SuperDeterminism Might be Real, But You Shouldn't Believe it! @SabineHossenfelder Rebuts!

Рет қаралды 154,967

Arvin Ash

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 2 000

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

Thanks to Opera for sponsoring this video. Click here to upgrade your browser for FREE: opr.as/Opera-browser-ArvinAsh

@AIChameleonMusic 3 ай бұрын

Let's explore this microscopic roundworm, which has been fully mapped to the neuron and simulated using consumer-grade computers. This is strong proof of simulation theory, in my opinion. The video is called "Does This Worm Prove We're In a Computer Simulation? 🤯" and it actually correlates to your point at 3:00 into your video. While correlation is not causation, It also warrants our contemplation in this case. Food for thought my friend. If we could map the universe as we HAVE THIS WORM TO A T (or as we will humans surely in the same way) Then you can extrapolate from here what that may imply in your video's scenario.

@robhappier 3 ай бұрын

Hi Arvin ! Great Channel!! I agree with you, Superdeterminism is not testable, however you are making the same assumptions about free will. Just like science can't explain non-living from living matter, science can't explain free will and self-aware consciousness in the human mind. A scientific investigation wouldn't be possible without "free will". Without "free will", our minds ("brains") wouldn't know how to separate true information or usable data from influenced information or false data. The results from all scientific investigations would be corrupted. Although computers can be programmed to separate data, a computer can only process data by following a human programmer's instructions. For example, a computer can't decide on it's own to choose another way to separate data, it wasn't programmed to recognize as true information or usable data, and influence information or false data. Human beings can have unlimited creativity, like a professional master artist painting on a blank canvas (computers are limited by it's program and circuits), because of our unlimited imaginations. A human mind is more than chemical reactions reacting to the environment, or a product of the physical universe (God created us). We all have a mind ("self-aware consciousness") that is uniquely ours (including genetically identical twins). A human mind probably exist at the quantum energy level (quantum vacuum energy state of matter) that supersedes classical physics (the ordering of cause and effect of the observable physical universe). This superseding property is necessary to have free will. It allows human beings (with God's help) to overcome their emotions, biases, other preconceived ideas, and instantaneous temptations. Time is also needed to evaluate all possible choices accurately and completely, before a decision is made. Dr. Ruth Kastner PhD.; philosopher at physics department at New York State University (who believes "free will" is real and obeys the laws of quantum physics. The uncertain nature of people is not explained by randomness. Quantum phyics is not random. The positions of the subatomic particles only appear to be random, because exact measurements aren't possible (only probability measurements) with modern-day instruments. The Quantum Eraser experiment shows that quantum entangled particles, like a photon, can influence each other instantaneously across great distances in a timeless and spaceless quantum vacuum energy state of matter- "Is what really defines reality in this space-time" -PBS Space Time.

@Bill..N 3 ай бұрын

Super deterministic ideas, in my humble opinion, will eventually be footnotes in scientific history.. In essence, NOT taken seriously and with a tinge of amusement.. I still like Sabine, though! Good stuff..

@ZephyrusTheReal 3 ай бұрын

*SOMEBODY PEER REVIEW MY UNIFIED LAGRANGIAN*

@Bill..N 3 ай бұрын

@TuxedoMaskMusic The worm simulation you refer to is FAR from fully simulated despite suggestions it is.. It can't lay eggs with the ability to reproduce freely, right? At this point, it seems more like a mannequin or shell than a complete simulation..

@SabineHossenfelder 3 ай бұрын

Thanks, Arvin, for this wonderful video!

@w01dnick 3 ай бұрын

What I think is missing - some analogues to criticism of superdeterminism in other interpretations. Like SD problem with hidden variables is mapped to wave function collapse problem in Copenhagen interpretation, etc.

@vresportsbrasil 3 ай бұрын

Master Sabine! Much love from Brazil! 😍

@davismccarty6424 3 ай бұрын

😊

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler 3 ай бұрын

10:28 Nothing is independent here in the universe everything came from The Big Bang Singularity so of course nothing is independent of the setup! If that is the ultimate conclusion then of course super determinism is real!

@cosmopolitan4598 3 ай бұрын

Yes, this is a very wonderful video.

@adhamr23 3 ай бұрын

I am so lucky to be alive today when great physicists can teach on KZbin for free

@nate5eplayer574 3 ай бұрын

Right? 😁

@alexthompson7289 3 ай бұрын

This is the true beauty and potential of the Internet.

@haydenwalton2766 3 ай бұрын

if something is free, it means you are the product

@1337treats 3 ай бұрын

🔭 and 🎸 : 📺 👌🏼

@EzE-gd3nf 3 ай бұрын

I usually use KZbin to watch dog videos.

@TheNameOfJesus 3 ай бұрын

We need to have a vote to replace the phrase "It's not rocket science!" with "It's not quantum physics!"

@hlcepeda 3 ай бұрын

Why not accept both? "It's not rocket science" is just another way of saying that something is not complicated or not too difficult to understand. In that case, replacing one phrase for the other makes no sense.

@philshorten3221 3 ай бұрын

for god sake just use whatever you want.... its not brain surgery😂

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.

@Staroy 3 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 eat your meds mate

@GlennHamblin 3 ай бұрын

@@TheNameOfJesus How about it's not rocket surgery?

@agpc0529 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for having an intellectual debate without professorial ego

@gabrielbarrantes6946 3 ай бұрын

Reality splitting in many universes is more accepted than everything being deterministic? They just need to believe they have free will...

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

The interesting thing is that the Many Worlds interpretation does not automatically mean free will either. There is no splitting of worlds simply because a person makes a decision. The splitting of worlds occurs only when there there a quantum interaction.

