The many worlds of quantum physics | Robert Wright & David Wallace

[@ricardoalmeida4719]

David Wallace is one of he people I love the most listening to in matters of science and physics. Such a clear, eloquent dude. And he looks like a nerd, which is cool too. ^^

[@elysium619]

Clear, eloquent and very intelligent--- in sharp contrast to the host.

[@jps0117]

@@elysium619 You're mistaken about your second point.

[@user-vx2wp1ez5s]

Thanks so much. These longer, developed conversations about complex issues are amazing and deserve a wider audience.

[@jennieohk6911]

When David Wallace speaks... I can SEE so vividly what he's saying. Love it!

[@Floppy-u6l]

I am thankful for such smart and interesting people.

[@viswavijeta5362]

1:29 The challenge of interpreting quantum physics 10:26 The many-worlds interpretation 21:10 At what moments do new worlds appear? 27:54 Quantum physics and free will 33:52 The multiverse and you 39:51 Why you (or one of you) may never die 49:15 Quantum entanglement holds the world together

[@ES1077]

Totally loved this! I’m cooking dinner listening to “Many Worlds” wondering what my other me’s are cooking or having for dinner...or not? :)

[@LuckyInCards]

Very enjoyable and informative ... thank you

[@daves2520]

Mr. Wright should interview Sabine Hossenfelder regarding the many worlds hypothesis. She points out its flaws quite convincingly.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

Having this on in the background when doing QFT problems. Good combo!

[@jamesmather7896]

This is excellent. Props to everyone. I didn’t realise that Many Worlds gets around spooky action at a distance. 🤔 I’d love to hear more on this.

[@paulfiedler9128]

The lighting is so much better in this video than in any other Wright video I've seen. Whatever light adjustments you made here repeat them. Also, great choice of shirt for your look.

[@richthurau8669]

I appreciate the detailed description of Many Worlds and like most, still have questions about the 'reality' of quantum physics. A question: Could Dr. Wallace offer a general description of how Many Worlds explains the Quantum Zeno Effect (QZE)?

[@gentboy515]

Nice video, nice brain stimulance :)!

[@jamesbogart]

29 ,00 it is not deterministic since the decision is formed on the basis of prior random experience which has subjective influence. Since you evaluate subjectively you could find that you decide in the opposite path . If your decision was based on an experience in the past which did not exst in one branch then your decision is variable.

[@mauripesce4790]

what if the wave by vibrating a lot somehow produces energy that accumulates and after a while gets "materialized" as an electron? i don´t know i am super high

[@higreentj]

A multiverse would amplify the creativity of evolution.

[@TheCbreland]

What is this "grim" paper written by David Lewis? Is it available to read anywhere online? I would love to read David's take on the perspective of the cat in Schrödinger's thought experiment.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

Can't it be like that : the world indeed splits up very briefly in all the possibilities and even time is not completely respected, paths in the past and future are tried too but then only one path remains, like the end product, the best result of the calculation. Now the problem is then why a certain result is best.

[@gelodelo4222]

This video is WOW!! Even though I don't understands most of what was explain. Weird

[@kingsandassociates7176]

why would we not accept consciousness collapsing the wave function? I REALLY think David Wallace is cool and love the way he presents his thoughts....great mind and deliverer of objectivity. But this argument has so many complications it seems like the issue is our understanding of math not the reality from which we believe it describes. For example at 1:03:20, there must also be a possibility that in all cases of you playing you survive...so what happens in this case with the branching?

[@schmetterling4477]

Because there is no such thing as collapse of the wave function, to begin with. That's just a nonsensical phrase that has established itself against all physical evidence to the contrary.

