What If We Live in a Superdeterministic Universe?

[@CrazyDontMeanWrong]

The fun thing about determinism, is that it doesn't matter. Either we have free will or we don't and never did, yet we still act as though we do, because what else can we do? Whether or not the universe is deterministic or not, there's still only one question that matters, "How can I abuse the rules of reality to survive past the death of the stars and live to see the release of half life 3?"

[@egggge4752]

Well it kinda is important. Knowing that quantum entanglement cant be independently measured if superdeterminism is true means that NOTHING can travel faster than light for real.

[@rocketsmile-z4i]

Isn't religion all about the quest to exist past one's mortality. Conciousness makes reality. Once you observe, you determine.

[@ex_ploit3529]

@@egggge4752 What use is there to learning anything in deterministic universe? Determinism literally means that future is set in stone and you can't do anything.

[@JohnCena8351]

The universe only exist so that we can play half life 3.

[@czypauly07]

I just want the cake

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Well done, Matt! I dare to say it's a super video 😁

[@robertbloch1063]

If Sabine recommends a video about superdeterminsm, it is worth watching On the other hand, I sense some spooky action here, two scientists seem to agree on something ;)

[@VitriolicVermillion]

How did you DETERMINE that, Sabine?

[@pbsspacetime]

We see what you did there. And appreciate it!

[@marcelo55869]

I was super determined to observe this video... we share past interactions that guarantees it.

[@mequavis]

@@pbsspacetime if the universe is deterministic then that would mean that the universe was predestined for us to come along and debate all this. That's just stupid... lol Even if it were somehow true, it implies a conscious universe which is a whole other can of worms lol. however, I think both ppl are right in this case. I hate to use the mandela effect as a real world science example. But if the reason for the mandela effect is due to natural paradox avoidance, meaning that regions of space-time get put into temporary superposition until a paradox has passed. (basically dual or more timelines concurrently running in an area of space-time but limited to a small region, not an entire universe) My point is that if we are experiencing russian doll style super positioning of space to avoid paradoxes, then determinism would be an active thing at the upper levels where light cones cross, and we would not have determinism within the regions of super position. This would mean that the universe has a deterministic flow, but regions of space have free will within them, but those regions of space are predetermined to result at a specific final destination...

[@Hamifit]

Honestly one of best ever channels and I hope the universe has predetermined that Matt never stops making these videos with help of the team. Thank you!

[@tentimesful]

humans will see the things when allah al hamd comes in thepicture, allah al hamd created everything with wormholes through everything and made it clear on his last day he is the shining light on his throne to watch everything to grow and he created us, 7000 years is 7 days for allah al hamd and 50000 years of angels travel in one day maybe he is faster when he created 3500000000 years of more the universes can be that 350 million years written in the quran allah al hamd can do more most probably if we dont existed

[@Hamifit]

@@tentimesful dude I feel really bad for you

[@tentimesful]

@@Hamifit dont do I'm OK

[@IanUniacke]

4 billion years from now, Matt is making another physics youtube video as forced by the powers of distant stars. "KILL ME! KILL ME NOW PLEASE!!!" he screams into the void.

[@Hamifit]

@@IanUniacke he’s gonna be like “oh how we’ve got it all wrong”

[@SnagglieFang]

Finally a physicist happens to mention that there is no clear definition of free will. I'm super determined to love this!

[@jay31415]

Philosophical debates of free will crack me up. Rarely do people ask for a definition...that ends the debate quickly.

[@LukeGabriel-786]

@@jay31415free will is the relative extent to which ideas determine the material conditions and vice versa. This extent changes over time.

[@KirosanaPerkele]

​@@LukeGabriel-786You have a visitor from another dimension where the laws of our world do not apply. The visitor seemingly has free will. What test can you administer to determine whether the visitor has authentic free will or not?

[@uncertaintytoworldpeace3650]

@@KirosanaPerkeledid it want to make societal improvements?

[@KirosanaPerkele]

@@uncertaintytoworldpeace3650 Maybe, maybe not.

[@Parasmunt]

He deserves a lot of praise in how he describes these concepts.

[@Mandaeus]

Not convinced.

[@Mandaeus]

Reality isn't subjective but taking an observation does change a particle/wave. Doesn't need a mind or subjectivity, it's the measurement device itself which does it, something it changes when it detects a photon or whatever.

[@antonimusluxferr9571]

@@wingit7335 why "not anymore"?

[@squirlmy]

You don't seem to understand he's not trying to convince you, just describe the theory. Don't worry dude, this is way over my head too. Some of us are just dumb.

[@lookoutforchris]

3 ads before this video, every single one had a black person, zero had a white.

[@adisario]

After the Strong Force episodes, please tell us what the Weak Force *is*. I mean, yeah, it is responsible for atomic decay.... but how, what, why? Thank you!

[@aiami2695]

The strong force is with Luke, the weak is with Leia... because less the Midi-chlorians...

[@audiblegasp1]

It is exactly that, everything else is a model. The one we use is SU(2) symmetry which needs 3 gauge bosons to mediate the weak force, Z and Ws. The wikipedia article of course has it all readable for everyone.

[@Idle_Cerberus]

@@aiami2695 Bro thats not even true lmfao, george lucas confirmed leia has more force potential its just luke got trained instead of her lol

[@mastershooter64]

at the quantum level, there are no "forces" in the classical sense, they're more like interactions between particles that exchange "force" carriers, which are particles in and of themselves. You might've heard them referred to as "the strong interaction" or "the weak interaction" since that's technically what they are (or at least as far as we know with our current understanding of the universe) so the weak force "is" just two particles exchanging W and Z bosons with each other. Of course I haven't learnt actual QFT yet, so don't take my word for it, I could be very wrong. This is just my current understanding of it though. I definitely will change as I learn QFT. I don't know any of the mathematics behind QFT, I only know basic undergraduate QM.

[@vantahku7211]

The word you're looking for, is "entropy" (also likely responsible for time/gravity). In short, the universe is imploding as the great void of non-universe sucks us out of existence. The weak force is basically the rate of entropy's effect on what we call matter.

[@jolness1]

“Space Time” is such a great channel. Matt is a fantastic communicator. If I had a physics teacher like him, I probably wouldn’t be a software engineer. I know he approaches things at a more accessible level but he’s great at breaking things down, that’s definitely a skill.

[@nutsackmania]

you never really had a choice

[@vhawk1951kl]

For what you call a "fantastic" (which means no more and no less than the stuff of fantasy) communicator is remarkably poor when it comes to defining his terms, because you do not communicate anything unless you can define your terms clearly. Deterministic merely means has already been determined exactly as from the moment you are born or first will breath more death is determined which is to say that it is inevitable, but quite what the waffling windbag means by universe or deterministic, it simply does not trouble himself to say or defining is terms, like most men (human beings) he simply assumes that he understands what he means by the words he uses, but self-evidently he does not, because he does not trouble himself to define his terms but merely waffles at large*assuming* that he understands the meaning of the words he uses. Do you understand the word "fantastic" means the stuff of fantasy? It simply means dreamy or dreamy would do as well.To speak of a "deterministic universe without defining either deterministic or universe is simply intellectual sloppiness but if you find intellectual sloppiness fantastic - the stuff of fantasy dreamy or imaginary, then one wonders why you have that particular reaction in your functions or at least one of your functions.

[@uneducatedguess6740]

Check "Beyond Cutting Edge with Bob Lazar" instead of mainstream mantra teachers.

[@badactor3440]

We are all just actors on a stage...

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@badactor3440 "We" meaning or pointing to your indicating the user of the term - that is*you* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor, absent which all that is left is you being an actor on the stage which apparently is your direct immediate personal experience. Is the money any good ion the acting business?

[@andrejflauder2346]

Every time you feel smart enough, PBS Space Time has the cure

[@XD226]

Maybe you are just dumb and never read a book about the topic ?

[@Homeboy73]

Our life might be superdeterministic. Meaning, the story was already written in the past. However, it is still a book I havent read yet. Thats enough to carry on with the plot.

[@trucid2]

Well said!

[@anestos2180]

lol what past? when this decisive moment happened and what was it before it? see time has no meaning in these kind of questions, the only logical conclusion is just the story is as it is.

[@Homeboy73]

@@anestos2180 Yes, past. The arrow of time. Fundamentally emerging from the second law of thermodynamics. There is still flow of time - as we perceive it. Deterministic or not.

[@Senriam]

@@Homeboy73time exists from our perspective in the third dimension.

[@TheENLIGHT3NED]

Beautiful

[@petepanteraman]

I love that you asked the question " is the observer influenced by the observation" now that's the mind bending kind of stuff I love, especially because it makes it sound like we intuit or know the answer and our other self is trying to answer it too. I'm sure there's a better way to state this though, regardless this is mind bending.

[@MrArtVein]

If you like that, look into The Philosophy of Science. It's the next rabbit hole step

[@drewbeck1000]

All that you touch you change All that you change changes you

[@msdos_kapital]

The opposite belief, i.e. that quantum decoherence *doesn't happen to brains* is the real "mind-bending" (i.e. obviously false) stuff that quite frankly I'm tired of hearing on channels like this. I respect keeping an open mind of course, but this video and so many others like it feels like taking 20 minutes to explain something that many worlds can explain in about 5, and making many, many extraordinary claims along the way, even where a perfectly ordinary claim (e.g. "of course brains are effected by quantum decoherence just like anything else in the universe") would do just as well.

[@davidtatro7457]

I appreciate how thoroughly you cover all the various implications and interpretations of QM.

[@FigmentHF]

I feel that all this realism stuff reads like the opening to a Douglas Adams novel- “A bunch of macroscopic, metabolising 3D apes tried to understand their subjective, first person experience of reality, by removing the macroscopic, metabolising apes from their equations. They became terribly confused”

[@davidbrannon5003]

Besides getting there confused to begin with. 42, the true meaning of nothing. Long live Doug.

[@bluffgawd]

Dang dude u should write lol

[@maxwellbauer3917]

When you say it like that... lol

[@cleer]

The content, as always is great, but man I can’t help but also give huge props to the FX team for the parallax to keep us focused on the info. Some great attention to detail.

[@gmshadowtraders]

100th comment like is on me!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

There are interpretations that preserve both realism and locality, without invoking many worlds or super-determinism. This is true for the transactional interpretation and other retro-causality theories. This could also arguably be true for Quantum Logic.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

Yes, from all interpretations ( or alternatives) of QM, either realist or not, this kind of superdeterministic conspiracy " theories" ( I'm not sure if it is correct to even call this interpretation) is, by far , the most implausible, as it requires both precisely fine tuned initial conditions and, moreover, it has to "mimic" the same correlations of standard QM . Both coincidences seem extremely improbable, to say the least..

[@hannybenny7632]

But IF the universe is superdeterministic, there is a 50% possibility (if it has no end) it repeats its whole existence-history - maybe with many other evolved instances in between - endless times quantumphysically exactly the same. And every conscious being would repeat its existence also endless times exactly even.

[@MarshmallowRadiation]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I think the idea is that it _doesn't_ mimic QM by pure chance or fine-tuning, but rather that there is some unknown law or factor (let's call it "fate") that dictates that the researchers will ALWAYS choose orientations that ultimately illustrate the correlations between the entangled particles as a quantum-mechanical distribution. It's not that they require some kind of conspiracy to make it such that the outcomes only _appear_ quantum-mechanical while they actually aren't, it's that through this unstated, unknown "fate" process it is somehow impossible for non-QM-aligned outcomes to occur. This isn't to say that it's any less absurd or unscientific. If it were the case, then the exact mechanisms of this "fate" factor would be literally impossible to trace by definition, since it would have to be a factor that defies observation. If we try to observe how "fate" affects our choices of observation, then those observations would be subject to "fate" too, and any attempt to track the influence of "fate" on the meta-observation would also be subject to "fate", etc. etc. etc. ad absurdum. It necessitates the existence of something that by definition we cannot observe, infer, or even guess at the properties of, because its own existence would make it literally impossible to think about. It's like a Roko's Basilisk for physicists: a memetic virus that if you obsess too much over it, the only thing it'll do is drive you crazy.