@yacc1706 2 ай бұрын

@@ArvinAshbut there is a branch where the interaction do happen AND another branch where it doesn't happen

@reverend11-dmeow89 2 ай бұрын

I was presented with a 14-minute video of myself doing something completely different than my 30ish-hour contiguous memory spanning from the night prior through well past the recorded event, a full month after I had spent the full four weeks going through my recall of the whole day.. Something incredibly special happened in my recall. While the expression on my other self's visage I have not seen in my mirror for 30ish years. Which was ate the exact point in time the me then had a similar episode of an incredibly valuable situation that changed my life in a context that is the common denominator between the two. Not one mental I mean behavioral health psychiatrist allows me to speak or it. Their loss😂

@calebbrunson7120 2 ай бұрын

@gabrielbarrantes6946 and you need to believe you aren’t responsible for your choices.

@kingofmaiars 2 ай бұрын

@@calebbrunson7120that assumes determinists must be morally bankrupt to be able to object to free will. One can object to all sort of nebulous ideas without being accused with moral liability. In essence your argument is an appeal to authority whereas OP's is an observation. He does not stand to benefit from you being emotionally compromised in this debate. If you actually believe he is a determinist you have to concede the fact that he is not obligated to feel shame just because you accuse him of immorality. After all he is not responsible for his actions. Hope I was clear enough. Cheers.

@kurtsmock2246 3 ай бұрын

To me, super determinism is the only thing that makes sense. It makes the most sense because it maximizes what we don't know while also understanding it all makes sense. There's far more of the universe we can't see than what we can in the universe and there's far more we don't know than what we know. But when we look at how the pieces demonstrably fit together, it all seems rather mechanistic. The wild card in my mind is emergence; things adding up to more than the sum of it's parts. But, generally I find super determinism to match the closest to how I understand reality.

@kurtsmock2246 Ай бұрын

@@pauljohnson570 It is dependent on your definition of "God" If (God does and exist) and (the way you understand the universe precludes his existence) Then, I would assert, either you understanding of the universe is wrong or your understanding of God is wrong. I further assert its more likely that the understanding of God is wrong because the science is testable and allows for a higher density of agreed upon reality, which gives it more value than that which is unprovable and often used in systems of population control. It could be that what the ancients called "God" is just the quantum level of reality as they understood it, or perhaps God exists outside the confines of this universe and sees it as a solid state (whereas inside we perceive time). I don't think it wise to close one's mind to all possibilities that have a potential to be one day proven, despite the fact that they currently cannot be (not to say you are not doing that, just clarifying my approach on the topic.)

@aristideau5072 29 күн бұрын

just because you cannot measure it, doesnt mean it has not got a specfic value at a point in time (down to the shortest length of time)?, also why does this even have to rely on whether us as humans can or cannot know a particles value?, isnt that a very anthropic (and very arrogant) way of looking at the universe?

@kurtsmock2246 29 күн бұрын

@@aristideau5072 what do you suggest as an alternative?

@kenclubb 3 ай бұрын

17:03 There is no way to verify many worlds either, and it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exist, whereas SD only requires assuming that conservation laws are valid at all scales and we just cannot grasp all the virtual particle effects at such small scales.

@varun7952 2 ай бұрын

Conservation law break at expansion of the universe

@georgerevell5643 2 ай бұрын

you say " it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exis" no, the many worlds is a poor name as it is only locally that superpositions exist, not globally.

@kingofmaiars 2 ай бұрын

@@varun7952Cosmologists break conservation laws all the time. They're hypothesing about the big bang so I guess anything goes when inflation is magically able to create matter out of nothing. Quantum mechanics is obviously very different. They can't expect you to believe in them when their theories clearly violate laws of thermodynamics in the here and now. Because unlike the big bang, their theories are expected to be experimentally reproducible.

@HaeikeVraeik 2 ай бұрын

@@georgerevell5643 no, the many world interpretation expands entanglement and superposition onto the entire universe, so whenever a wave collapses, the entire universe is split

@georgerevell5643 2 ай бұрын

@@HaeikeVraeik NO! If two quantum particles entangle on earth, the state of a particle on the other side of the universe does not instantly split into two versions, one for each of the versions of the particle on earth. That would be stupid if it split the whole universe as it would add non locality back which is half the point of MWI is to restore locality

@slowmissouri205 3 ай бұрын

Super-duper-determinism made you read and upvote this comment.

@afriedrich1452 3 ай бұрын

Super-duper-determinism will also cause my 2nd comment, the next one directly after this one, to mysteriously "disappear."

@afriedrich1452 3 ай бұрын

About 15 years ago, I came up with the idea that a totally deterministic universe is compatible with, and, in a sense, necessary for free will - the opposite of what you would expect. Model/Analogy #1: the steering wheel of an automobile would be useless unless there was a deterministic affect on the automobile's wheels when turning the steering wheel. Model/Analogy #2: Conway's "Game of Life" has totally deterministic rules. But, I can determine (steer) the outcome of the game by changing the boundary conditions -- I can add or remove "particles" at any time during the simulation. (Remember, the boundary conditions are not part of the deterministic rules, as they say in PDE class.) Analogously, of course, that means that free will is not part of the universe, but interacts with the universe via a suitable "servo" mechanism, analogous to the power steering assist in an automobile, such as a brain. I suppose it also means that there is something akin to another dimension of time outside of the simulation (universe), that is not the same as the dimension of time inside of the simulation (universe). (I could be wrong, but doesn't LQG also need another dimension of time that is not the same as the time "created" within LQG.)

