What is Real? | Adam Becker | Talks at Google

[@markszlazak]

Adam Becker’s book was highly recommended by the physicist and respected philosopher of physics, Professor Tim Maudlin.

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

I think the views of Becker and Maudlin align rather well with the interpretation of the history of QM. I think both of them would agree that non-locality was a bigger issue for Einstein than hidden variables, And I think both point out that Bohm's pilot wave theory was deterministic and non-local - refuting Van Neumann. They might have different affinities toward String Theory, MWI, and operational collapse, however.

[@Raging.Geekazoid]

There needs to be a bifurcation in PhD-level physics education between foundations and applications. Shut-up-and-calculate physicists don't need to know much philosophy because they're really just glorified engineers. They're not supposed to think outside of the box, they're just trying to describe the box because it's an insanely complicated box. Students of the foundations need to know different ways of thinking, different ontologies, the history and dynamics of theoretical research, and anything else that will help them break out of the current mindset and discover the next one.

[@yacc1706]

Good idea!

[@joeboxter3635]

​@yacc1706 "Shutup and calculate is not physics," as you said. It's engineering. Indeed, Einstein wrote back Lemitre, who proposed the big bang theory, that there was nothing wrong with his math, but his physics was terrible. Still, we have to make progress. For now, groping around in the dark is better than sitting around waiting for someone to turn on the light, especially when you are in bed with a sexy and mysterious woman called Quantum Mechanics.

[@lcweiss7]

This guy Adam Becker is an extremely talented writer (I could not put his book down and I highly recommend it to anyone reading this) and also an extremely talented lecturer (I think I´ve probably watched this youtube lecture a hundred times already, lol )...

[@kA-dc6zq]

It's one of the most meaningful lectures I have ever listened. I'm reading Adam's book and this lecture was a good complementary for me to understand quantum physics better. Today, as I was cycling in the desert, an idea came to my mind. If there are at least two states for Schrodinger car, one dead and one alive, the whole nature that I saw today as I was cycling could be in infinite other states among which one is perceivable to me!! Because the wave function underlies the whole universe.

[@mb2776]

your theory is descibed as the empty branch problem of the pilot wave theory or in other words, the many worlds interpretation. while I do adore the many worlds interpretation, there's no reason that possible branches the particle could travel on, should exists. That's a misinterpretation of quantum physics, biased by the copenhagen interpretation. We observe empty fields in nature all the time, like no current between two electric poles etc. The possible brances a particle can take in the double slit experiment isn't real in a sense, it's just possible to take in way if the particle started in another place from the beginning. there are no empty branches in reality, the empty branch is as possible as you falling thru the floor right now.

[@idontknow-ms8mc]

I did not completely understand this talk, but oddly enough, I want to read his book and learn more about this topic.

[@pedrogo4903]

K 2 do not read ,its stupid

[@jayarava]

Did you read it? I did and found it fascinating.

[@abinashlaik]

@@jayarava Same, sir. It was fascinating for me as well.

[@tabordizon]

His book was quite captivating. It definitely gave me a new understanding of Theoretical Quantum Physics.

[@jayarava]

I'm with Einstein. Any equation in physics that gives two possible answers and no way to distinguish between them is incomplete at best, no matter how accurate.

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

If you can't get completeness and consistency in formal systems powerful enough to produce Peano arithmetic), then how can you get it in physics? Hawkings invoked Godel's theorem to argue that a complete and consistent TOE may not be possible, for example, but I am unaware if the Incompleteness theorem can be applied to the measurement problem, however.

[@kddk8584]

Good overview of his book. I've read it twice and I really enjoyed it. This guy gets quantum mechanics...

[@SaveriusTianhui]

Read your book recently--- Great book Adam

[@kenanderson7769]

Becker is quite a good speaker and covers are lot of difficult ideas. I like his inclusive approach eg philosophy and science being part of understanging reality. I deleted my previouis comment which was not intended for this video, must have been switching between worlds and missed the target.