[@juimymary9951]

Wait, doesn't retro-causality imply backwards time travel?

[@spencerwenzel7381]

@@juimymary9951 Yup. Positrons can be viewed as electrons moving backwards in time. PBS spacetimes one electron universe video is a good one for this. Or the legend Eugene himself has an excellent video about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics where he explains retro causality clearly.

[@fatmn]

Yay for the shoutout to Sabine! I've only been watching her videos for a short time, but she's so great at parsing and explaining research science!

[@sillygoose5171]

spooky action at a distance hahaha. Albert EInstein is awesome! His famous head shot is like being silly during a photo when everyone never smiled and had to pose proper.

[@bendafyddgillard]

if super-determinism is how things are, you don't actually have a choice (in the conventional sense) whether to believe in it or not. Whether you believe in it or not, and whether your mind changes because of this video, has been determined since the beginning of time. It's all fractal eddies in spacetime

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

I would argue that total determinism (super or otherwise) is perfectly compatible with the concept of "choice" as conventionally used. The notion of choice as some fundamentally non-deterministic thing is a highly philosophical concept that has no application in day-to-day life. In normal conversation, one has a "choice" if they can use their faculties to analyze a scenario and pick an action based on internally held criteria. Not only does this work in a deterministic universe, it's unclear how such a thing would work in a non-deterministic universe; quantum woo proposes quantum randomness as the source of free will, but fails to explain how "random" is willful.

[@michaelfried3123]

rubbish. philosophical rubbish...

[@o1-preview]

@@badlydrawnturtle8484, I'd love to be your friend and talk about all everything.

[@drdca8263]

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Well, I can buy that it isn’t clear how non-determinism (or at least specifically randomness) helps, but I don’t think having a bit of randomness causes any problems for choice?

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

A little bit of randomness is okay, but when there's enough randomness to cause major effects, you get things like "I chose to go right even though I know my destination is to the left because quantum fluctuations randomly influenced the choice I would make!" This is, of course, an absurdity that doesn't happen in real life. Choices aren't random, so proposing too much randomness would mess up how they work.

[@HistoryoftheUniverse]

Very excited for this.

[@falquicao8331]

The way I've always thought about superdeterminism is that instead of being spooky action at a distance in space, it's actually spooky action at a distance in time, i. e. from the far past.

[@eatonkuntz]

Woah

[@mrdre3628]

If space exists in all directions so does time

[@Vastin]

That's about right I think. It means that some interaction in the distant past will functionally determine your decisions in the future in a macroscopic way, even if the interaction in question doesn't seem remotely relevant to those choices. It's pretty weird, and kind of suggests that there is no 'arrow' of time at all, which, to be fair, is pretty much the case in a super-determistic universe. :D

[@nickacelvn]

@Rosetta Stoned It "is" a concept.

[@matthewfors114]

@Rosetta Stoned i think you are stoned

[@EK2TPMS]

Thank you folks for putting this video together. It’s really complicated to explain without visualizations like this.

[@girlofanimation]

I love Sabine's videos on this topic. Superdeterminism makes so much more sense than "freewill". I like that this video added some more background on this topic.

[@pandawandas]

Superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will. It’s about arbitrarily letting go of statistical independence and assuming spooky hidden variables. I think it’s a fantasy, possibly woo

[@girlofanimation]

@@pandawandas superdeterminism implies no freewill at human scales...

[@IceFire9yt]

Quantum mechanics just has a way of throwing a wrench into everything. Its amazing how it can simultaneously be such an accurate description of reality but also leaves so many questions about the nature of that reality open to interpretation.

[@tomorbataar5922]

I don't know about the wrench, seems like it just throws a wrench into our species' natural view of the world. Some physicists cope hard from this and others don't, and that's really what the debate is about.

[@MattExzy]

I like how we as humans have put ourselves on top of it. I mean, I get the observer aspect, but I find it cute in a way that the act of *us* observing something changes its fate. There's something innately narcissistic about it in a way... again, I get it, but I like how it needs our observation or measurement to do its thing .

[@william41017]

@@MattExzy it's not we chose this path, it's just one of the conclusions of our experiments. Some physicist conjured a multiverse theory to try to avoid this conclusion!

[@dartplayer170]

I would say that quantum mechanics resolves paradoxes that exist in classical theory that cannot be resolved by classical theories. For example the ultra-violet catastrophe. Therefore quantum mechanics is not weird, it is a requirement. And as such, I would conjecture that the questions left are a result of the complexity required to resolve all the other paradoxes.

[@helpmechangetheworld]

That's because the parts that leave you with unanswerable questions are the wrong parts.

[@virtualnuke-bl5ym]

For those who don't know: There is definitely a definable axis of spin on each particle, where it would either be clockwise or counterclockwise; positive or negative. If you measure it along the current axis, you are 100% guaranteed to measure the spin from that axis as positive. The further away you measure from an axis, the less likely it is to measure it as positive from that direction. Also, when you measure not along the current axis, the axis moves to the direction you are measuring at. So if you are 1/4th away from one axis and 3/4ths away from the other, then you have a 75% chance to measure positive and a 25% chance to measure negative. If you are equally distant from each axis, then it's 50% to measure positive or negative. It is never possible to have more than a 50% chance to measure negative. If you think of the results 180 degrees away from your measurement, though, then technically the reading could have up to 100% chance to be negative. To put it more simply: the further an axis would have to move in order to reach your measurement, the lower its chances of being possible. So if you move like literally a plank length degree away from one axis, then to receive positive you would only need the axis that is right there to move like 0.00001 degrees, while to measure negative the opposite axis would have to move nearly 180 degrees, making it almost impossible.

[@helpmechangetheworld]

I made the same assumption you did and your logic is perfectly correct, but to my still current bewilderment the formula to measure spin up for an axis rotated a certain theta degrees away from your particle's spin axis, if the particle is spin up, is cos²(theta/2). And 1 - cos²(theta/2) for spin down. Which means your numbers aren't quite right. It's something to do with spin 1/2 particles. But your logic of splitting the probability by how far a particle's spin axis has to rotate is, I do believe, correct!

[@NK-fx1qs]

and the reverse rotation effect? distance matters not yet revolution is what dictates our perception?

[@IamMrJerrySoFU]

If you have two devices to measure the spin, then I guess you must keep their rotations same relative to each other, right? Meaning if I fly away with one machine on spaceship, and you stay on Earth, which is rotating, I would have to somehow line up my machine to the correct rotation relative to your machine on Earth, right? And if we did not do the meassurement at the same time, I would have to line it up like you had your machine at that time? And if I don't know when you will do or did it, then I am not able to do the meassurement in correct axis. And would we also need to somehow account for curvature of space? So many questions

[@LolWutMikehSM]

@Mark Smileer what

[@lfelype.azevedo]

@Mark Smileer Spamming the same nonsense in every hot discussion. I know what you are doing here, sir, and it will not make your points more valid.

[@omgIoIwtf]

So- what you’re saying is that, on a macro scale, this manifests as karma or a Mass Effect dialogue wheel, where each choice has a predetermined outcome and where the “choice” itself is an illusion. I can dig it. Explains a lot.

[@astonedwalrus4183]

FO4 story mode, multiple predetermined paths to the same ending

[@Wolf-if1bt]

As a french person, I was lucky to hear Alain Aspect twice in conferences. What a great experimentalist and a wonderful vulgarisator.

[@markuspfeifer8473]

First thing you learn in the lecture on stochastic processes: the class of processes that are random at each point in time and the class of processes where all the randomness happens beforehand and then you just see a predetermined record of a super dice are fully equivalent. Mathematically, it’s a distinction without a difference.

[@o1-preview]

I need to start some stochastic processes class. I didn't understand this, could you please try to explain it to me again?

[@DensityMatrix1]

Generate an infinite sequence of infinite length binary numbers. Construct each digit by flipping a fair coin. Put those in a database. When some one asks you for a random number, just pick one from your database. Or When someone wants a random number generate one by flipping a fair coin and returning a digit.

[@alexmcleod4330]

@@o1-preview The set of things that just happened is the same as the set of things that were always going to happen. We can't detect any difference. In the real world, we naturally accept that the past was inevitable. There's only one way it could've gone, and that's the way it went. Right? But we think the future could go any way, because of 'free will' and fizzy quantum beverages. But when the future gets here it always turns out to have gone exactly one way. Isn't it kind of nonsensical to expect that things in the future might go differently to the way they'll end up having gone? As far as we can tell, that's never happened. Nothing has ever failed to go the way it went, so if events were really random (or affected by free will) and *not* strictly causally related, we should have evidence by now that something didn't actually happen the way it actually happened. Why do we make a distinction between the inevitable past and the uncertain future, when it always turns out there's zero difference? If we stop making that unnecessary distinction, we have superdeterminism.

[@cagrulucyildirimoglu771]

This also should show that free will is just bullshit. Let’s talk about “will”, which is a very real thing.

[@marcushendriksen8415]

@@DensityMatrix1 that doesn't make any sense. Numbers are finite by definition (unless you're talking about the extended reals). So there isn't any such thing as infinite binary numbers. Did you mean an infinite sequence of binary digits? Because that's allowed

[@literallyreal8938]

I wish I could do more to support you and the channel because you individually and as the channel have provided information to us for years. Thank you for your commitment to science

[@vaccaphd]

Under the assumption of superdeterminism, Cartesius' dualism is disproved. Furthermore, this could support the hypothesis that we live in a simulation where what appears random is, in reality, deterministic. Just like a random generator with a fixed seed.

[@ophiuchus203]

Y'all hit it out of the park every time. As an enthusiastic layman I've been trying to convince myself I understand Bell's inequalities for a while now. I appreciate every episode of Space Time but this one more than most

[@AnomicDeviant]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO! I was kinda losing faith that I'll ever see superdeterminism on this show. I made a request and I see that I coudn't be the only one to do so which makes me super happy. I love that people take interest in this hard to understand but necessary subject! You brought me back here and I love it!!

[@PBlague]

I absolutely love this subject, it has been one of my main topics of argument with other people in my life. And I believe that super determinism is the way, but all the people whom I've encountered have told me otherwise in their own view. I'm soo happy to see this and not only know that I'm not the only one thinking that everything is most likely super-detemined but that it is touched upon and tested in real scientific labs... I wish to be a scientist on the bleeding edge of this... Proposing ideas... But I've got a long way to go... That is if I manage to ever get there

[@schakiarligonde1736]

There’s no evidence for superdetermism it requires an immense conspiracy in the universe for it to be true

[@illegaltendencies7803]

thought I was the only one it's a completely different view to live it imo @@PBlague an kinda depressing depending on one's "fate"

[@heisenbergstayouttamyterri1508]

Finally my favourite channel posts a vid. Thanks Matt, because of you, many of my problems in physics are now dispelled. Keep posting these infintely perplexing videos about "Space Time" 😊😊😊

[@cirusMEDIA]

This guy has an unmatched ability to transform any Exciting Topic into a long Boring Lecture!

[@cxxmax]

every time

[@TheCrazyBandit1]

I'm sorry your brain has been rotted by the hyper-stimulus feed that the Internet provides. If it hadn't deteriorated so much, then you would have been able to suppress your basal urges for long enough to actually listen to the words being said. Instead, the actual "Exciting Topic" really did transform "into a long Boring Lecture" for you. It's a sad day in the world to realize certain people need to be consistently aroused by external stimuli to engage with material that can better shape their understanding of the world. Tis a sad day, indeed.