@sabbathguy1 3 ай бұрын

You got me

@dougaltolan3017 3 ай бұрын

@@sabbathguy1No no no, you got the OP... Super-duper-determinism meant that he *had* to write that post *because* you were going to write your reply.

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

@lemondemerveilleuxdechrist6515 3 ай бұрын

Finally a new video explaining the concept of SUPERDETERMINISM! This new paradigm, even if it may be counterintuitive, seems to me more simple and realistic than the other interpretations because it does not postulate new exotic elements. It also has the advantage of being completely in line with the Einsteinian eternalist block universe!

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

That´s right.

@marciodasb5189 3 ай бұрын

The idea of bringing in Sabine was AMAZING, honestly, such a great thing to have happened.

@garysteven1343 3 ай бұрын

Wanted more of her. Listening to her ideas and worldview is a treat for ears and mind ❤️

@dougaltolan3017 3 ай бұрын

With all the dodgy "science" that vested interests are paying for, it's nice to see true science where ideas are strengthened not by investment, but by conversation. Maybe Sabine can find the funding to formulate a worthwhile superdeterministic theory.....

@xycap8351 3 ай бұрын

If she was a man she would be considered a mediocre thinker. But she still made a whole song and dance ( LITERALLY) whining and complaining about "patriarchy". Virtuesignallist misandry isn't good science ...

@sergeyromanov5560 3 ай бұрын

No. Superdeterminism is hogwash. It is not sufficient to merely state that there are correlations. You have to explain, why and how they lead to uniform results that mimic the quantum theory.

@danielirwin2907 3 ай бұрын

Arvin and Sabine (along w Nick Lucid) are my favorites. Much respect to you, Arvin, for having a rebuttal in your own video. That sort of civility and debate is quite uncommon in today’s world. This is beyond the level of the students in my physics and chemistry classes but you often make great stuff for them too. You help make the world better.

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

Thanks so much. Glad you find these videos useful!

@philochristos 3 ай бұрын

Nick Lucid is the man.

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

@NondescriptMammal 3 ай бұрын

Totally agree, I think it is a sign of true scientific integrity to include a rebuttal. And I really enjoyed how clearly both viewpoints were expressed.

@101Mant 2 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838I've seen you post your crazyness on many physics videos but now you have Star Wars quotes in there pretty sure it's just trolling.

@djayjp 3 ай бұрын

The universe's ultimate conspiracy theory 😂

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

Haha...not a bad take!

@binbots 3 ай бұрын

We observe the universe in the present moment (wave function collapse) surrounded by the observable therefore, predictable past (general relativity) moving towards the unobserved therefore, probabilistic future (quantum mechanics).

@DrVictorVasconcelos 3 ай бұрын

Frankly the probabilistic interpretation is the conspiracy theory. And it was pushed under actual violence. Bohr was not nice.

@anywallsocket 3 ай бұрын

@@binbots you really out here spamming your idea on irrelevant posts? you've more pride than that :P

@binbots 3 ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket lol that was an accident. Didn’t realize it was in a response section. Thanks for being on top of it.

@JaguarBST 3 ай бұрын

Perfect timing for a video before bed. Your soothing voice always calms my nerves.

@robadkerson 3 ай бұрын

Two of the best science sources on the interwebs. It was destined to happen

@JaguarBST 3 ай бұрын

They have collaborated before this video.

@WalayatFamily 3 ай бұрын

collaborated in bed.

@zeljkokuvara6145 3 ай бұрын

All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again...

@robadkerson 3 ай бұрын

@@JaguarBST yeah but then the joke doesn't work...

@LTVoyager 3 ай бұрын

Just as it is inevitable that someone will confuse the internet with the World Wide Web and call it, erroneously, the interweb. 😂

@WahookaTheGoblinKing 3 ай бұрын

Do we have a satisfactory definition of randomness? Without it we cannot even know if nondeterminism and determinism are valid distinctions.

@robertbutsch1802 3 ай бұрын

This is a great question. Gets to the heart of the issue.

@michaelrose93 3 ай бұрын

I thought it just meant "completely unpredictable," perhaps with the caveat "within a set of parameters."

@robertbutsch1802 3 ай бұрын

@@michaelrose93 Pseudorandom numbers from a computer can meet all the mathematical requirements for randomness but they are still the result of a deterministic process. I think the OP was referring to “real” randomness (if it exists).

@michaelrose93 3 ай бұрын

@@robertbutsch1802 Isn't the sequence of the pseudorandom numbers based upon the seed value? If you know that value then it's not entirely random. I would think that randomness would imply unpredictability based upon the starting conditions as well.

@CircuitrinosOfficial 3 ай бұрын

@@michaelrose93Pseudorandom numbers having a seed just makes them repeatable. If you were given two lists of "random numbers," one from a pseudorandom generator and one from a "true random" source. There is no test you could do to determine which is which. Without already knowing the seed, pseudorandom numbers are indistinguishable from "true randomness" if it exists. For all we know, the randomness of quantum mechanics could actually be pseudorandom and we just don't know what the seed is.

@anxious_robot 3 ай бұрын

She's so negative. I'm glad people like that aren't in charge of the world. We need more dreamers.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

Did we meet before? You are so negative about her, she´s indeed is a dreamer.

