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

Closer To Truth has just launched a new website! We can't wait for you to see what we've been working on. New seasons, interviews, topic guides, curated playlists, candid conversations, book excerpts, essays, and announcements. Visit today: www.CloserToTruth.com
Is probability a deep probe of how the world works at fundamental levels? Or is probability merely a tool of human perception in trying to discern what is true and what is not true by assigning degrees of uncertainty? What is the difference between probability as an objectivist “relative frequency of occurrence” and as a subjectivist “degree of belief”? We explore the power and ubiquitous presence of probability.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on breakthroughs in mathematics: bit.ly/3Y1tTlC
Sabine Hossenfelder is an author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Analog Systems for Gravity Duals group.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@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.

[@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

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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]

@@VeganSemihCyprus33 Go away.

[@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?

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@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?

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@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.

[@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?

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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".

[@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

[@theriskid]

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

[@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038]

Finally, a real scientist! Wonders never cease.

[@shroudedgrove4679]

Wonders never cease? Lmao wtf was that??

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@daveusaz7152]

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

[@fonainfinity5964]

Like Donald Trump 💪

[@daveusaz7152]

@@fonainfinity5964 Don't be ignorant

[@MrScientifictutor]

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

[@octoberride]

One of the best episodes yet. Great job.

[@Jordy120]

Great episode. Many thanks!

[@Sirsonia]

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

[@paulh7855]

Love your approach. Perfectly said.

[@contessa.adella]

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

[@pjaworek6793]

Sabine, my stalwart science hero!

[@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.

[@petershelton7367]

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

[@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 😆

[@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.

[@EddieA907]

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

[@willyh.r.1216]

A very interesting topic. Thank you both.

[@guillo888]

Sabine is amazing! And she’s really funny too

[@sweebos]

Sabine is awesome ✊

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@Sarita41248]

Very interesting and amaizing this converation. Thanks so much

[@mickmickymick6927]

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

[@kiancuratolo903]

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

[@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.

[@Vagolyk]

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

[@mr1234567899111]

Thanks for the clarity --

[@andrevigneault3617]

Hi Charles its a pleasure my brother.

[@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! 😶‍🌫

[@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.

[@chad0x]

big fan of Sabine. Her channel is great!

[@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.

[@georgecarr4633]

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

[@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.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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.

[@rayoflight62]

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

[@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.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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!!!

[@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.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@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.

[@stevendavis8636]

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

[@floretionguru2977]

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.)

[@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.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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).

[@janicebeams4809]

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

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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!

[@saracosta620]

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

[@mailtorajrao]

Sabine is the best!

[@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.

[@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.

[@ChristophTungersleben]

Contradiction ?

[@hakunkamminga3915]

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

[@Thomas-gk42]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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

[@velcranell4860]

thank you Sabine

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

This was absolutely *AWESOME*. Thank you for doing this, Robert. I'm even surprised that I actually followed and understood a huge percentage of the overall concerns being addressed here. I still think that a completely DIFFERENT version of science, energy, metaphysics, and other nuances are going to become apparent fairly soon. To intelligent humans, that is. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨

[@jeremiasteliasperez4507]

I am late to the conversation, but it looks like Sabine is trying to say the opposite of what you are assuming. She wants Science to remain rooted in real evidence and within an "observable" domain, otherwise it would stop being Science and would become a "weird religion" (in her own words), or metaphysics (I'm paraphrasing now). She seems to think that it is not intelligent for Scientists to get lost in their wildest speculations. If that is what she is saying, I think it is a very important message.

[@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 .

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

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?

[@MrShoorf]

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

[@kludgedude]

Man sees probability God sees certainty

[@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.

[@gmshadowtraders]

YES FINALLY! You are in the presence of an absolute heavyweight intellectual and beautiful mind in Sabine! Well done CTT!

[@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.

[@AltraNoodle]

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

[@thebrothersdude]

Yesss! two great minds!

[@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.

[@kricketflyd111]

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

[@ministerofjoy]

Thank you.

[@mikkel715]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@Life_42]

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

[@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.

[@ihatethesensors]

I'm glad they had a smart person interviewing her.

[@jianchiwei5379]

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

[@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.

[@davidrowewtl6811]

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

[@AlexandroJulian]

I agree with her. When someone feels by lack of observation, the blindness can be meaningful, but the distant experience is powerful confusion.

[@alisavas9526]

Sabine is my most favourite sceptic :)

[@user-vq4mt4zd4e]

great content thanks

[@paulvillarreal1588]

OMG! Here’s my real-world example of the infinities problem: I feel now infinitely more knowledgeable than I was before watching this…and yet these two people are infinitely more knowledgeable than me 😂 Wow, the facility and clarity these two have in just casually chatting about the EVERYTHING of it all is mesmerizing!

[@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

[@gregparrott]

Both the subject matter and the format of interviewing Sabine is excellent. While I enjoy Sabine speaking directly to the viewer, as she does on her YT channel, an interview poses the question or makes the supposition in a manner that seems easier to engage.

[@bobjuke4216]

She is so very clear..

[@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.

[@ricodelta1]

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS! JUST FABULOUS

[@cycla]

woah, sabine is everywhere!

[@alannolan3514]

love sabine, says it as it is

[@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.

[@Leowavekid]

Hats Off .. Big time!

[@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.