[@stefl14]

I've probably spent more time thinking about the implications of Bell's theorem in my life than anything else... and I'm not a physicist. Any interpretation of Bell's theorem is crazy, and that's why it's so beautiful.

[@Tdubya]

And what has spending so much time pondering a piece of physics trivia gained for you?

[@stefl14]

@@Tdubya A great amount of satisfaction and awe at awe pondering big questions - the reward most true scholars are seeking.

[@tastytoast4576]

@@Tdubya probably some fun times :) thinking is fun to some

[@michaelfried3123]

even if its garbage philosophy masquerading as science? like this theory certain is!

[@benjamindains6906]

@@stefl14 I’m like you, so I’ll chime in as well, some other benefits are: expanding your critical thinking skills, and increasing the capacity and use of your imagination.

[@kemsat-n6h]

5:42 What if the information is not something sent through spacetime? Rather, the information is a part of spacetime, which kind of makes sense to me as spacetime is itself information (where, when). So the information doesn’t move anywhere, it’s already there.

[@dapperwolf6034]

Then you would probably be able to measure it. But there isn't any information moving when entanglement happens.

[@T34RG45]

From my interpretation of what I've seen and read (no source) online, the electron and other particles are not simply points of a field in space and time, but rather the entire field mediating the information exchange like a decentralized ledger. The electron is not in your hand and in the air around your hand, the electron is the entire universe including your hand which can excite other "electrons" (really it could be 1 electron sharing the entire universe's field) through a vibrational exchange on the field it floats in. The whole universe is inside the single electron, stacked on top of itself so that every interaction is recorded through itself. There is zero room for error in the physics of the universe because there is zero room for the information to go, every single thing we call matter is connected to its(matter's) core. So I think the information actually already existed so it could never be lost unless like the sky tore open and exotic elements rained through adding mass to the universe, unbalancing it in its entirety. But we are here, so, its like we always have been.

[@BruceAlrighty1991]

Information is not only omnipresent it’s omniscient - duality & eraser. The future is a (useful) human construct but fundamentally it’s only“Then Or There”

[@coconutflour9868]

I mean, that in itself is a sort of hidden variable theory, which the Bell inequality's experimental violation prohibits (at least, local hidden variable theories)

[@T34RG45]

@@BruceAlrighty1991 thank you mark twain. Hey, is it safe to say we are already dead, like Einstein said just over the next hill?

[@Ganerrr]

I still strongly think that locality in this sense is fine to be violated because information theroy seems to make the most logical sense, at no point is it possible actually to transfer information to another party faster than light which feels like it should be the fundamental of locality

[@slash196]

I agree. It's not like one thing is causing another thing, there's just a correlation, and how often do we like to say that correlation is not causation?

[@t.c.bramblett617]

Exactly. Even with instantaneous state change across the universe, there still isn't any useful information exchanged. It's still weird, but like Matt says, 100 years of this stuff should have taught us by now not to expect things to make us feel comfortable!

[@purpledevilr7463]

I view freewill as an emergent property. Something complex emerging from simple.

[@jasoncruz19800]

That is nonsensical.........free will is impossible due to casualty in determinism, and impossible due to randomness in indetermnism

[@Senriam]

@@jasoncruz19800you had me until you said that randomness and free will can’t coexist

[@MattanIngram]

@@Senriam Either something is caused by a prior state (determined) or it is not caused by anything (random). There is no other option. So what would free will be? It's a non-sensical technical term because it basically means "determined randomness". All free will actually is is the feeling we have of making choices that were based on the prior state of your mind. It literally cannot be anything else. Randomness is not will, and prior cause is not freedom.

[@MoAtreides]

It’s like when someone asks you a question you know the answer to but can’t remember it. If you know it, why can’t you answer it? Your choices are made within your current state of mind, and that isn’t decided by you, it’s decided by laws of physics and chemistry

[@flo0778]

you know the episode is going to be good when Matt announces a space time diagram

[@osmosisjones4912]

Maybe the speed of light is the speed it is because of at least 2 opposing forces pulling on face time

[@MattHudsonAtx]

Thank you for plugging Sabine Hossenfelder's work. I love to see my favorite science publishers reference each other.

[@Meta-trope]

I really love the idea that the abstract is not an illusion since it is an emergent properties of the concrete.

[@shaneacton1627]

A vortex is just as real as a rock

[@lyrimetacurl0]

Yes, that sounds similar to the quote "consciousness is not an illusion" (because an illusion cannot be observed without the existence of a consciousness).

[@kmb_jr]

Yes I feel there's a physical collection of molecules for each memory we have.

[@ThePowerLover]

And illusions are not that.

[@newinhuman]

its also possible that each way a universe is created can determine the prexisting conditions need for direction

[@boslyporshy6553]

Like Hysterisis or Preformationism?

[@newinhuman]

@@boslyporshy6553 i was thinking along the conditions where direction is dependent on the formation

[@Video-Game-OST-HQ]

It really doesn’t matter if we are following a path that was already set out for us; events are still surprising to us as they occur and we are in for the same ride of enjoyment either way.

[@goldnutter412]

We aren't, but consciousness (hive mind the early civilizations called god) is an information system and can extrapolate probable futures and easily make un noticeable adjustments that don't affect free will. It is up to all of us to be a team, and eventually we will be a global society with digital provenance that can allow us to free our minds. We have to defeat fear and ego and closed minded belief/disbelief. The only way is to choose to part of the solution and not make selfish choices, to give to humanity not play a stupid 0 sum game mentality that causes destruction. This is why we are here and why the internet has trended to where it is, why extreme politics are where they are at.. and why fear is winning for many people. Community groups are vital.. education reform.. open source and collaborative constructs.. DAO's.. digital identity and privacy, a whole new cybersecurity era and data economy, decentralized digital society.. almost here ! Decentralized.. sound familiar ? consciousness walking around in these cognition machines making choices ? Entropy is relentless when you have more data. We are the strategy, all our choices matter. Human consensus mechanism has always been the driver of our shared evolutionary strategy for consciousness. We are at the final boss of our own fear. The emergence of Bitcoin was the result of iterative work by many, and just a proof of concept. Whether it will become the new digital gold that reserve banks buy and use to partially back their paper currency with is unknown, but it seems plausible. Cryptography is not a new thing, lol.. and secure databases and distributed computing and shared state networks are not unique to blockchain systems or smart contract platforms. It's a logical consequence of complex interconnected society that has grown too large to manage and corrupted by our young minds.. self focused, fear driven.. we still dont get to have aliens because we aren't even global yet. That was just a scam lol, reglobalization seems like it has been delayed with this senseless war too.. conflict and pushback doesnt help, it only delays us all from levelling up.. but it is inevitable ! there is only trending up or down. Evolution is relentless because of entropy.. BE THE CHANGE... (choose wisely)

[@cherniaktamir612]

The events are suprising because determinism is not proven, once we get the ability of predicting everything, life will be totally empty of meaning

[@goldnutter412]

@@cherniaktamir612 it is absolute delusion to think we could come close to predicting everything Reality is FUNDAMENTALLY RULED BY UNCERTAINTY have people still not understood what is going on. It is the most obvious simple setup. I give up lol you'll all learn the hard way with backwards logic

[@Video-Game-OST-HQ]

@@cherniaktamir612 If we can’t build a computer larger than the universe then it is unlikely we will ever be able to just predict everything that will happen in the future. There will never be a point when living stops being a series of constant surprises. Even if we know what is coming it is weird to assume that would make the event boring. I am moving back to Japan next month. I know that in advance, and yet the experience will still be just as fun and exciting as it was the first time I moved to Japan. To assume that knowledge of the future bereaves it of excitement and rewards that please our brains is bizarre. Brains are only data-processing units anyway. Excitement and enjoyment of living are not removed from that fact. Knowing of the future data that will be fed to our brains is completely different from actually being fed that data to our brains.

[@kepspark3362]

Exactly! No matter what the truth is, ultimately, it was, it is & it always will be behind all the events that unfolds; either we want it or not. All we can do is seek it, we don't get to make it. It's not going to change just because we want to.

[@jajssblue]

12:21 It felt amazing that I was thinking about the exact same experiment setup as the cosmic bell test, right before it was mentioned in the video. Guess I'm learning something from this channel!

[@sycodeathman]

Superdeterminism makes perfect sense, it solves all the weirdness of spooky action at a distance by stating that there simply isn't any spooky action at a distance and manages it without invoking hidden information.

[@Craftlngo]

But the Zeilinger Experiment has proven that Superdeterminism can't be correct per se. So if Superdeterminism is a thing, it doesn't explain the whole situation completely. There is still a piece missing in the puzzle.

[@sycodeathman]

@@Craftlngo Zeilinger experiments show exactly what we would see in a superdeterministic universe, too. They simply show more strongly that Bell was correct that there are no hidden variables. The solution to the paradox is that either instamtaneous communication of quantum information is possible, or, everything is determined. On both a basic intuition level and from the perspective of a deep understanding of physics, determinism becomes the obvious answer. The reason you get the apparent "spooky action" is because YOU are an entity entirely within the universe, operating under physical laws, and therefore are wholly determined by physical laws including quantum mechanics, and as such the paradox is resolved. The only reason the paradox exists is because we use the concept of a truly independent observer, which is impossible.

[@Craftlngo]

@@sycodeathman I guess I got this wrong. Language Barrier is hitting hard

[@sycodeathman]

@@chalichaligha3234 That's not what superdeterminism states, though. It literally just says everything happens because it is caused by something else, in this case a universal wave function. It's identical to determinism with the added spice that unlike in classical determinism where everything is like billiard balls fated to interact in only one possible way due to physics, everything is wavelike and fated to interact in only one possible way due to physics. Superdeterminism is really not more than determinism.

[@BluesManPeich]

Zeilinger's experiments are truly beautiful and inspiring.

[@ZenithWest169]

Finally! Been waiting for PBS Spacetime to cover this. Love the content!

[@osmosisjones4912]

Maybe their was more then 1 big bang that overlapped as they expanded

[@gregor-samsa]

it was for sure - anyhow :-)

[@dienadel30]

Same, so in the Macro world Keeping it simple bare with me if we decided to do a Cat experiment it was already determined ? Because we already decided the parameters ? An automated cat farm one is alive or dead no observation. FYI love cats just trying to wrap my head around this. Are we not just local Sensors on earth ? Changing all observations, you get a photon I did not...?

[@ThePurza]

It's really interesting watching Sabine's take. She's highly dismissive of the results from confusing experiments like the delayed choice Quantum eraser, and that confused me until I saw her views on Determinism. I guess she believes that quantum probabalism is actually an illusion, which seems a bold take.. but it does seem to resolve these mysteries (I'll take the word of qualified scientists on that front). Both Determinism and many-worlds seem quite hard pills to swallow. As a layman I've wondered whether maybe 1. the waveform operates separately somehow to the 4d universe we can observe, and isn't bound by the laws of relativity, or 2. that many worlds is only true for very limited examples where decoherence can exist, and that the other worlds resolve to a single logically-coherent reality in the same way the waveform appears to. Such a fascinating topic

[@kempokiin6280]

I feel theres a bit of irony... saying "finally" and "waiting" regarding a video on superdeterministic universe. There's gotta be a joke here...

[@nyarparablepsis872]

I had the honour of meeting Prof. Zeilinger once. He is not just a great physicist but also a very friendly person

[@markosskace514]

"Observer" in quantim physics doesn't mean a human. It mean any measurement instrument which collapses the quantum state. Most of the times the neighbouring atoms/molecules are enough to cause the collapse of the wave function and thus perform a "measurement".

[@shawniscoolerthanyou]

Exactly! Some explanations show as though I'm watching a photon pass through a slit, but if I can see the photon, then it's in my eye and not part of the diffraction pattern. Then that misconception is used to start saying all kinds of BS about consciousness.