@victorecho2 3 ай бұрын

I think that the real interpretation is a superposition of all possible interpretations

@sinajamil306 3 ай бұрын

exactly

@Google_Censored_Commenter 3 ай бұрын

Sabine's rebuttal is shockingly bad. She desperately needs to read some Karl Popper if this is her take on falsifiability. The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory *that we have tried to falsify, but failed!* - this crucial distinction is the entire crux of the scientific enterprise. It's a process afterall, not some deductive property. What makes falsifiability valuable is precisely the power that lies in carrying out the falsification attempt. Because once we try to falsify a theory, and fail, then we're closer to being correct than we were before, by definition. Sabine brings up the example of coming up with 20 falsifiable theories, and falsifying them immediately, and concluding falsifiability is overrated, well, duh. Of course when your example is structured that way, it's the conclusion you reach. Look, I can do the same thing with repeatability. "I have come up with 20 different theories to test, and all of them are repeatable - they all fail the tests every time! Look how overrated repeatability is, it's practically worthless!" - is what Sabine would say. Disappointed. But good video from Arvin overall. I never had a clear picture of local hidden variables prior to this video. Though I do feel like there's some explaining to do when it comes to bohmian mechanics, we have countless QM experiments of conditions changing after we've made a measurement, and the particle somehow taking a different path that should be impossible given our prior measurement.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

Did you even listen to her or did you just want to make a self presentation? She´s a leading mathematician and thinker and you are megalomaniac enough to explain her Popper, that´s ridiculous.

@alexanderkohler6439 3 ай бұрын

"The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory that we have tried to falsify, but failed!" I think you should watch her statement again, because she is essentially saying the very same @18:28 : Having a "falsifiable theory" is not enough, because it is easy to come up with one. It is difficult, however, to come up with "good falsifiable theory" (i.e. one we can and have tried to falsify but failed).

@Google_Censored_Commenter 3 ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 How is it ridiculous? Most mathematicians are platonists, they've never read a lick of philosophy. I don't expect Sabine to have read much either. Course I expect her to have heard of Popper, but her presentation made it clear she doesn't understand the value of falsifiability properly.

@Google_Censored_Commenter 3 ай бұрын

@@alexanderkohler6439 You're retrofitting her "good falsifiable theory" statement into what I said because it's convenient, but the likelihood that is what she means, given what she said the few sentences prior to it, is negligble. "good falsifiable theory" can mean anything in the world. Just like "good politics" or "good philosophy" or "good science" is a vague term. But nice try.

@alexanderkohler6439 3 ай бұрын

@@Google_Censored_Commenter I am not retrofitting, because it is convenient, but because it is a fact based on what she started her argument with @18:00 : She argues that the criticism most often comes from physicists which don't keep in mind that falsifiability alone is NOT enough. You need to have some additional properties in order to get a "good falisifiable theory". Yes, she doesn't go into further details by explicitly stating what those additional properties precisely would have to be in order to get the quality mark "good". Instead, she gives an indirect indication by pointing to a ton of "bad falsifiable theories" in particle physics as counterexamples. I think, that is fair enough for a short appearance in someone else's video.

@laughingman7882 Ай бұрын

Arvin just straight insults Dr.Sabine after her explanation 😂😭

@epgui 3 ай бұрын

I'm probably not going to change anyone's mind, but the only thing that really makes sense to me is super-determinism. Everything else sounds like we're using magic to explain why our experience of the world is special. And while I'd agree that we're special in many ways, I feel like "having a need to feel special" is just not a solid foundation for physics. In contrast, I don't feel any attachment to the idea of "locality". I think that's a very anthropocentric assumption that I am sure could be explained away as an emergent phenomenon.

@ericroodhouse3994 3 ай бұрын

Even if everything is predetermined, the system is so complex that our ability to reconize it as such is impossible at this point. For all practical purposes it is percieved as having choice.

@robsquared2 3 ай бұрын

But the social outcomes are important. If we accept we have no free will then we can talk about how to handle things like criminal justice. If the people doing crimes are not at fault, we can focus on restorative justice and behavior modification, not simply punitive punishments.

@corrineagnello4584 3 ай бұрын

@@robsquared2You’re opening a whole other rabbit hole.!

@renzo3939 3 ай бұрын

@@robsquared2 I disagree. Even if our choices are predetermined, the consequences or lack thereof are still used to make our decisions, using your logic nobody can be blamed for anything. The possibility of punishment is pre-emptive behavior modification

@jriosvz 3 ай бұрын

now you have all the answers

@andreasrumpf9012 3 ай бұрын

@@robsquared2 Your whole argument assumes that people can "decide" to accept not to have free will. Which would only be possible if they have free will...

@wideeyewanderer1785 3 ай бұрын

This is what I call science. The continuous conversation between people with different interpretations of the evidences at hand! Bravo for be so amazing sir

@ottomol5647 3 ай бұрын

In this video, two minds that have my attention.... Thanks from Brazil

@aresaurelian 3 ай бұрын

Reality is more than a few specific equations, and thus hard to calculate. But it is not within absolute impossibility if we can access all parameters in real time. Hidden variables from non-locality is just delayed in a continuum spectrum.

@chrisjager5370 3 ай бұрын

The best interpretation for quantum mechanics is that it is caused by unfalsifiable lazer unicorns. The various interpretations are all confusing and have the same math and don't make any predictions, so pick whichever you like or none at all. It doesn't seem weird at all once you realize that the lazer unicorns like SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) gauge symmetry and non-commutative matrixes and wavefunctions.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

Haha, and that´s exactly what Sabine means if she claims, that falsifiability is not sufficient for a good theory. Do you also know her video on unicorn shit cosmology?

@sunaglarecrim 3 ай бұрын

Many things seem random until you find the pattern that connects them. In due time we will come to the understanding that the universe is superdeterministic.

@dennistucker1153 3 ай бұрын

Super determinism to me sounds much more plausible than the Copenhagen interpretation.