[@firstaidsack]

Why introduce a wave function collapse when it is not needed? Also, the wave function collapse, whatever its cause, is non-local. Information is being transferred instantly and the collapse happens everywhere simultaneously. But according to Einstein's Relativity, there is no such thing as "simultaneous", whatever happens simultaneously in one frame of reference is not simultaneous in another. So by accepting wave function collapse we are commiting to a notion that is not well defined in our best theory besides quantum physics and are diminishing our chances to ever find a theory of quantum gravity. The complications of the MWI are so minor compared to the non-locality of the other interpretations that I would not even consider them to be real problems.

[@lairheron9489]

I wonder if all worlds are subject to entropy too.

[@viswavijeta5362]

56:50 ftl parapsychology collapse entanglement

[@GarryBurgess]

"I will not be doing that experiment" - "very wise"😀

[@gooey5234]

The many worlds theory might as well be called pseudo science quackery - I love it though. It sparks my imagination, it puts me at rest because hey I'm anything I want to be in another world, and I don't have to feel guilty about any decision I make because another version of me didn't make that decision. Also, everything both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Consciousness having an influence on the collapse of a wave function into a particle "that's not science"...but superposition without an explanation of the collapse "that's science because the equations say so". We all love to live our own imaginations.

[@schmetterling4477]

But it doesn't even allow you to be everything. On average you remain you. The number of worlds in which you would be noticeably different from your average you is infinitesimally small.

[@paulwillisorg]

I think like Godels incompleteness theorem uncovers some problems in first order logic there is a problem with math at this level. If the math is telling us there are 10x1000 real simultaneous worlds than perhaps the math is wrong. I think consciousness plays a role.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

I think too that many worlds is just not elegant and that it's probably wrong but I know that's no argument. It becomes extremely "heavy" and complex combining many worlds with a block universe model. Then I see a static hyperspace crystal of all possibilities and it's we who are moving through it, individually.

[@univibe23]

This gives me a headache! I think it's somewhat nonsensical as I don't see how many worlds theory can ever be proven in the context of current 'scientific theory'. I wonder how many parallel universes there are and how would we know. Would it be trillions....infinite? Which would mean they are in constant, never-ending production. ????

[@LuciFeric137]

Everettians unite!

[@aaron2709]

You can take comfort in the thought you are living the worst version of your life possible.

[@yandhi4202]

the guy from the office is doing this now?

[@waterkingdavid]

I am an utter ignoramus when it comes to understanding this stuff but presumably the very well known Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist does. His take is that many worlds theory is purely theoretical and ultimately neither provable nor disprovable as being about how things really are. Inspired by the philosopher Roberto Mangabeira the two suggest that this way of thinking is not only very likely deluded but is actually dangerous as at leads to an abstract view of things which greatly reduces compassion and care for others in the world as its a kind of reality transcendence that doesn't take into account our lives as they are really experienced and what really matters to us. Anyone else aware of Lee Smolin's recent theories about time which posit that time, rather than being an illusion as posited by Einstein and just about all physicists is a reality? Perhaps its time to be honest with ourselves and reflect on what is really going on and what is really important to us in a world so crammed with delusion and illusions that keep us from even for one moment thinking about such questions as "who am I?" and what is really going on. Especially one in which there is so little compassion for others, especially the poor and those who live in war torn countries.

[@malanthrope]

Born rule - > MWI is wrong

[@crate9465]

His reasoning about the branching seems a bit hazy, why is flipping a coin not deterministic? It only has the veneer of randomness because we can't see what will transpire- if we could follow the trajectory of the coin in slow motion we might have a definite idea of the outcome. Does he think the universe only bifurcates when we set up contrived situations like coin flips and double slit experiments? Why wouldn't general quantum fluctuations over time affect parts of my brain to affect my 'important decisions'? Also I didn't hear him specify where these bifurcation points *would* transpire. Also why are they bifurcations as opposed to unending multiple simultaneous 'branching', given that these electrons are smeared out into diffuse clouds of probability as opposed to a small number of discrete points (assuming my understanding here is correct)? Perhaps it's a problem with translating the theory into lay speak- but it seems kind of metaphorical and anthropomorphic.