[@NotHumant8727]

We are part of universe not something else in it. Instrument, human, not so diff thing.

[@shawniscoolerthanyou]

@@NotHumant8727 Exactly. No consciousness required.

[@Blackmystix]

Wrong. Von Neumann chains are at the very least a consideration against your point. At the end of the day, there is a human cognizing the measurement.

[@senor2930]

@@shawniscoolerthanyou imo consciousness is loosely defined ascientific term. It should not even be regarded.

[@AceSpadeThePikachu]

One philosophical interpretation of super-determinism I commonly hear is the "time is an illusion" argument; the idea that past, present and future exist simultaneously, and that we are only characters in a pre-written narrative. For example, you can watch a movie or read a book, and from the perspective of the characters in said medium they experience things one moment, scene or frame at a time (sometimes out of order, depending on the story.) But when you close the book or pop the DVD out of the player, you'll see all the events that occur within are right there in your hands, existing simultaneously. Most ironically of all, this does NOT discount the "simulation theory" of reality, but rather reinforces it...because of the examples mentioned above. How do we know we are not all just fictional characters in a cinematic universe written explicitly for the entertainment of viewers we cannot possible comprehend? Could it be that the only way to peer behind the curtain of this fiction in which we live is to transcend continuity and start breaking the fourth wall like Deadpool?

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

"the idea that past, present and future exist simultaneously, and that we are only characters in a pre-written narrative"

[@AceSpadeThePikachu]

@@KendraAndTheLaw Well for one nobody really knows for sure what "consciousness" actually is to begin with. One could even argue consciousness, if nothing else, MUST be real, because of René Descartes' famous adage, "I think therefore I am." I never said I fully subscribe to the super-deterministic theory as explained in the "book" or "movie" scenario. Rather, I prefer what I like to call the "video game universe." Where, like with the other examples, the game cartridge, disk or file contains all of space, time and reality within that universe, but we the players have countless options for how to play the game; our character, our allegiance, our accessories, our techniques, our friends and our adversaries. The rules of the game may be built in and there may be a set number of possible outcomes, but like with many real games, the possibilities outnumber the particles in the observable universe. Finite, but inconceivably vast.

[@lrwerewolf]

So that's actually a separate concept -- eternalist block space time, in contrast with presentism, growing block, melting block, and others. The eternalist block spacetime model need not be superdeterministic. Granted, it's exceptionally difficult to build an eternalist block spacetime model that isn't superdeterministic, but it is possible. Where eternalist block spacetime becomes really handy is General Relativity. Given some event and some observer, it is always possible to construct for that observer a velocity (recall that velocity is both speed and direction) such that the given event is in the observer's past light cone, in the observer's now-slice (jargon: hyperplane of simultaneity), or the observer's future light cone. Moreso, we can calculate for that event a spacetime manifold configuration where the observer's measurement of the event is in the event's past, the event's present, or the event's future. All the other main temporal models besides eternalist block spacetime have difficulty coping with this -- and even when they do, it almost always involves accepting that non-existing events can have a causal influence on existing events (a steep price if one is attempting to maintain realism, which is usually an explicit goal in such attempts). Superdeterminism is properly a metaphysical position -- it's a description of 'what is' and 'how it is'. Eternalist block space time is a position in philosophy of time (some philosophers updated the title of the subfield to philosophy of spacetime due to Einstein's work, but I prefer the traditional nomenclature), a separate field in philosophy. Like many things in philosophy, these two fields often intersect/overlap heavily, but it's worth the effort to remember which aspects hail from which field. Simulation theory is largely bunk though. It would be generally untestable, and what few models are testable, those tests have largely been done and falsified. On top of that, it doesn't actually solve any of the problems -- it just extends them to a metareality -- what are the physics and facts of THAT realm? What are its origins? How is its time structured (if it even has such a component in a meaningful sense at the very least analogous to what we mean by the term 'time')? Does that realm share the translation mapping between Boltzmann entropy and Shannon entropy (if not, there are gigantic implications for theory of physical computation in that realm -- right down to the fact it could not run on what we consider classical logic, as it would require that realm to operate on a logic where the law of non-contradiction does not hold). While it is possible that simulation's the case -- it's a pseudoscientific concept. We cannot access that realm and as far as we can tell there's no way to even test if there simply is such a realm. Until such a test is proposed, is successful (ie: the null is rejected), and is replicated by peers, it belongs in the bin with orgone and chiropractic 'medicine' (though if someone comes up with a test and their peers agree it's a sound test, hey, we can snag it outta the bin and give it its chance to show what it is worth).

[@lrwerewolf]

@@AceSpadeThePikachu Descartes' cogito was an excellent attempt at trying to find at least one certain fact. However, it has long been known to not hold water - it does not obtain. In its argumentative form, it assumes the consequent, and is logically fallacious. Saying "I think" pre-assumes that "I" exist. Descartes himself recognized this and tried to find ways to avoid this, but his efforts ended up taking self-existence axiomatically instead of as something that can be shown. The channel Carneades here on youtube has an excellent three-part series that deconstructs the full cogito then each half of the cogito, showing how even the two propositions fail to hold. I will try posting the link in a follow up message but I know youtube tends to not like links, even youtube links.

[@lrwerewolf]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIC1eWSajbGIrpI

[@williamotule]

Your channel is one among the most accurate. Indeed, the loophole in Bell's theorem not often underlined in popular media resides in the hypothetical statistical independence of measurements. There is yet another way to bypass this...

[@daninumbers]

I've been thinking about determinism since I was very young. By then I didn't even know it was a thing. Basically thinking about my own decisions were influenced by my surroundings. Do I really choose? Later on I became a programmer and it was even more clear. The only way to make something change its output was to add pseudorandomness, because even those rand libraries aren't actually random. So if we had the same exact distribution and position of atoms (and everything below) with the exact start moving, everything should happen exactly the same, including what we think it's our conscious decissions because it's influenced by everything else. We think we are free but we are just a bag of chemicals that interact with each other and make choices based on those. A simple different mood would make me be here or go take a walk, and what's happening in my body is determined by the past state of the universe. The problem here is the massive amount of data needed, but otherwise you could calculate the future state of everything. Since it's impossible to prove that, you can't prove if life can make any difference, so it's something you gotta believe or not. Any experiment you tried with life would be different, even if just repeating it would have the subject include the previous experience, not exactly the same anymore. With inert things it's easier. If I got a ball hitting another one at a specific angle and speed the other one would always bounce at the same speed and angle in the same conditions every single time. If we did it with 2 more balls making the result of each collide we could still calculate the result with basic maths. Now make it 1 trillion. Why would it be different? Because it'd take too many things to calculate? Same with the universe, at least that's what I think.

[@questor5189]

An excellent analysis and overview Daniel. Perhaps yet another mathematical equation can one day be formulated to prove Superdeterminism, or demonstrate that determinism and realism function in parallel. From a theological standpoint, this video may help explain how a pre-existent Divine Entity is able to engage in prophecies of the future; and with each prophetic fulfillment, human freewill is challenged by predestination. Albeit purely hypothetical, I nonetheless see a scientific connection. By all means feel free to disagree.

[@АлексейЛ-д6х]

Well, determinism was the "default" worldview among scientists for a long time. And then quantum physics ruined it, as experiments showed there is a randomness to everything. Now there is a chance that we live in super-deterministic world, but there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Thing is: you can't be sure until you've got a proof. And there is yet no experimental proof for both deterministic and non-deterministic worldviews. You can "believe" in whatever you want (or whatever you are determined to believe in), but that's not a scientific method. That's why modern physics is so fascinating. It really came close to answering - or at least, asking - questions that was previously only answered in religion. And those answers were just hypothesis' unfortunately, even though some people choose to believe in them. Right now we are on the brink on turning those into theories. Maybe one day we'll be able to find the real answer.

[@UchihaOokami2596]

Yup. Our minds are far too… primative to actually see the strings. We can just conclude they exist. To understand it all would be to have a full understanding of the universe and thats technically impossible except for the universe itself. And Its pretty mum on that subject.

[@questor5189]

@@UchihaOokami2596 Correct. This is why I have chosen to employ scientific method, deductive reasoning, and Divine revelation in my search for truth. Knowledge can be gained through the observations of science and mathematics; the separation of fact from fiction can be achieved through philosophy and the testing of hypothesis; and wisdom can be attained by a careful reading of the sacred texts.

[@yazizme3852]

So right on. It parallels the day, today, and how every undermorrow and tomorrow makes every time a prescription for the new day , then, overmorrow, which is the new day birthed to every undermorrow and tomorrow. So for every 2 days is born a new day, a 3rd day. This is today's tomorrow rewritten for our yesterday that we did wrong. And it's only by observing the wrong way that we might accept and receive the prescription handed us , is in contrast to the wrong way we did . Another chance to move on into perfection always.

[@Hill-u3z]

Only a few minutes in but I wanted to say a big thank you for one of the most succinct descriptions of quantum entanglements I’ve ever heard

[@denijane89]

There was a short story (“What’s Expected of Us” by Ted Chiang) about what happened when a device called the Predictor showed there's no free will and how a big part of the society disintegrated not being able to take the notion that their choice doesn't exist. So I guess it's easier to believe we have free will, so that we can continue to play the game called life. Like a computer game - you follow the main story no matter how many side quests you take.

[@therealdannymullen]

If they never had free will, then they didn't choose to quit society.

[@Kimbie]

@@therealdannymullen I think it's perfectly reasonable to say they did. Just because they didn't choose to do so freely doesn't mean they didn't choose. Of course this idea that choice doesn't have to be free in the sense that we could have decided otherwise makes us very, very uncomfortable or very confused but that doesn't make it not reasonable. We all agree that countless things e.g. associations and prior experiences influence every single choice and determinism is just a more radical appeal to that fact.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

Maybe it's because I'm a layman, but superdeterminism makes sense to me. We can't really test for something that seems random to tell if it's truly random or not if we don't have access to the underlying mechanism. So I think it's plausible that even the seemingly bizarre occurrences in quantum mechanics are deterministic, we just don't have a proper model to make predictions (and we might never be able to establish one)

[@absolutelydegenerate1261]

Wow. How about you actually just use 'Layperson,' instead of using that boggeted engendered language. "LayMAN." How about you wake up and realize the harm you're enacting

[@occamsrayzor]

I understood virtually none of this, and oddly I find that somehow comforting. I understood just enough to realise that none of it matters, at least as far as my own existence is concerned, and that this is a perfect example of how theoretical physics has slipped across the line from science into philosophy.

[@nocare]

This actually does matter. This knowledge is used every day in various forms of technology. Quantum computers function on precisely this and thats why they are so hard to make. When a quantum computer is running it uses entangled particles in superpositions to do its calculations and the only thing stopping them from being good enough to fundamentally change large parts of the computer industry such as how encryption works is that the entanglement breaks after measurement and the computer has to spend a bunch of time setting it back up before running a new calculation. Some breakthroughs may have solved this problem but haven't yet been applied to an existing quantum computer. Not that anyone should actively worry about this but a fully functioning quantum computer can crack all modern RSA encryptions in minutes to seconds. So every secure online transaction you make would no longer be secure. This won't happen there are quantum encryptions to replace RSA but it shows how fundamental and drastic and effect this stuff can have on your life. This has very little to do with philosophy; that is a confusion with what the term observer means. By definition any particle/waveform interacting with another is an observation and will cause the waveform to collapse and so doesn't really on a conscious mind in any way. The debate is not philosophical one but a scientific one about the nature of reality. If we could answer for certain weather the universe is random or deterministic we might for instance gain new insights into the theory of quantum gravity which has so far eluded humanity.