@kas8131 3 ай бұрын

Exactly what I was thinking. Seems like Copenhagen advocates have had 100 years to give an explanation of measurement and they don’t have one. The characteristics of superdeterminism seem much easier to swallow.

@schokolade1735 3 ай бұрын

@@kas8131 Currently this boils down to either preferring to not have a satisfactory explanation of the measurement process or the hidden variables. I prefer not to choose at all for now...

@tbayley6 3 ай бұрын

@@kas8131AIUI superdeterminism requires that particles at the quantum level are correlated with macroscopic objects such as measurement devices. That makes very little sense to me. It's not just that an observer has no choice of what measurement to make, but also that the whole configuration of the device including any human intervention is pre-determined according to the PARTICULAR particle being measured. If it was the particle next door, the settings would have been different. Except of course it was impossible to measure any particle other than the one measured, just as it's impossible that we would NOT have the power to imagine otherwise. And yet that power of imagination and apparent free choice has delivered so much order in our part of the universe. Mulling over what might be, or what might have been, is how thought itself is constituted. In other words total delusion proves to be the basis of enlightenment. Such a setup is so wild, I think it's almost the perfect proof of theism. Except of course that theists typically require God to have given mankind free will.

@sergeyromanov5560 3 ай бұрын

Superdeterminism is hogwash. It is not sufficient to merely state that there are correlations. You have to explain, why and how they lead to uniform results that mimic the quantum theory.

@DonDee123 3 ай бұрын

I‘m a non-determinist. Why would evolution select for big brains with big prefrontal cortexes (that decide which action to take), when anything is anyways already predetermined? And the probabilistic nature of quantum effects? And bells theorem? To me, superdeterminism is at best a concept like a closed system; philosophically interesting, but not realistically existent.

@lemondemerveilleuxdechrist6515 3 ай бұрын

And what do you think of the Einsteinian eternalist block universe?

@DonDee123 3 ай бұрын

@@lemondemerveilleuxdechrist6515 add a little many-worlds and I like it. All possible outcomes exist in parallel.

@DonDee123 3 ай бұрын

Our free will boils down to being the puppet master who pulls the strings -> Neurons decide when, which muscle to contract. The "free will" is en emergent property of the complex neural network of our brains, that helps animals to optimize their behavior to survive and reproduce in their environment. Compare to ants, a single ant is not that intelligent, but as a colony they can do amazing things.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

@@lemondemerveilleuxdechrist6515 It´s correct.

@dirkbester9050 3 ай бұрын

I like Many Worlds. It leads to great Science Fiction. Some people like theories with closed time like loops. Also great for Sci Fi, but I like the chaotic nuttiness of Many Worlds more. Also, it avoids the grandfather paradox and lets you kill Hitler at any age without rubbing yourself out of existence.

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

Haha, yes, it does lead to some great Hollywood stories! Wouldn't it be something if we picked the best theories based on their story potential?

@Opitman 3 ай бұрын

This blew my mind. At first glance and as its presented here Superdeterminism seems to be more intuitively "correct". It feels right. I had previously accepted the Copenhagen interpretation as gospel but never been satisfied by the whole "wave function inexplicably collapses on measurement" stuff.

@rcnelson 2 ай бұрын

You had no choice in feeling it's right. Alternatively, it might be the case that the mind, presented with the evidence and conclusions of two different explanations, will naturally choose the more plausible one. The mind isn't determined so to choose--it would be free otherwise to choose if it wished--but finds the choice that more closely follows rational thinking to be preferable.

@mpetrison3799 2 ай бұрын

Me: "How common or rare is a belief in super-determinism (or strict determinism) among those with PhDs in physics?" Belief in strict determinism is uncommon among physicists with PhDs, and super-determinism is even less frequent. Here's why: Strict Determinism: Most physicists accept that the universe operates under physical laws, but randomness plays a role at the quantum level. Strict determinism suggests everything is predetermined, which clashes with quantum mechanics. Super-determinism: This is a loophole in Bell's theorem, a famous physics concept. It proposes hidden variables pre-determine everything, including the choices scientists make during experiments. While a technical possibility, it's seen as unlikely due to: Lack of explanatory power: It doesn't explain much beyond the correlations observed in Bell's theorem. Occam's razor: Simpler explanations (like randomness in quantum mechanics) are preferred. However, there are a few physicists who advocate for super-determinism, like Sabine Hossenfelder. But it's a minority view. Love Sabine. But she's such a borderline crank on this issue, Gemini ends up mentioning her (and her alone) by name.

@ArvinAsh 2 ай бұрын

Sounds about right!

@Thomas-gk42 2 ай бұрын

"borderline crank" - something like that might have told Albert Einstein too, when he first time came up with special relativity. Trust in Gemini? Well there are some others out there on the field: Tim Palmer, Sandro Donadi, Emely Adlam, Gerard T´Hooft (Noble winner), Gilles Brassard...

@mpetrison3799 2 ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 Even Einstein knew Einstein got pwnt by N. Bohr on the "God does not play dice" stuff. Determinism is fringe kookiness nowadays, sorry.

@Thomas-gk42 2 ай бұрын

@@mpetrison3799 i don´t see an argument.

@mpetrison3799 2 ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 Other than Einstein himself knowing he was being a dumbass? Look, nothing is ever proven or disproven in philosophy, including metaphysics. But determinism is about as dead as Last Thursdayism. Have a nice day, crackpot!