[@jamesbogart]

The determinism of the coin is not in flight but at the point of the flip wherein the outcome of it and its events is pinpointed.

[@francismuir9313]

Dude, Robert. Stop cutting off your guest as they clarify what they're saying. And the farewell was rather curt and rude, especially with the quip about taking "consolation in that". Was it a dry joke or a jab of sarcasm?

[@francismuir9313]

As a side note, you seem cynical af

[@lbdeuce]

I’ve been trying to see things your way since comments like this are so prevalent on Wrights videos. But, for some reason I can’t understand where all the negativity is coming from. That being said I certainly understand that he does jump in frequently and seems fairly ADD but I think he governs it effectively and carries a discussion or more specifically, a conversation meant to explain a topic to an audience quite well. Idk why I see it this way as I assume you and the other people are correct giving your unanimity. Interesting.

[@dazboot2966]

Wallace is such a 'type'. You can tell he absolutely _hates_ anything that might posit the role of any 'non-material' concept in discussions about the structure of existance; that's why he champions Many Worlds. He is of course staunch atheist, wary of anything slightly holistic, probably a Star Wars fan and a reader of Terry Pratchett novels.

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

bahahaha lol

[@flexnetuser2268]

Daz Boot LOLOLOL 😝

[@kddk8584]

Daz Boot soooo I'm not understanding where the connection between many worlds and atheism is. I am not an atheist but I subscribe to the universal wave function (many world's). One really has nothing to do with the other.

[@matchbox555]

Holy shit. That voice.

[@jps0117]

Really!

[@BionicCyborg]

(!(Where is the other me? ....answer....in one theory of physics...and currently how you subscript x is NOT envisioning this. Fun to listen to it primarily because I suspect math is the closest to an understanding, of what we don't understand, that this non- mathematical sapien will know.))

[@kddk8584]

Host steps all over the guest. If you know the answers why ask Mr wallace to join your show?

[@paulwillisorg]

Host? It's Robert Wright. People want to hear what he thinks too.

[@kddk8584]

paulwillisorg he's not a host if he's Robert wright? And yes, I've watched the video multiple times trying to understand where david wallace was headed with his answers and just about every answer was interrupted or the host answered it with David wallace replying "that's right". The host can voice his own knowledge of a subject without inviting experts on to answer questions of that's what you prefer. Not me.

[@paulwillisorg]

Robert Wright is not *only* a host. He's made his own contributions. He's also testing these guests views and challenges them.

[@kddk8584]

paulwillisorg using a machine gun as an instrument for the double slit experiment isn't a contribution or a test. It's wrong. There's a reason we have have two ears and one mouth and most people forget that. We should listen more than we speak.

[@gelodelo4222]

The host is just thorough. Very direct to the point I like the host. And also the guest

[@Pashyanti]

I think if we unanimously start worshiping Mathematics as the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient ultimate reality all confusions will be solved.

[@francismuir9313]

Mathematics is a living, growing field of study. How can an ongoing process be any of those "omni"s? Sorry if you were being sarcastic.

[@richiegray6847]

Particles and waves .... well it’s very obvious what it is it acts like a woman👩‍🦳👩🏼‍🦰👩🏻🔥🧠👙🗽🇺🇸☘️😎👍🖖👊😉😉😉👶

[@schmetterling4477]

And this is why philosophy is useless.

[@modvs1]

I wonder how many universes there are where David doesn't sound like he's just quaffed the entire contents of a 45kg cylinder of helium?

[@dakid3429]

LOL ^5

[@frankfeldman6657]

Perhaps some of the ones in which Robert doesn't look like a whiny, depressed prune.

[@KaliIntusMortuis]

My darling, David. That man is so unpleasant and you look so tired. Have a nap.

[@elliotpolanco159]

Like Deepak Chopra said, the measuring equipment are just extensions of human consciousness making the measurement lol i would think these guys would know that.

[@LuciFeric137]

Everettians unite!