[@bxdanny]

Science used to be called "natural philosophy". I think our culture made a mistake in separating the two as much as we did. Quantum mechanics has been gradually bringing them back together over the last 60 years or so. I think much of what is discussed here matters deeply, but I agree it may be more "philosophy" than "science".

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@bxdanny That would just be inaccurate. As someone with degrees in both subjects, I can tell you they are vastly, irreconcilably different.

[@DrDeuteron]

No need to understand. Quantum mechanics is correct even if it bothers our classical intuition

[@Blackmystix]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Vastly irreconcilably different. That's laughable at best. Remember, there are multiple men you read about during your schooling who were at the apex of their profession and were dead wrong. Much like Einstein and spooky action at a distance.

[@mikemondano3624]

Strangely, I knew everything I would see in this video and still couldn't stop myself from watching it.

[@tkdyo]

Determinism always made the most sense to me in philosophy, but I had never thought through what the implications of that were for quantum mechanics. Really interesting and eye opening. Thank you!

[@mastershooter64]

"Those who claim we live in a deterministic universe still look both ways before crossing the street"

[@tkdyo]

@@mastershooter64 Yep, its pretty much impossible to have all the info necessary to predict every macro event in your life. Doesn't change that there was already a set of events to determine if a car was coming or not.

[@stefl14]

nonlocality is also a perfectly viable philosophically. After all, we know nonlocality is perfectly possible in, say, computer games (no, I'm not saying we're in a simulation, just that it's perfectly plausible that 2 spinning particles share a bit even though we interpret them as "spatially-disconnected" ).

[@Frankthegb]

That's the fundamental difference between the physical (science) and the metaphysical (philosophy). Philosophy, by definition, can't actually describe physical reality because its existence is to describe that which cannot be described by science. No matter how much a certain philosophy might make sense, there is no way of knowing if it's true, and in many cases, it likely isn't.

[@thelostone6981]

Back when I was a Christian, I use to believe that God knew everything that was going to happen. Yet, the people who indoctrinated me in that way of thinking, told me that he gave us free-will and will judge us based on our choices…and almost in the same breath! Something just didn’t seem right in that way of thinking. I know this doesn’t have to do with quantum mechanics, but it’s just a funny thing I think about when I hear someone talk about philosophy, determinism and free-will.

[@Shendue]

The most interesting depiction of determinism, to my opinion, is the character of Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen. His disintegration and subsequent reforming changed him so much that he became able to see the whole continuum of his own time. Thus, his existence became completely deterministic. It's brilliant because, while he has this incredible knowledge, he basically can't do anything with it. He just rants about events in the past and future at times, and people that are around him look at him in confusion and get angry at him because of his apparent aloofness and coldness, and don't understand that he got progressively detached from his own humanity not because of his powers, but precisely because of the perception of determinism. His mate gets into an argument with him and is pissed off at the fact he barely reacts because she thinks he doesn't care, while he's actually trying to calmly explain to her that she's gonna leave him and go out. Not because he doesn't care, but simply because that's WHAT HAPPENS, PERIOD. He can even just straight out tell people what will happen in the future, and he does, at times, but it doesn't matter, because he was simply just meant to say that thing to start with. It's fixed in the continuum.

[@Px3.productions]

This is wrong everyone in watchman’s life is determined dr.m is present for it all dr.m becomes the only being WITH TRUE FREE WILL

[@Px3.productions]

Why else could only HE change the future dummy!

[@yazizme3852]

And this pleases you? Sounds like a good reason to want to look at anything but the very encapsulating diluting unpotent maker like determinism as you explain it

[@yazizme3852]

I mean in a way I can see how you would appreciate this and even relate to it on many levels as I can as I read this but at the same time it's just so damn depressing. I mean he's obviously been shown the future for legit reasons and if it goes unheeded, aren't you just giving credit to some continuum as being more powerful than what is the truth?

[@JohnDoe-in3ep]

What an incoherent story

[@WhiteUnicorn82]

I hope you write your own scripts for your presentations because the way you explain things is phenomenal. I'd rather give credit to the face and voice before me!

[@alexandredevert4935]

Even in a fully deterministic Universe, the computational resources to allow flawless prediction should roughly equal the Universe itself. The one computer that could predict the Universe is the Universe itself. Therefore, for entities which are a tiny, tiny fraction of the Universe, determinism doesn't matter much, to them the future is not predictable without serious corner cutting.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Glad someone alluded to Wolfram here.

[@TheChzoronzon]

The problem isn't that, the problem is how to reconcile uber-determinism with independent entities with decision capabilities.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@TheChzoronzon that’s the point though, there is no such thing as an independent entity. As an observer in the universe you are also part of that universe, and so is the system you are trying to observe.

[@TheChzoronzon]

@@NightmareCourtPictures But I feel myself as an autonomous being with free will, and that implies that at least a part of me is separated in some way from the rest of the universe, or that feel couldn't arise for starters In fact, it's a key moment of the normal developement of the baby And you yourself, under all the fancy mysticism, of course you deem yourself as a unique person, at least partially independent of the rest of the universe, even if obviously included and connected with it.

[@theodoridi]

Wonderful "explanation", clear and concise, surprised that there was no mention of Hume as it is the problem of causality that you seem to be wrestling with! Many thanks.

[@TheJunky228]

Desmond Hume?

[@ThePowerLover]

@@TheJunky228 David.

[@TheJunky228]

@Mark Smileer I'm trying to understand your position, are you saying that the universe doesn't exist?

[@petepanteraman]

The universe does exist. The trouble is understanding how and why the universe exists in the way it works. This helps us accept the universe and allows us to develop newer ways to effect technology to influence the universe. Basically we want to create something like "star trek" in the future, or in lamens terms we imagine that something will be real and build towards that idea and don't stop until we get there, universe be damned.

[@BunyaNutz]

Another great video, however Nathen Rosen's year of death is listed incorrectly at 2:06. He lived 1909-1995, not 1909-1955.

[@hdthor]

It’s just a way of praising Nathen Rosen by using Einstein’s expiration date

[@onepieceatatime]

Superintendentism is where the superintendent of your building predetermines when they are going to fix the heat, repair the windows, and clear out the clogged drains.

[@pronumeral1446]

SuperNintendism is where you playing Zelda: A Link To The Past has inescapably led to every subsequent event in your life.

[@somerandomguy-3102]

Ah, superintended, welcome. I hope you're prepared for an unforgettable luncheon!

[@jonathanfielding7387]

I'm all in for Superdeterminism from way back (haha). I'm totally okay knowing that this isn't just me writing this right now... But the entire entangled universe acting upon me at all moments. It just makes the most sense... It would be pure vanity to think we are outside of it's influence at any scale.

[@webx135]

Yeah that's what I like about this interpretation. And "The entire entangled universe acting upon me at all moments" has some profound implications. Like if you get a sufficiently complex and sensitive system, it takes the entire universe to know its state. Something about that reminds me of "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself". It might be a tad too "new-age spirity", but I like the idea conscious experience is essentially the universe experiencing itself from a limited perspective. Also, I've never really seen determinism as being in conflict with free will, per se. You are 100% free to make whatever decision you want. Determinism just says it's already known which choice you'll WANT to make.

[@adamtokay]

Well said. I don't understand why people still resist it. What's the difference between deciding on having a beer and going 'haha' at the last moment and reaching for a coke? Who do you think you're fooling? The universe? Lol. You're still on the only possible path that lays ahead of you.

[@AndyGraceMedia]

Nicely said ... and you're okay with reading this response and knowing it's only the universe or the simulation keeping you interested? :). For now anyway! The only thing I'd add is if the universe is entirely super-deterministic, ultimately it only exists to determine itself, but that's a bit pointless as it already knows that it knows itself and hence there's nothing to determine! A quantum computer simulation however can run with an immense amount of data compression. It only needs to tesselate my individual experience around the perceived reality of me as I see it. Observed quantum mechanical effects in my meatspace are perhaps artefacts of the simulation as it runs out of available resolution in which to compute, so the underlying architecture leaks into my almost entirely classical physics perception of the world. So our experience of QM might be analogous to a side-channel attack on a deeply cached and pipelined processor.

[@jonathanfielding7387]

@@AndyGraceMedia Well said, However I would argue, The universe at it's ultimate extents has no ability to determine anything for it can only be "everything" Essentially to it self nothing more then an unchanged crystal structure... To Contemplate or determine would require extra substance outside itself . It may be possible that at the moment Time and Space is created all quantum possibilities are tested at which point the Superdeterministic universes path is determined likely related to the path of least resistance that works as per what ever natural selection defines as "works" on the universal evolutionary time scales (Further determined by additional quantum entanglements with a see of endless other universes bubbling into and out of existence around it . Maybe? lol

[@tomarsandbeyond]

@@adamtokay what is wrong with wanting free will? It seems odd that people like yourself enjoy not being yourself. Everything preordained. No decisions, no independent actions. I do not expect to make any great, lasting changes to the universe but I do expect to be able to act independently and make choices. There should be multiple paths based on those choices. Do you not value having consciousness?

[@orionspur]

11:26 "You can watch Sabine's video [on superdeterminism] to decide for yourself." Sabine would say this statement is false.🤣

[@ignaciomoreno9655]

I love Sabine. I hope that they can make a youtube video together.

[@ricsouza5011]

sabine also heavily disses the mainstream interpretation of 'spooky action at distance' and electron entanglement

[@brothermine2292]

Also, gullible people don't decide for themselves; their thinking is done by other people.

[@brennanlable]

@@brothermine2292 as opposed to you who apparently has never gotten an idea from anyone else and invented english by yourself.

[@LMarti13]

superdeterminism does not preclude us from making decisions, it's just that those decisions are predetermined. Our brains are still the ones deciding though. Yes this gets into the semantics of what the word "decide" means but I'd argue under common usage, our brains are still deciding.

[@vukkulvar9769]

14:18 "When philosophers come up with a reasonable definition of the thing, we can talk." That part is gold. I read about an experiment on what ordinary people innately think free will is, and it was much less non-causal than what philosophers imply. It was more about being able to make a choice without coercion nor altered mental capabilities (unless it was your own fault, like abusing alcohol).

[@thecosmickid8025]

That's basically David Hume's model of free will. It's a prominent early example of a position called "compatibilism". C'mon, give philosophers a little credit here.

[@vukkulvar9769]

@@thecosmickid8025 I can't, that would require me from knowing all the bullshit they came up over the centuries. I already have trouble remembering birthdays.

[@imveryangryitsnotbutter]

There's a word for that: "volition".

[@ansuz5903]

@@imveryangryitsnotbutter Terrible game studio. Saints 5 was very shoddy

[@ansuz5903]

Ive heard somewhere that over 95 percent of our decision making is reliant on external stimuli. Idk if thats true but it sounds interesting

[@ceo1OO]

🧠 " ur mind isn't an illusion just because it's an emergent phenomenon... " 13:39 🧠 I like that statement... ' even though illusions do emerge from the mind, ... the mind doesn't emerge from an illusion...but does so from a real physical substrate'

[@kekkonidekekkonide3163]

Cogito ergo sum

[@professornebula6545]

The processes may be real, and your mind may be real in some sense of the term, but the perception of individuality is definitely an illusion. The feeling that possess a distinct mind separate from reality is absolutely not real. Just look at split brain syndrome, or consider the simple fact that your consciousness doesn't exist in a vacuum, but emerges in the interaction between the environment. It's a system which is defined as much by its own internal processes as the external information fed to it, and its function is really only to create an internal model of reality through memory and reasoning and use this model to navigate its environment towards favorable circumstances. It evolved the traits it has because they facilitated survival in more complex niches where multicelluar organisms had to navigate both a complicated environment, but also other minds doing the same thing. It didn't do so with purpose, it was just an adaptation to environmental circumstances. On the one hand the brain carries out many tasks which aren't beneficial to survival as a byproduct of its properties. This doesn't really matter just as long as these byproducts don't inhibit survival. On the other hand, even byproducts like leisure could be seen as beneficial, since the drive for greater recreational stimulation not directly necessary for survival led humans to be curious and seek our new experiences and information and learn new things. It gave us new routes to improve our chances of survival and gave us purpose which made us more likely to persist and grow even in the face of adversity. It made us a more adaptable and resilient species. You can see everything about individuality and consciousness as being interlinked components of an evolving system driven by environmental pressures, and the experience of consciousness itself is just a heuristic, a kind of shorthand processing mechanism that forms as the brain compiles sensory information and sends it through neural pathways which create associations, filter information, and set specific goals to carry out as needed to satisfy the physiological needs. I don't know if you'd call this an illusion. Sure, consciousness itself IS a physical process, but the experience of consciousness is more like a computer program - the program doesn't represent the actual processes generating it, the program itself just a medium at the macro level which simplifies and coordinates interactions. If not an illusion, then maybe a delusion, because if nothing else the experience of consciousness itself may be a real part of reality itself, but entire experience is predicated on a false belief or judgment, which is the very assumption of individuality which underlies all our actions.