@jeffgriffith9692 3 ай бұрын

Couldn't ask for a better collaboration! Of course, it was always determined to be 😉

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

@TheNexusComplex 3 ай бұрын

I think you may have meant to say "super determined". 😂

@Faustobellissimo 3 ай бұрын

Brillian video. Please make more collaborations with Sabine.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

She´s marvolous.

@danielpaulson8838 2 ай бұрын

Help me out here. I’m not well versed in the lingo. I used to listen to Sabine but I saw some videos where she was angry about trying to fund a larger collider, thought people who had the many worlds ideas were whackos just wasting time and funds. She is no doubt smart, but very much seemed a conventional stick in the mud. I realize theoretical ideas can get way out there. I may be wrong. She seemed mad at other physicists who are theorizing and working in areas she didn’t approve of. I listen to Sean Carrol, Brian Greene etc. I imagine our universe as a recent iteration of more. Just showing up here in a single cosmic iteration seems far fetched.

@ArvinAsh 2 ай бұрын

Your points are valid!

@scene2much 3 ай бұрын

Unlike Sabine, there are better minds and bigger funders than me to help figure this one out. I'm going to get a bucket of popcorn and a huge diet soda and watch how this thriller turns out! My sympathies however, lie with Einstein.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

Yes, an I bet on Sabine. It´s a shame, that her proposals to test SD where not funded, though they are just table experiments. It´s a kinda scientifc inquisition.

@PhilMoskowitz 3 ай бұрын

Given the relative simplicity of Superdeterminism (compared to QM) I'd accept it more than I do the Copenhagen Interpretation. I'm also not bothered with the thought of giving up free will, so it's easier for me to accept Superdeterminism.

@nsacockroach4099 3 ай бұрын

Plus, the free will discussion doesn't even have much to do with superdeterminism. Regular determinism already is incompatible with the existance of free will, depending on how one defines the prefix "free" in free will.

@user-je3sk8cj6g 2 ай бұрын

Copenhagen's interpretation is basically witchcraft. Instead of the "God of the gaps", it's the "QM of the gaps". And add some Jedi mind bending reality nonsense to the mix. That's not science, that's superstition.

@aaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa7276 2 ай бұрын

@@user-je3sk8cj6g "Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors." Wow, so superstitious.

@Azupiru 3 ай бұрын

Superdeterminism is absolutely my cup of tea. But I also add in an epistemological argument against the Copenhagen-etc.-interpretations, and their perpetuation of the status quo of Western Metaphysics. That's all they serve to do. Instead of taking an epistemically agnostic position, so many physicists rush to defend the last hope for 'free will,' while sacrificing all those who suffer by it to their undeserved fates. Is that fair?

@Azupiru 3 ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket maybe for idiots

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

I think you make a good point. Scientists in general do potentially sacrifice good ideas in an effort to save Free Will...because after all, without Free Will, I'm not sure any scientific endeavor has meaning.

@anywallsocket 3 ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh you should not get meaning from a weird idea of freedom or lack there of, how you act is who you are.

@Azupiru 3 ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh I just think the existential dread of some scientists and religious people is a really bad reason to sacrifice the rest of humanity. Your fear conecessitates with all manner of contemporary politics (all wrong), along with the sort of interreligious and international conflict (all in vain) that will result in nuclear annihilation anyway. Why not take a revolutionary stance against what amounts to an anti-episteme?

@stekons 3 ай бұрын

There is no free will , but there are different wills that should be equally respected ... Or not , doesn't really matter ;)

@marcozec5019 2 ай бұрын

Thanks Arvin for your video! It's difficult to find podcasts arguing for both sides, mostly you have only one bell ringing.. and you took it seriously to propperly explain your opposing view, its so refreshing..!

@ArvinAsh 2 ай бұрын

Exactly what I was aiming for! Thanks for watching.

@fnln9802 2 ай бұрын

Super deterministic sounds like explaining everything. But a theory that explains everything in reality explains nothing. It's not better then believing in god

@schmetterling4477 2 ай бұрын

Yes, but superdeterminism was born out of the same intellectual laziness that the god concept came from, so why is that surprising?

@daviddayag 2 ай бұрын

Would love to see more of you collaborating together. ❤

@juantkastellar2655 3 ай бұрын

I disagree with Sabine and dislike her double standard.

@AveratisArmada 3 ай бұрын

Right away I'll say that I prefer Sabine's approach to SD. On that note, I also think it is "better" than Copenhagen and many worlds. In Copenhagen the measurement is equivalent to the "and then a miracle happens" of those science jokes. It's completely mysterious and taken on faith. Similarly, many worlds depends on "just trust me, there are other universes but we can't ever prove it" because the math somehow allows it. Why would any of these two alternatives be better than simply allowing for all causes and correlations to have been fixed since the beginning? The alternative is some kind of acausal motion, not even probabilistic, but without any reference to the past.

@ForwardSynthesis 3 ай бұрын

It's why the argument that superdeterminism is unfalsifiable doesn't hold up, since it applies just as much to wave function collapse. If there's no mechanism behind it, how can you prove that's what's happening in the first place? How do you undergrid your interpretation without a mechanism that proves your interpretation correct? Of course, if we did know the mechanism of wave function collapse, then it would cease to be probabilistic in the first place and would render the theory deterministic. It seems paradoxical.

@tristanmills4948 3 ай бұрын

People prefer these because they allow for free will in some way. Superdeterminism strips that away and exposes the illusion of free will (although we still tend to act as if we have it, because it is a great psychological tool to survive without a complete existential crisis).

@Necris-ql2py 3 ай бұрын

Where is all this heap of hidden parameters stored? Outside the physical universe on a computer that simulates Elon Musk?