[@QuicksilverSG]

@37:48 Becker: "Then [Bell] says... there's something else funny about Bohm's version of quantum physics. It has this spooky action at a distance. The position of a particle way over here can instantaneously affect the behavior of a pilot wave way over here." This is a mischaracterization of both Bohmian Mechanics and of Bell's commentary. As Becker explained earlier, in BM, pilot waves guide the movements of particles. However, there is no mechanism by which a particle's position can influence the behavior of its pilot wave, instantaneously or not. The pilot wave that guides the motion of the particle is not "over here" (i.e. separated by some physical distance). Pilot waves do not propagate across physical space-time, they manifest solely in Configuation Space, the complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the quantum wave-function is defined. Becker then shifts gears into philosophical musings, and in doing so, short changes Bohm almost as much as did promoters of the Copenhagen Interpretation. What Becker glossed over was the main conclusion of Von Neumann's erroneous proof: the claim that quantum mechanics rules out ALL hidden variable theories, such as Bohmian Mechanics. What Bell discovered was that it is only LOCAL hidden variable theories that are ruled out, but NOT the non-local Pilot Wave theory of Bohm. Bell's Theorem actually vindicates Bohmian Mechanics, as did the recent Nobel Prize-winning experiments that confirmed Bell's predictions. Becker's historical account of quantum mechanics is nevertheless quite compelling. What happened next was even more provocative: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqendICJbseebZY

[@jps0117]

What a great book. I've read it twice, and that's unusual for me.

[@stephaneberrebi7106]

based on the difference between noumena and phenomena from Critique of the Pure Reason, the Copenhagen interpretation should rename QM : Kantum mechanics !

[@solowinterwolf]

I will buy and read this book, but the running potshot at evolutionary psych is curious; it's a branch of science that is now as well-supported as quantum field theory. I refer the audience to the fine work by Leda Cosmides and others in founding this area that remains full of promise.

[@illClintonDuval]

I’m not to that part yet.. but honestly, evo-psych has a questionable reputation among scientists. I believe Richard Carrier has a blog piece about this topic.

[@mladen9319]

What a delightful talk. Thanks!

[@yacc1706]

Adam, please revise figure A.1b and the text that explain it, from your book. I think is incorrect. If both paths have the same length, all light must go to detector 2. BTW, I think is better avoid the "explanation": "a single photon will interfere with itself", a la Wheeler!, not to keep the misleading. Very good talk, I am personally very interested in THIS history, but as a Tim Maudlin follower, I would like these popularizations had a correct and precise language! Go on! It is "necessary" more people know about this history

[@Sharperthanu1]

No.The wave function IS a thing in the world. If you look at the results from the double slit experiment there are PHYSICAL MARKS on the photo sensitive film at the back of the double slit experiment that PROVE that when no one is watching the experiment photons,electrons or full atoms went through the double slits as waves.

[@ivan8960]

brilliant talk!

[@hense408]

this is aweseome

[@KipIngram]

5:30 - I don't know why we don't "want" life or consciousness to be involved with it. I see no reason to care one way or the other; I just want "the truth."

[@mushfiqurrahman1107]

is there any free PDF available of his book? help would be appreciated. (I was searching his book but couldn't find)

[@wdalence]

In order to understand better, you need to learn the theory of entropy chaos and order. The physical world (sensorial) is what we studied believing as real. But what is really making these sensitive world is quantum which is random, unobservable, unmeasurable with our consciousness or any mechanic device we could probably create. That chaos, randomness is expanding energy and that is what’s real. We animals are made of it and affected by it as a part of an ecosystem. Awareness beyond sensorial data collection which means trespassing the nervous and endocrine system can help the observation and its effect, but can never be completely controlled, if so will create a new behavior and that can be destructive. Remember it’s all about data collection and storage, our dna is our Cloud connected to the super cloud. We can “download” data and manifest with awareness of pure gray matter. That makes some humans more powerful than others, because they know the coding of the proper frequencies and vibration. Mistics

[@rodgerrabbit3160]

Does the goodness or wrightousness in you over power the evilness or wrongfulness in you. Also,could either be persuaded with any information or in any kind of way

[@SunShine-xc6dh]

Is gyger counter not a measurement device. Is the circuit to the hammer not an observer

[@camiloandresgranadosbuitra207]

How you prove experimentally that the system "collapses"?

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

Great talk, Adam. Thank you. Objective collapse theories that invoke gravity for objective state collapse of superposition like the Diosi-Penrose (DP model) are not holding up well under experimental conditions. I guess just the essentially irrefutable interpretations like Copenhagen and MWI are still in play. Perhaps modern physicists should employ Newton's famous words: Hypotheses non fingo.

[@danielash1704]

Great working out the flaws in a way and the answers in the web really an all hands on key boards and check the updated science's book's of resent findings and press print please

[@yacc1706]

24:18 caution! Not "not correct" but "not complete"

[@JavierBonillaC]

Evolutionary Psychollogy has done more for the understanding of human nature in 30 years than philosophy in 2000 years. What are you talking about????? I loved your talk. I've shared it. And then... you say that about Evolutionary Psychology. Disconcerting! It is just darwinian evolution applied to the mind with the help of game theory and computer modeling (which has also been key in understanding plain evolutionary biology). What is your intuition about why that approach could be anything but brilliant? Did Richard Dawins do something to you?