[@sasanr1]

​@@professornebula6545exactly free will is the same sort of illusion as time and ego and thought itself is . It's very difficult for most people to accept that even though they may understand that ego is an illusion The experiencer doesn't have free will the same way they can't decide what their next thought emerging in their mind will be .

[@hiteshkumar4728]

@@professornebula6545Consciousness is required even to say that there is "physical matter" -- and the world perceived in dream also seems to be a physical one, situated in space and time, although it is not physical. In the final analysis, there's no reason to believe that there is anything other than consciousness. Saying consciousness emerges from physical matter is putting the cart before the horse.

[@digitalexchange6983]

I’m

[@shawniscoolerthanyou]

Determinism doesn't require predictability. Chaotic systems like a double or triple pendulum are very unpredictable (due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions), but wholly determined by standard mechanics.

[@aroysdon]

Would we get the same Alice/Bob results if when Alice performs here experiment, the consequences travel both forward AND BACKWARD in time? The light cones always assume a solely forward direction. But what if certain quantum things like entangled spin don't follow the arrow of time the same way everything else does? Would this not look a lot like superdeterminism?

[@x--.]

If I am understanding you correctly, I'm not sure that being able to send messages back in time is a "better" resolution the the paradoxes implicated here.

[@MarshmallowRadiation]

Retrocausality (what you're suggesting) _is_ another, albeit slightly different, valid EPR solution. It's counterintuitive, but given the idea that the arrow of time might only seem to move forward because of the general increase in entropy since the big bang, causality _could_ theoretically go both ways. I personally don't think so, since I think of entropy as like a record of causality: entropy increases over time because information about prior interactions between objects builds up over time, carrying that information into the future so that causes can follow effects. It's my opinion that causality cannot work in a direction of decreasing universal entropy, which is what the idea of retrocausality needs in order to function. But I'm not an actual physicist, and the math as we know it seems to work just as well backwards as it does forwards.

[@pgp1558]

Yes, it would; retrocausality can be considered a form of superdeterminism. In fact, if you read between the lines in Sabine's videos, you can see this is the kind of mechanism she believes is behind quantum measurements

[@matthewparker9276]

@@pgp1558 I don't think that's what Sabine is suggesting happens. It has been a while since I've watched her video on the topic, but from memory her interpretation is that the interactions which influence the measurement choices travel forwards in time from the particle creation to the time of the measurement, as opposed to the time of the measurement having a retrocausal influence on the time of partical creation. The maths is probably mostly the same, particularly for simple scenarios, but I think where entropy gets involved they might diverge.

[@anorak-adenoids]

What if the Big Crunch theory holds and entropy will decrease when universe starts to shrink? Particles will get fused(created) again, and nothing will prevent another intelligent civilisation to measure time in opposite direction (queue TENET the movie:)

[@nicholascurran1734]

I love the end proposal that giving technology to someone as a test for what they do with it (make it or don't, test for understanding, etc.) Except that humans are such a wide array of possibility. Give it to one person, group, region, whatever, and you are uncertain to find the best representation. Please, galactic order, keep an open mind!

[@DarioCastellarin]

To be completely honest, I think it would be a very stupid test and I would question the aliens' advanced-ness: to give out a test with a 50% possibility of being successful by sheer luck, doesn't weed out the dumb, just the unlucky.

[@o1-preview]

@@DarioCastellarin keep the ones interested in science and technology and weed out the ones without a heart or without a decent brain

[@nicholascurran1734]

@@DarioCastellarin a bit short sighted in my opinion. It isn't just make it or don't, what about using something, and how or why? If I give you a rare space metal, and then watch to see how you utilize it, or if you even run tests to see (edit: how) it may best be utilized... well that's beyond sheer luck isn't it? Maybe the process in determining what to do with this metal is the test, not just what is made with it. My two cents anyhow

[@DarioCastellarin]

@@nicholascurran1734 the episode referred here was about how it would be impossible to deduce an alien's notation standard for certain physical qualities, like charge. There's no axiom-free way to deduce what is a positive or negative charge in an alien's standard model. But once you figure that out, you can easily derive all other values, like color, spin, etc. My comment was about this: you could flip a coin and have a 50% possibility of being right. It's not an intelligence test.

[@nicholascurran1734]

@@DarioCastellarin then we're not talking about the same thing. The test of giving technology, in concept or material, and what is done with such, is what I'm talking about. It's at the very end of the episode, and it's a tangent off the main topic of the episode. So while your argument may have merit, I don't see why it came in response to my post. Cheers

[@BrandonMcCurry999]

Every step you have taken has led you here, you took them, you were always going to take those specific steps You chose

[@therealdannymullen]

If "you were always" then you never had a choice. More appropriately, there's no way of knowing that you actually CHOSE rather than were programmed to select.

[@ashajacob8362]

Glad you mentioned Sabine she is an amazing Scientist😊😇

[@GreatCollapsingHrung]

I've got no problem with the idea of my actions being totally deterministic, but I do take exception to the suggestion that I can choose my beliefs. Whether I have free will or not, I can still only believe what I'm convinced of.

[@markdelej]

Yes. Voluntary action of moving a body part is different than believing a concept by being convinced by evidence. I think there is no free will so there is no choice for either, but there is certainly no choice for believing in something

[@gnidarap]

But in a total deterministic universe determines your character, life circumstances, experience, knowledge, upbringing etc in turn determining your beliefs I like the idea of completely deterministic world because, for me, it actually provides REAL free will If the universe is deterministic I am the universe and I determine everything Real free will Idk if u get me xd

[@shaneacton1627]

@@gnidarap A deterministic brain is no more free than is a marble rolling down a mountain.

[@homewall744]

Faith is believe that isn't really convincing, so much so that people often scream over the oddities and outcomes despite their faith. It is absurd that every brain is constructed and populated and harmed/aged so that all actions are determined in advance. It goes 100% against our reality.

[@Practicality01]

There are plenty of mental conditions that contradict the idea that you have to be convinced to believe something. It would be nice if logic and evidence were more broadly correlated to belief.

[@Dragrath1]

Interestingly what has convinced me of the necessity for super determinism comes from the context of a metamathematical proof constraining the valid domain of all possible solutions to the Einstien field equations of general relativity. In particular the proof of the "no big crunch theorem" in "Inhomogeneous and asymmetric cosmology"(Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022) shows that in looking at the unconstrained behavior of the full inhomogeneous and anisotropic range of the full Einstein field equations at least in the case for any nontrivial flat or open universe general relativity as it has been conventionally formulated is not generally internally self consistent mathematically. If you look at the implications for what is needed to ensure the Einstein field equations remain internally consistent for all possible initial conditions things get interesting. In particular the results of the theorem show that the concentration of matter around over densities locally always creates more underdensities such that in an initially accelerating universe the rate of expansion will always increase, but this ultimately links the total global spatial volume of the universe at any time-slice of spacetime with an irreversible arrow of time else the metric of spacetime must violate internal consistency i.e. the metric tensor of spacetime must nonlocally conserve asymmetries everywhere else the initial conditions of the universe must be lost. Particularly the assumption that we can neglect small deviations from isotropy becomes increasingly poor at both large and small scales as if you conserve information and continue to apply the speed of causality limit the natural implication leads to a quantization of the metric tensor in such a way that you converge to the gravitational path integral and hawking radiation suggesting there is a non local quantization of gravity that is significant at small scales but also doesn't drop off with distance like its classical analog tough this is loosely constrained by limit analysis. The path integral in this context comes from every component of the metric tensor being unique and featuring a term for every bit or Qbit of information in the universe in the same manner that all possible quantum states must be integrated over within the Feynman path integral. If yo don't enforce this then you will be left with a logically indeterminate or invalid metric somewhere in spacetime meaning paradoxes and singularities are inescapable rather than impossible. The information paradox thus becomes a trivial consequence of initial assumptions for GR, with dark energy likewise being another artifact which will appear as consequence of invalid axioms. (In this case the invalid axiom is that the metric tensor can ever be simplified for any universe which contains nonzero information i.e. the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker metric can only ever apply within a perfectly homogenous and isotropic universe which in the definition of information based on what is needed to describe the state of the system means such a universe contains no information. (any deviation from perfect isotropy will rapidly grow without bounds i.e. entering the inflationary domain for the Einstien field equations according to the paper Inhomogeneous and asymmetric cosmology Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022. Given the importance of logical internal consistency in every other field of physics and area of mathematics as the conditions for logical validity, this mind bindingly shows that mathematically any valid solution to the Einstein field equations *must* demonstrate nonlocality and obey information theory else irreducible singularities must be real and unavoidable and information theory can not apply within general relativity. In essence because the mathematics of general relativity are inherently deterministic and the conservation of information in Information theory requires any informational system to be fundamentally either nonlocal or logically invalid, the only way for both to be true is if the universe is superdeterministic. Either the Einstein field equations are mathematically invalid or they are superdeterministic with the total information content of the Universe acting as a nonlocal hidden variable via what we call entropy. If we take logical analysis of the underlying axioms of quantum mechanics namely information theory and general relativity which is deterministic the metamathematical implications are that the only way to construct a theory of quantum gravity is if gravity obeys bells inequality i.e. exhibits quantum entanglement or rather potentially fundamentally is quantum entanglement itself. Thus either way gravity as defined in the context of the metric tensor of the Einstein field equations, assuming it can be represented mathematically, has the same bell inequality constraints as quantum mechanics. Well that or our universe is logically invalid and information isn't conserved, but given how you can directly derive Hawking radiation from the constraint of information conservation and the gravitational path integral emerges naturally from this informational formalism thus eliminating the information paradox, the crisis of cosmology, the origin of the arrow of time and the need for dark energy I frankly find it absurd to doubt super determinism as it very naturally results in a system which appears to self quantize. Its is even quite plausible we could eliminate the need for dark matter too in which case applying the conservation of information to the Einstein field equations themselves and thus reformulating them into a pure informational formulation would be able to solve most if not all of modern physics unsolved questions or observational discrepancies without complex parameterizations and data fitting. It literally is just forcing GR to obey Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

[@tb303techno]

Your paragraph with, quote: " Either the Einstein field equations are mathematically invalid or they are superdeterministic" => Congratulations, you are at the point here. The forme, quote, " any valid solution to the Einstein field equations must demonstrate nonlocality" tells me that we have nonlocality anyway. Since we can demonstrate (at least simulate) nonlocality with the violation of the Bell theorem, GRT (if valid or not) can't refute nonlocality or "spooky action at a distance". Problem solved ... on the QM side at least.

