25 is not necessarily valid. A subset of an infinite set (of universes) need not itself be infinite. For example, consider the real numbers (an uncountable infinite set). A subset of the real numbers is all positive even integers less than 1000. This is a finite set. I’m splitting hairs, but to be perfectly precise, perhaps the subset of universes that we could possibly find ourselves in is indeed finite, thus allowing a notion of probability.

[@bobjuke4216]

She is so very clear..

[@AltraNoodle]

3:24 "Yes. Right..." 😅 Why I love you girl!!!

[@hakunkamminga3915]

This lady is above and beyond, love you Sabine! Make more music videos too

[@contessa.adella]

Thank you. Nice to see the concepts and questions made understandable to joe public👍

[@Franganav_]

I feel like the definition of universe varies in the multiverse theory but at the end, reality expresses an infinite number of variables, some of those variables are necessarily understood to separate a measurement from infinity.

[@SolidSiren]

That's an interesting point 🤔

[@Sarita41248]

Very interesting and amaizing this converation. Thanks so much