[@srghma]

I thought I will find quick algorithm to predict experiment outcomes - understanding

[@joeboxter3635]

If hidden variable aren't there which is what Von Neumann claimed, though erroneously, but still shown correct by Bell, why is Hermann so important.

[@danielash1704]

The cat is dead in the box and alive until you open it. 😂Yes🙄

[@rodgerrabbit3160]

I don't know what to do right this second,but someone or something should be contacting me any second in some kind of way

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

The cosmic police are attempting to contact you for parking perpendicularly in a parallel universe.

[@YamamotoAkihito]

really good book

[@MrRyansittler]

Google. Why are we looking at the back of people's heads when they ask questions?

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

I watched this all the way until the end, but I didn't see 'what is real'.

[@rk6783]

Dimitris Tsagdis is bug in this video

[@ankurwadhwa8669]

It's God plan , he doesn't want u to know. lol. Anyhow read the book u will get it , a bit more

[@joannaa1724]

It was so boring. I watched til the end but nothing about answering what is real

[@DavidKolbSantosh]

My understanding is that the Copenhagen interpretation denies mearurement (observer) independent reality to particles (the world). So, one way to get around the measurement problem is to deny realism, or observer dependent reality. The title is questioning reality its self as we know it.

[@wdalence]

In order to understand better, you need to learn the theory of entropy chaos and order. The physical world (sensorial) is what we studied believing as real. But what is really making these sensitive world is quantum which is random, unobservable, unmeasurable with our consciousness. That chaos, randomness is expanding energy and that is real. We animals are made of it and affected by it as a part of an ecosystem. Awareness beyond sensorial data collection can help the observation and its effect, but can never be completely controlled, if so will create a new behavior and that can be destructive.

[@rodgerrabbit3160]

Does the goodness or wrightouesness in you over power the evilness or wrongfulness. Also could either of them be persuaded in any kind of way with some information

[@teenee4]

why we don't sink through chairs is because of electron repulsion :)

[@yifuxero5408]

What is Real? Ans. per Shankara's 788-820 Advaita Vedanta, Pure Consciousness, the Substance (Spinoza's term0 of the universe. I am That, you are That, all this (everything0 is That pure Consciousness. However, logic along won't get you there. One must use specific techniques (many invented by the ancient Buddhists and Hindus), for tapping into and merging with Consciousness. This requires the direct non-dual apprehension of C. in a state that transcends the mind. What collapses wave functions? The entire universe collapses every wave function.

[@Wrightley]

Appreciate the content. "I am a minority."

[@rodgerrabbit3160]

I'm far from the smartest,but I am not a dummy. I am real in some kind of way. Therefore I have the question that has all the answers

[@paulmartin42]

As conspiracy theories go I am relieved that it leads to the rehabilitation of our old friend Einstein. My vote is for Fermat's last theorem since this is far easier to grasp initially and thereafter gets complex; QM is a wing and a prayer from start to finish.

[@jc6830]

1:05:22 I don’t know

[@95GuitarMan13]

When comparing physicists and philosophers of physics the imbalance is not in the due diligence of the professions as suggested but in the structure of the question being asked. Philosophy of physics is by definition an interdisciplinarian profession and a subset of philosophy, physics is a specialization and an entire field, not a subset. It's more fair to compare all physicists to all philosophers, in which case the imbalance disappears as almost all philosophers know squat about physics. You may ask why physics does not have a subdiscipline devoted to the intersection it shares with philosophy, as philosophy does, but I don't think you'll find many people signing up to study the physics of philosophy. Essentially, physics is in the scope of philosophy, but philosophy is not in the scope of physics.

[@yacc1706]

1:08:50 believes about philosophers

[@hense408]

and after this point.... rewind... hmm... need i say more?

[@danielash1704]

Well that spinning wheel is a good example of the plasmsass director ability so is a useful tool to dedcribe a tip of the feather of platforms for scientific evidence to new discoveries. A Closer look at the whole picture we so bias bliss and expertise of covering up discussion about circuit verses wave levels of the measure volumetric frequencies that we count as true could be off by the experience and expertise of mindfulness of the whole picture we see the impacting repeating the past history of the whole picture

[@acetate909]

The difference between Feynman's cool calm delivery and Beckers clammy clumsy delivery does not favor Becker. I really enjoyed this talk and I enjoy his writing but it would have been wise to make Feynman's point without using that video.

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

Feynman was Feynman and he made a good point about how fundamental knowledge can affect the development of scientific theories. Becker surveyed the history, politics, and philosophy of QM, invoking a number of different texts, theorists, and viewpoints - including Feynman's. Apples and Oranges my friend.