[@André-b3w]

Yeah, the other guy is right, measurement could be independent (not necessarily free will but random) if nonlocality already has to be accepted

[@travisgarrison8777]

Great video, only issue I had it near the end, when you say we gave the choice to believe in superdeterminism, technically we don't choose our beliefs, we only believe what we are convinced is real. Hence belief isn't a choice but rather a consequence of our knowledge, which in turn is a matter of our education. And so on and so forth. So determinism already is looking good. And superdeterminism could be possible.

[@JF-Gagné]

It's the only serious possibility, all the rest "realism" is just a mere repeated tentative to save religion, imputability, etc.

[@Aeronor2001]

I've always thought about the universe as a complicated gearbox. Someone from the outside could turn the crank slowly, quickly, forwards, backwards, it wouldn't matter or even be noticed by the gears inside. The gears simply interlock and turn, and the same events always play out in the same way eventually. I like superdeterinism, even if we currently have no way of testing it.

[@DavidHunter]

That’s a really nice analogy.

[@OrangeNash]

Whose cranking the gears of that "someone outside"?

[@100percentSNAFU]

@@OrangeNash The turtle beneath him

[@darinbauer8122]

I think we do live in a super- determinate universe. The problem is, like many of us I just often don't have the time to entirely appreciate it. I hope to solve that dilemma by sitting in the sun w my summer reading list...

[@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. When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment. 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.

[@Zinkhar]

The past only existing as particles is something I've never really thought of before, but that's absolutely correct. Same with looking closer to the present the smaller scale you go. Great comment!

[@binbots]

@@Zinkhar Thanks. When you think about it this also shows why GR and QM will never fit. GR is predictable because it takes place in the past. Qm iasn't because it takes place too close to the present.

[@gettothepoint_already3858]

This series is spooky at any distance. Way over my head. 🙃

[@SamRMoyer]

The subject really isn’t. A series easier to follow would be Sabine Hossenfelder’s. The wording is probably the most important part of quantum mechanics, and these videos do that pretty poorly…

[@rocketsarecool]

I think Einstein for the EPR paradox stated something like: "if there was a left-handed glove in one box, and a right-handed glove in another and you mixed them up and didn't know which glove was in which box, when you open one of them, the other box has always had the opposite glove." Switch it out with entangled particles and spins, you have Einsteins watered down view on determinism. Edit: nvm, I don't think Einstein said it, it's probably just a common example used by physicists.

[@anthonymorris615]

I know the box I open will have the glove I'm not looking for.

[@goldnutter412]

@@DazedSpy2 relativity is so underrated, there is far more to this, it can be applied to so many other things All Einstein missed was the information age, it would have been blatantly obvious to him that this is a probabilistic virtual computer created by our shared consciousness and energy/matter has to be quantized - you can't store HALF of a bit in memory. Quantum mechanics is actually ridiculously easy you just have to be a gamer and understand data is not information. Buddha said it best. This world is an illusion. We are one !

[@goldnutter412]

Also it's not a paradox it's just not wasting bits on things that aren't necessary. Computed realities are always constrained by resources and doing things the hard way is just dumb. When you simulate a virtual world you don't program a clockwork universe of atoms and subatomic particles those only exist because we looked. VM's present results to avatars. If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around does it make a sound ? THERE IS NO TREE that data is not being rendered because noone is around sigh.. one day we'll all be digital natives and this will be childs play.. you can literally explain it to a 10 year old that we live in a computer game that we make as we experience life, quantum mechanics isn't hard at all. The standard model lacks logic for a superset computing the reality and bingo you're done DICHOTOMY and duality is inescapable ! QM and relativity are just the pair of facets of how this universe of "physical" seeable touchable stuff is rendered if you look. We like looking.

[@tyjames9936]

@@goldnutter412 on a side note, if a tree falls in a forest and no one was around to hear it, it in fact does NOT make a sound. It may make sonic waves and vibrations, but without a brain to translate those vibrations, they are not a "sound". Just ripple in the air

[@Greasyspleen]

That's essentially what he's describing at 8:57. But then he explains why that's wrong, and I couldn't understand that part. LOL

[@WadeWomersley]

I watched Sabine's video when it first came out and I've always thought the entire history of the universe is pre-determined: it just makes sense that if everything came from a single "point" then every motion of every particle could be extrapolated if you had the processing power to do it. I'm happy to accept super determinism and it not bother me because, as far as I am concerned, I can't personally say what the future is; so, for me, it's still all random: we'll never be able to create a computer capable of going back to the big bang, getting the state of everything and extrapolating.

[@rolobotoman]

That's what my intuition always told me too. But what do I know..

[@TrossOfTheAlba]

Then you will accept that I will sell you a bridge in Florida swampland for a ridiculously inflated price, and we will look at each other, shrug, and say, "superdetermism". I around this weekend.

[@zoperxplex]

@@TrossOfTheAlba The fact that you wrote was superdetermined.

[@ohroonoko]

What if I told you that your existence, your sense of time, your memories, and the entire universe as you know it is just a computer program and it only went live three minutes ago.

[@PSnaptic]

@ohroonoko the universe gone live 3 minutes ago is a very good, mind blowing way of showing a point. @wade throw some computer theory to the argument and it's easy to see that it's probably impossible to compute a N particle universe inside a N particle universe. That said, inner universes would have to resort to simplifications, shortcuts to be able to compute a similar number of particles than their mother universe. All that only to agree that we'd never be able to calculate nor outpace our own universe in the computation it's performing.

[@gniccolai]

Bell's experiment demonstrates entanglement, but not property collapse. The problem is that detectors cannot operate on a particle without physically altering it. The particles had their own opposite spins at their creation, well defined but unknown. A detector will determine the spin of one of them (and also of the entangled one) by forcing it to align in one precise direction, the one with the least angular distance with respect to the axis of measurement. For example, if the particle enters a detector with a spin axis 60 degrees from the magnetic field in the detector, it will now turn to 0 and detect as up; if the initial angle is 120, it will be aligned to 180 and detected as down. So, the bell experiment is proof of entanglement, but not of magical powers of the mind of the researcher. It is like throwing a ball to the wall and going "hey, every time I observe this ball, it's bouncing off the wall!"

[@Thegoodguy2004]

I'm glad I checked the comments before replying because you said exactly what I was thinking.

[@lfelype.azevedo]

Spins are not the only property that can be entangled, and entanglement was already demonstrated with photon phases prior Bell's experiment. Bell's experiment (which should be called Aspect's Experiment since Alain Aspect was the first to conduct such experiments to test the EPR paradox) only experimentally tests Bell's Inequality and shows it is violated by nature. The implications of this is what is up to debate.

[@Bowie_E]

Oh very interesting! Thank you 🤗

[@danieljensen2626]

Spin isn't that deterministic. The chance of the spin aligning with the closest axis is higher, but there is still some chance of it flipping to align in the direction of the furthest axis, and the chance of flipping is higher for greater angular differences, up to 50/50 for perpendicular measurements.

[@gniccolai]

Still, there is no way to "see" the current state of quantum variables (e.g. spin) without modifying it. To "detect" is to "perturb". I see a epistemological problem in QM as it integrates this experimental reality in its theoretical foundation. For example in the case of this experiment, I have never seen anywhere reported that if you don't just "detect" the spin but actually "reset" it according to the rule I indicated, there is no mathematical paradox or theory defying revelation. You can even simulate it with a simple program: if you set it to discover the spin as proposed by the thought experiment, you get bell's value of 5/9th, but if you set it to perturb the spin to reset it along the nearest detector axis you get exactly 50/50 ratio as the experiment shows.

[@zimports]

Bravo to the animators for this series of videos.

[@Ahuc899]

Quick question regarding the "orientation" of particle spin: Is the direction of measurement relative to the universe at large? For example, if two scientists examined a pair of entangled particles, and one was at the pole while the other at the equator, would one have to align their instruments upwards while the other would be sideways to compensate?

[@paweszymanski5268]

The "up" and "down" naming of spin values is a bit misleading. There is no preferred coordinate system in the universe.

[@lfelype.azevedo]

Directions are as Pawel said above. But in short and directly: yes, they would, since they would need to measure it according to the same direction in an independent positional frame.

[@altrag]

The orientation is relative to the other instrument. So yes, if one was at the equator and the other at the pole, one of them would indeed have to turn their experiment "sideways" relative to the direction of Earth's gravity in order to be aligned relative to each other. Of course, in such a circumstance you would also need to be careful that Earth's gravity doesn't affect the experiment particles themselves. Generally not much of a problem if you're measuring elementary particles like electrons or photons as their mass is so small that Earth's gravity becomes negligible. But if you're trying to do experiments on larger objects like virus particles there might start being enough gravitational pull to require adjustments. Not entirely sure what scale you'd have to hit before gravity becomes noticeable enough to require accommodating.

[@DrPhotonBlue]

I think that the spin direction is relative to the direction of the magnetic field used

[@michaelccopelandsr7120]

Yes

[@smiley5ize]

Fascinating! Has it been determined when I might understand any of this?

[@technolus5742]

Yes

[@jooei2810]

Good thing I happened to watch a video about EPR yesterday, since you didn’t explain what that acronym means. EPR = The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.

[@ArbitraryConstant]

One of the problems with "free will" seems like the fact people don't have a formal definition of what it means, just non-falsifiable intuitions. I agree with Sabine.

[@tomarsandbeyond]

Just being conscious and being able to make choices. Why overcomplicate it?

[@MinaciousGrace]

@@tomarsandbeyond because that's literally what arbitraryconstant means by non-falsifiable intuition. You can be 'aware' of a choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream at a single point in time. If that point could be repeated an infinite number of times we might find that you always pick chocolate. But we can't do that. The fact that you can pick vanilla at _another_ point in time is irrelevant. That you are aware that there is a choice is irrelevant. You are still picking from two options presented to you by forces outside of your control. You could choose to go to another store to have another set of choices, that is under your control, but again the options available to you are still eventually the product of forces outside your control. You can't choose flavors that can't exist, just like you can't choose to fly into space by flapping your gills. Basically the decision tree for any possible thing you can do at any possible moment has been infinitely trimmed by things completely out of your control since the beginning of time. The funny thing is it literally doesn't matter if free will exists or not, you would do and say and experience the exact same life regardless. I really don't know why people claw so hard at a concept they can't reasonably define.

[@tomarsandbeyond]

@@MinaciousGrace How you can not understand why people prefer to have free will points to a huge deficiency in you, not me. I did not say that everything is possible and someone could fly if they wanted to. You seem to be deficient in understanding people and willing to make up straw-man falsehoods to prove your supposed "point." I know exactky what the video is saying. But it is all theoretical. Surely you will reply with more smarmy, superior attitude and lies.

[@shadowthehedgehog3113]

That doesn't logically follow then that Sabine's dismissal of free will as untrue is the correct answer either. If its non-falsifiable then Sabine's idea that there is NO free will is also untrue. BTW, the idea of free will being unfalsifiable is dubious. You could effectively disprove free will-but nobody has-despite many people's adamant belief that it isn't real. Their arguments are inconsistent and rely on an outdated and presumptuous view of how the universe works.

[@shadowthehedgehog3113]

@@MinaciousGrace But the existence of consciousness is a direct blow to the idea to the hypermaterialist arguments against free will. If we are no more than chemical reactions and particles-how does consciousness exist? Calling it an illusion is also a cop out. How would a bunch of hypermaterialist chemical reactions and particles perceive an illusion? The anti-free will side is just as reliant on intuition as the free will side.