@AbsentMinded619 2 ай бұрын

The massive leap in logic to “you don’t have free will!” from an unfalsifiable model involving quantum interactions is just another example of how so much of science is driven by competing politics and worldview. We don’t even know how the brain makes a thought. We do know that decisions are made based on external information and that we experience and exercise free will by any reasonable definition; including the ability to alter our choices on a whim just to demonstrate that we have free will. Rather than free will being preserved by people “afraid” that nothing matters, there seem to be too many nihilists terrified that everything matters.

@sinajamil306 3 ай бұрын

I actually speak highly of superdeterminism because it helps reconcile quantum mechanics and special relativity. As we all understand about time, the present moment cant be defined; because it is defined by the velocity at which you experience the reality. Past, present, and future coexist simultaneously. When a measurement occurs, it has already happened an infinite number of times.

@DustinRodriguez1_0 3 ай бұрын

DETERMINISM IS NOT THE IDEA THAT ALL EVENTS ARE PREDICTABLE! Prediction involves computation. Computation obeys fundamental limits imposed by reality. Bekenstein Bound, Pauli Exclusion Principle, Chaos Theory, mass-energy density limits which must be obeyed to avoid just making a black hole, etc, etc. If you had all of the information about the entire universe, you would have a separate universe. You would not be able to predict anything. You would be able to simulate it by 'running' it in realtime, but you would not be able to predict anything. Stop just flippantly saying "we can predict" like this is something which occurs outside of the universe you're speaking about. You have to do the prediction inside the universe. You have to do it with quantum information and particles within this universe. And you CAN'T. You do not even need quantum randomness to reach this. Purely Newtonian dynamics display it. How about if I have a pendulum in an isolated universe, and another pendulum is attached to the end of it. We're going to predict the location of the tip of that second pendulum. How far in the future do you think you could get before the computational load necessary to overcome the chaotic dynamics of a non-linear system would require a perfectly efficient computer the size of the observable universe? The error bar on your prediction is going to grow faster than any computable function, so it won't take long. Determinism does not imply predictability. A system which can, in principle, not be physically predicted can still be completely deterministic. The physical laws which govern computation and information are no different in importance and reality than the laws which govern gravity, forces, mass-energy, etc.

@DanteGabriel-lx9bq 3 ай бұрын

If superdeteminism is real, couldn't emergence save free will? If everything was determined, though, what implications would it have on philosophical matters like free will or ethical questions? That's what interests me the most.

3 ай бұрын

If everything is determined and there's no free will in the universe, there's no will at all, no "knowledge" or discovery, no justification behind science or the scientific method, no justification for epistemology since your starting point defeats the possibility of you "obtaining" "knowledge". Things would just be, and there would be no oughts, everything would be a mechanistic soup of molecules... which makes it silly to even entertain, how is a soup of meaningless molecules ever gonna know or justify that claim logically. People need to start looking into philosophy of science and leaving physics where needs to be.

@anywallsocket 3 ай бұрын

weak emergence means the dynamics of a system of a given level become decoupled with the dynamics of the system at a lower level -- you can imagine it as simply when the higher level dynamics are functions of the *average* of the lower dynamics. strong determinism therefore doesn't lose its consistency, rather it loses its relevance, and indeed, while the universe itself may be taken to 'compute' every nuance and detail of its dynamics, each hierarchical layer distinguishing subsystems needs only 'compute' itself.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

The free will discussion is not connected with QM. How does the copenhagen interpretation allow you t have free will?

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

Yes, free will is a feeling like love, an emergent property of our brain so far.

@litsci4690 3 ай бұрын

"Free will"--in the only meaningful sense--is consistent with superdeterminism. Random behavior is neither rational nor moral.

@djayjp 3 ай бұрын

Correction: Actually Copenhagen is agnostic and doesn't attempt to state what is or isn't real prior to observation ("collapse"). Its presumed probabilistic nature is likely the single most frequently misstated feature by physicists about it.

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

Sure, but Bohr et al essentially tried to avoid the elephant in the room, i.e., issue of what is real, leaving it up to us to interpret what "superposition" means.

@anywallsocket 3 ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh what is "real" is for philosophers not scientists to ask. science is exclusively in the business of evolving more useful models for predicting empirical data.

@yziib3578 3 ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket That is a definition of the function of science. And many scientist will agree, but many will disagree, including Einstein. A lot of scientist disagree with your philosophy of science.

@gonavygonavy1193 3 ай бұрын

@@yziib3578Einstein kvetched a lot about QM. He was proven wrong in the end.

@yziib3578 3 ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 Proven? Do you understand that Einstein won his Nobel prize for his paper on QM. He was one of the founding fathers and had a great understanding of QM. He thought that the Copenhagen Interpretation had problems. And at the time most of the other physicist thought that it was perfect. If he was proven wrong, why are you commenting in a video that is about an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation?

@daviddelgado6090 3 ай бұрын

From this exposition Superdeterminism sides with Einstein in his objection to Bohr's 'spooky action at a distance ', and supports his instinctual response that the glove was already right-handed before the box was opened. Very refreshing, I've always been partial to Einstein v Bohr on entanglement.

@diemme568 3 ай бұрын

Superdeterminism: at least it's not IRRATIONAL like "many (= _infinite_, in reality, for all practical purposes) worlds", or mysterious waves that collapse simultaneously for different observers in different reference frames. it has the merit of being logical.