[@danielash1704]

We would not have the ability of the thing's we find out about the world all over we have to investigate the whole picture and find the correct way of doing thing's a massive body stays at rest untill a single idea comes together we have a turning point in the future as well learning about the controlling of the bodies intention to project is a classic example of the training the brain and memory of the experience is a good ideas and bringing it forth to all is never done till now

[@sunray6673]

God plays dice!

[@ULTD8]

dont take away my evo psych 1:15:03

[@illClintonDuval]

Evo-psych needs to clean its house

[@Arete1]

You mean your religion?

[@NeilHighley]

Sigh at the attempts by the new agers to pollute science with their supernatural fiction.

[@GOffUnit]

Yeah, object permanence is just so ludicrous.

[@manudehanoi]

if copenhagen wasnt so shitty and widespread there wouldnt be space for new agers to get in

[@danielash1704]

Ok I'll just slowdown in the speed of light then turns out your in for a long didtance ride if you get it right standing still everything else passes by lol that would be a trip to the scientific community

[@danielash1704]

Conscious of the experience and expertise of mindfulness of the whole picture is worth it later to realize that the experiencers own closeness to the natural programming language of all thing's or a multitude of platforms for memory that we seem to have forgotten the law of one size space to buoyancy of atmosphere the space density is a greater chance to see easy the sun's point of size space to leverage of gravity reflections to gravity reflections wavers

[@danielash1704]

If we don't have determined points of vibrational magnetic resonance ultra hi ultra low sound understanding echoes of distances between one the other atoms electricity generation we been sending that clicking out far into the galaxy note that your floating in a density of heavy gas and a multitude of platforms waves that we send into space.

[@yacc1706]

19:43 to 25:40 the myth!

[@anton-scottgoustin5425]

Very lucid language. I am a molecular and cell biologist, so this stuff is rather foreign to me. Probably if I talked about my work and my understanding, Adam Becker would feel the same about my talk.

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

I am a molecular biologist/biophysicist and my graduate advisor once said: It's not that mathematics is irrelevant to biology, it's just that most biologists are irrelevant to math.

[@Jbnixa]

For a talk entitled "what is real?" this is wildly incomprehensible.

[@danielash1704]

The collapse of the central point of attraction for the minus of thoughts turned on in A probability or distribution impact of other unites States of rest when everything else is in motion responce intelligence controlled almost yourself

[@yacc1706]

1:03:45 shouldnt ask!

[@Gringohuevon]

He might have a PhD but he understands fuck all. A theory describes a huge amount of phenomena and has advanced technology, but it doesn't feel right??? I know what I am sticking with. Ps Feymann was wrong..science has always been revolutionary, not evolutionary..

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

It's evolutionary, revolutionary, and, at times, reactionary.

[@dennisalwine4519]

I couldn't watch the video, had to go audio-only for most of it. The incessant "weebling" by Becker makes him almost impossible to watch without becoming nauseous. I find most physicists can describe all there need be said about "what is real" from the perspective of quantum mechanics in a brief paper or a talk you can fit into a TED timeslot with moments to spare. But since non-professionals don't buy brief papers, they buy books instead, authors have to pad and pad and pad. Ugh. Nonetheless, Becker has a genuine quality that one can't help but find appealing. But when he showed his admiration for the multiverse, I made a decision about whether to read his book.

[@pedrogo4903]

Mooron ,when you " measure" you ate just quantyfing effects over time and a vector( space), and not intrincicly the" thing" himself .You confuse fenomenon with numenon

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

Let's recognize the possibility that Kant was right: the noumenon (thing in itself) is essentially unknowable. Going one step further, it might be time to dissolve the distinction between epistemology and ontology per Deleuze and Zizek.

[@pedrogo4903]

@@jeffreyharrison3731 it´s the two faces of the same coin

[@Mrodriguez231]

:)

[@jasonsebring3983]

tldw; he is saying many-worlds

[@GOffUnit]

Wrong. He at one point says that the many-worlds interpretation is plausible, but in no way endorses it over all others. The only hard claim he seems to be making about any quantum physics interpretation is that the Copenhagen interpretation is incoherent at its core.

[@acetate909]

@@GOffUnit The book details the absurd way in which the Copenhagen interpretation isn't even one interpretation and using that term is essentially meaningless. Bohr was famously incomprehensible in his papers and his own views on the measurement problem are not well defined. I really enjoyed this book and this talk.

[@jeffreyharrison3731]

I think MWI is probably going to be ascendant until String theory is retired. Objective collapse is pretty much discredited through experiments, leaving fewer options.