[@TerryBollinger]

Thank you for this well-done and respectful portrayal of Sabine Hossenfelder's position! One correction: Determinism and all variants of the block universe are not just similar to superdeterminism (11:00), they _are_ superdeterminism, just phased in murkier terminology. The problem is simple: If you believe in a block universe _and_ you believe labs have successfully performed Bell inequality experiments, then only way to get entanglement-like results is if the block universe has such results pre-coded into it. That _is_ superdeterminism. It is profoundly ironic that some of the same folks who adamantly accept the block universe also express disregard or even disdain for "super" determinism. For many years now, Sabine has been a refreshingly bold, honest, and self-consistent spokesperson not only for superdeterminism, but for all the many versions of determinism that when assessed candidly and with introspection lead to the same position she has bravely taken for many years. (Full disclosure: I am not a superdeterminist; just ask Sabine. However, I am an huge fan of people who defend their positions thoughtfully and honestly... well, except maybe for the case of many-worlds, which just makes me giggle.) 2022-07-25.00.17 EDT

[@johnteres2339]

Great comment, thank You

[@MrCheeze]

Even though the specific mechanism being described in this video seems... less than plausible, it clarified things a lot to understand that including it (together with nonlocality, nonrealism, and many-worlds) gives us an _exhaustive_ list of which bullets we have to choose between biting.

[@anywallsocket]

Not sure why the MWI is the only WFC interpretation on the list though, as there are many more. I don’t see how we can be sure these are the only options before the Measurement Problem is itself better understood.

[@hardcoreturtle420]

Guy with British accent spoke it. Thus it is fact.

[@shoujahatsumetsu]

@@hardcoreturtle420 Or, as the movies has told us, guy with British accent spoke it, so it's an evil master plan.

[@breadpitt3597]

One of the things that gets me going everyday is the existence of this channel

[@LMarti13]

As a Cognitive Scientist but not a Physicist I'm on the Superdeterminism side. As you eluded to at the end though, that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. Our brains make decisions all the time, it's just that those decisions are set in stone. Just because our choices are predetermined doesn't mean we aren't the ones making those choices.

[@santiagonicolasarellano6239]

I still don't get many's obsession with defending free will. It's almost among the most religious traits that modern science retains.

[@m0rthaus]

Call me reductive but that's just a pedantic way of redefining what a 'decision' is, so that it fits in with your belief in Superdeterminism.

[@anhedonianepiphany5588]

Paradoxical statements aren’t particularly helpful, but you were, of course, always bound to see things this way.

[@milannesic5718]

@@santiagonicolasarellano6239 You don't understand peoples obsession with defending free will? It is simple dude. It is predetermined. As if you logically know that there is no free will and that everything is predetermined, including people defending it, but intuitively you think that people actually do have a choice to change their opinion, so you are trying to change it and get frustrated when you fail

[@dpt4458]

​@@santiagonicolasarellano6239 I had the same grievance but at some point you just have to recognize that people don't really want "free will". A completely free will would mean a betrayal of their identity which no identity wants. In other words, it is our will to do some things which drives forward decision making. Free will in this context would only make things worse since right now our mental faculties are literally doing the best possible job in making decisions. Its hard to explain but basically it would mean either inneficient expresion of the will or a change of the will which would negate identity. I wrote a short paper about this but it is not english, if you want I can answer any other questions.

[@parripollo30]

Love this subject. I sometimes think free will is just how we perceive our failure to understand the complex process of deciding something

[@HerrkaNe]

we dont know where our thoughts come from, so we only measure in a rigged game

[@ganymede3141]

The whole Universe plays out based on its initial conditions (Big Bang or whatever one might call it) and the laws of physics. Us 'deciding' something is just the atoms in our brain following the laws of physics, just in a very complex system. It's like spilling a sack of sand onto the floor. It looks complex, but the position of each grain of sand on the floor is driven by the laws of physics and fully deterministic. Same with 'decisions' or 'choice'. There never really is free will, just the illusion of it. The atoms in your body are just following along in their existence based on initial conditions and external forcing functions in a closed system, so there is only one way that it can ever play out, and it's all down to those subatomic interactions in a very complex, but fully deterministic fashion.

[@HerrkaNe]

@@ganymede3141 is it tho

[@i.ehrenfest349]

@@ganymede3141 Why fully deterministic? What about quantum uncertainty? (Not that that changes anything about supposed “free will”, which of course is a nonsense idea)

[@ganymede3141]

@@i.ehrenfest349 What we call 'uncertainty' is just our lack of understanding of the real first principles governing the Universe, and our inability to accurately and fully account for all variables. Uncertainty and randomness is simply the umbrella under which we lump our ignorance of the true workings of the Universe.

[@dannydandaniel8040]

Now that I've thought about it a moment, it doesn't seem like a separate concept in physics deserving a modified title, but seems to be more like another philosophical argument for standard determinism.

[@altrag]

In a way it is. Standard determinism was thought to be disproven by quantum mechanics and the fundamental randomness that it seems to exhibit. Superdeterminism posits that the fundamental randomness isn't really random and was also pre-determined. From a philosophical standpoint yeah, it just brings determinism back from the grave with a new coat of paint. But from the perspective of physics and mathematics, its a _much_ more complicated concept. The idea of tracing particles back to the beginning of time in classical mechanics is pretty straightforward. Obviously impossible in practice, but there's nothing in classical mechanics that can surprise us. There is nothing fundamentally random or unpredictable, so it becomes basically just an exercise in ray tracing. You'd have to ray trace every single particle in the universe with infinite accuracy, but in principle its just ray tracing. Quantum mechanics breaks that entirely. Under QM, everything in the universe - and in fact the fabric of the universe itself - is subject to random fluctuations. You simply can't ray trace through all that messiness even in theory. But if those "random" fluctuations are themselves predictable based on some state at the beginning of the universe? Well now we're able to start tracing paths again. We wouldn't necessarily be able to trace backwards like we can with classical mechanics, but we _would_ be able to trace forward again (because we'd have to know the details of any fluctuation in order to trace through it, and getting those details would in turn require tracing forward to that point). Its definitely mostly philosophy though, that much is true. At the end of the day the old adage "shut up and calculate" is the only "interpretation" we really need. The math has been proven to work countless times over the past century, and our inability to understand what the math "means" from an intuitive perspective hasn't prevented us from using it to build great things from building transistors to the LHC.

[@maurosanchezhernandez5021]

Superdeterminism can be understood as: 1) the result of the measurment in quantum mechanics is (pre)determined so there is no collapse of the wavefunction AND 2) my will to perform the measurement is also (pre)determined

[@landonhagan450]

On a personal or philosophical level, the supposed conflict between free-will and determinism has always seemed pointless to me. We already recognize that there are numerous factors affecting our choices outside of our conscious desires and are largely at peace with that. At the same time, if we live in a deterministic universe, the fact that it's indistinguishable from one with free-will means that it's a kind of determinism that's so aligned with our desires (or more accurately our desires are so aligned with it) that we'd almost certainly make all the same decisions in a world with free will anyway. The many-worlds interpretation does complicate things slightly, but really not that much. I t's a worthwhile question as a thought experiment or for scientific purposes, but it's really not worth getting worried over.

[@lenoio512]

I don’t think so. If you accept that there is no free will then you have to accept that no persons wrongdoing or misfortune is their fault. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to jail murderers. Or that we shouldn’t stop dictators who are kicking human rights with their feet. We are still able to do that. What is way more important in this question is that a lot of our world relies on the Myth of individual responsibility. If everybody looks out for themselves everyone is looked after right? If we live in a world without free will then we at least should eradicate poverty and world hunger ASAP. We should do that anyways but a lot of people think it’s their fault that People are poor or in a situation of misfortune. While that was already mostly proven wrong by social sciences, having a scientific backing coming from the opposite side of the Social sciences would probably help. Forgive my essay I don’t really think that a lot of people would listen to any side of science spectrum as we mostly know by now. I’m just speculating.

[@redseventyfiveprime5018]

@@lenoio512 It was predetermined that the majority will believe in free will and personal responsibility. Nothing can be done about that, sorry. "There's no free will," says the philosopher; "To hang is most unjust." "There is no free will," assents the officer; "We hang because we must. Ambrose Bierce It's a classical question and a classical answer. BTW, beside nurture there's a nature.

[@FigmentHF]

Most people believe they choose their conscious desires. We feel as though we are the author of our thoughts, but even 1 minute of introspection destroys this fragile illusion.

[@FigmentHF]

@@lenoio512 this is very obviously the world that we live in. Absolutely categorically obviously so. There is nothing but good or bad luck, that is very clearly all that exists

[@redseventyfiveprime5018]

@@FigmentHF Interesting. Even results of Libet's experiments and follow up ones are interpreted differently by different researchers. You should publish your work to stop that disarray. Yes, it's heavy sarcasm.

[@solvated_photon]

Well, I can say that my life has continually felt like falling backwards into what was already going to happen.

[@spyro1159]

I understand the feeling

[@solvated_photon]

@@spyro1159 um, okay this is not any kind of overture, but gotta ask if the pairing of the terms ‘dragon’s heart’ and ‘vision’ would mean anything to you.

[@spyro1159]

@@solvated_photon Does it have anything to do with deja vu?

[@ponli7532]

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

[@ardnaxxxx]

I’ve come to the same exact realization, verbatim!!!… The apparent loss of free will doesn’t unnerve me at all. On the contrary, it’s like a weight lifted off my shoulders… all my past regrets, gone… I understood that everything happened exactly as it had to happen, no what ifs or would haves. My behaviors were determined by the state of my mind in every single moment in time. I’m just an observer, watching the future unfold, with curiosity, openness, and with the peace of mind that everything will happen that has to happen…

[@bobgrinshpon]

Huh? How can you be more or less productive if you didn’t have a choice in the first place? Free will is only an illusion in that your decisions are brought to your conscience mind after it’s been decided by your subconscious mind. Youre extrapolating complex reality from a simple program. Nonetheless, you should not regret your past decisions, and should use them as a guide to make better subconscious decisions through meditation.

[@ponli7532]

@@bobgrinshpon It's not that your subcontious mind makes decisions hence you have no "free will", It's what ever decision you make is based upon trillions of variables in your brain and in the enviroment around you, that will produce the same exact result if you could replay the moment in time, because each of those variables are a cascading butterfly effect of cause and effect of other variables leading all the way to the big bang. Regarding the programming example, it was just to illustrate when started to think about this, it's not a direct jump to the understanding I have now. Regarding "productive" i mean that understanding determinism is not doom and apathy it's actually very useful for your psyche if you accept that free will is a useful illusion and the past is the only past you could have had.

[@remc2]

To your first point: That's because computers are deterministic machines by design. For obtaining real random numbers (as required in, e.g., strong cryptography), one needs an extra device that exploits some unpredictable physical effect.

[@ponli7532]

@@remc2 that's the point, nothing is unpredictable if you understand all the variables.

[@Cyberb0i]

This is so good and cool to take into consideration it feels like for years the scientific community view’s of the universe are subject to realism and anything that makes them a seem to be a 14:57 reputable scientific character rather than a human trying to advance civilization at the risk of humiliation and crazy talk

[@redneckrevolt1]

Does anybody else see a gyroscope type of effect the particles take on when he’s moving the particles around but the particles hold its positions when no outside forces interact with it. Kind of like a gyroscope of energy in space mush. I see the obviousness of the entangled effects.

[@nenmaster5218]

Does anybody else feel the needfrom this video about 'Is the world deterministic or nt?' to remind People the Yotuber Second Thought exists? He adresses Issues, so assumedly and presumedly, all PBS-Space-Time-Fans would gain a lot from him as an Info-Source.

[@davetoms1]

Physics experiments like these are the reason I chose to focus on Philosophy at University instead of Physics. I was lucky enough to take a course on the History of the Philosophy of Physics and it was exactly what I'd hoped to find. PBS Space Time gives me that same excitement fix. Great video as always!

[@mastershooter64]

why not both? double major in physics and philosophy?

[@davetoms1]

@@mastershooter64 Time and money, mostly. It's possible but not with the courses I desired to take.

[@Leoneidas]

We need to observe entangled particles with one observed through a time dilation. This will indicate if the entanglement is with the observer (instantaneous response) or with the particle (delayed response).