@BarryKort 2 ай бұрын

The most important local hidden variable is time. In Newton's framework, timekeeping is the same everywhere. But in Einstein's framework, timekeeping is local, and varies with the strength of the local gravitational field. For a state variable that is time-varying, the phase of the state variable at any given distance, x, depends on whether the distance x is known to within a fraction of the wavelength of the state variable. For photons of visible light, that requires knowing x to within a few angstroms. Were Bell test experiments done with microwaves, one would only need to know x to within a millimeter or so to be able to reckon the phase at distance x. If you don't know the phase at x, then the best model is that it's random. If you can reckon the phase, you have the prospect of determining how a microwave photon might refract at the edge of a grating. Bell adopted the simplifying assumption that spacetime can be modeled as Newtonian, which makes his derivation easy. Had Bell admitted Einstein's model of spacetime, he would have been obliged to employ a gravitational path integral and his state variable would not have vanished, but would have yielded some kind of non-vanishing "beat frequency" term. We know that qubits tend to decohere with distance, and one ineluctable cause of such decoherence is the presence of gravitational gradients in the cosmos, which destroys the possibility of perfect phase-locked synchrony of qubits separated in space. Mathematically speaking, it means we cannot blithely assume λ(x,t) ≡ -λ(-x,t) because the age, t, of the qubits at ±x cannot be assumed to be exactly the same. Since λ(•) cannot be assumed to be an odd function, we cannot claim that it vanishes from the integral that Bell employs in his classical (Newtonian) derivation.

@harryseldon362 3 ай бұрын

I've been an OPERA user for years! Haven't found anything better yet.

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

I agree. It's darn good.

@kitsurubami 3 ай бұрын

With no scientific basis, I have a strong desire for all things to be deterministic.

@SRIHARIS-zi1ng 3 ай бұрын

imagine when banks dont give u loan when u r determined to be homeless in future.

@DKonigsbach 3 ай бұрын

It's not your desire. You were predetermined to feel that way. 😁

@cygnustsp 3 ай бұрын

Same here. I think of the old dying dude in the hospital with Tony Soprano. Everything is everything and free will is an illusion.

@famailiaanima 3 ай бұрын

It's a good heuristic, has worked well so far

@custos3249 3 ай бұрын

Almost like the two go hand in hand

@timwlake 3 ай бұрын

Wow, I didn't know about Superdeterminism until now. You both did a great job explaining it! So interesting

@shawnlorenzana2359 2 ай бұрын

There is no such thing as randomness in nature. In order for anything to be classified as random, you MUST be ignorant of the physics involved. For if you knew, it wouldn't be random. Therefore, randomness equals your ignorance of a given system. As for the randomness we see in quantum physics, just because we don't know, doesn't mean that it's nondeterministic. It means we don't know. Randomness = ignorance.

@uNiels_Heart 2 ай бұрын

I think you play a bit fast and loose with the term predictability. From determinism doesn't follow that we - entities existing within the system - would ever be able to predict future outcomes with accuracy. At best an entity outside the system or the mechanism "running" the system could, hypothetically. Not even if we only had Newtonian mechanics would this be possible (see chaos theory, saddle points and the non-existence of an analytical solution to the N-body-problem). With that in mind, suggesting determinism becomes much less preposterous.

@karapetrov-ic 3 ай бұрын

There is a discussion in law theory that we don’t need prisons or other kinds of criminal justice because of super determinism. Some argue that it’s not someone’s fault to be a criminal because the universe had already decided how the person would act.

@schawo2 3 ай бұрын

But with SD, it is also determined, that the person HAS TO GO to prison.

@mawnkey 3 ай бұрын

Yeah that's pure academic stupidity used to justify a particular political view. The bottom line is that even with super determinism at play, you _still_ need to isolate them from society to prevent them from harming others in the future. It's just that now you're destined to do it or not rather than making a choice about it.

@jeffbguarino 3 ай бұрын

It is still their fault, even if they can't control it. The same way you lock up a lion that you know will eat you. The lion eats other animals by its nature. So by locking up a thief, they brain of the thief will remember what it is like to serve time and not commit more crimes. In other words there is a built in behavior that has to be modified , that behavior is what we call the fault. It is a fault because most people think it is very undesirable in society.

@FelenzoGara 3 ай бұрын

Justice is a concept for maintaining order.

@philshorten3221 3 ай бұрын

so when it comes to sending a convicted criminal to prison... SORRY we don't have a choice! 😂

@danielpaulson8838 3 ай бұрын

You can predict where that isolated particle will go with certainty, depending how you view it. That particle that gets isolated to fire through a slit is never outside of the field that carries it. Like isolating a drop of water in the ocean to look at. It's still in the ocean and will move in accordance with the motion of the waves. This is just energy we don't interact with till we isolate a particle to look at. A particle is a tiny tiny piece of wave, that never is outside of its carrier wave. You know when you fire it, it will appear with complete certainty in one of the normal wave impact zones on the other side of the slit.

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

@aicguy 3 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838You're gonna have to break that down for me again 🤔

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

@@aicguy Rational, analytic (a priori) is dual to empirical, synthetic (a posteriori) -- Immanuel Kant. Before measurement (mathematics, a priori) is dual to after measurement (physics, a posteriori) -- knowledge is dual. Deductive reasoning (mathematics) is dual to inductive reasoning (physics) -- Immanuel Kant. Duality creates reality! If you read some Immanuel Kant then this should become obvious but you will have to do some work.

@jmcsquared18 3 ай бұрын

Whatever the answer, I doubt we will solve the measurement problem until we find out how quantum mechanics interacts with gravity. Some of the most beautiful proposals solve both the measurement problem and quantum gravity with the same idea (e.g., Penose's objective collapse, ER = EPR, Oppenheim's postquantum theory).

@183lucrido_ase 3 ай бұрын

Beauty is not a criterion. Theory has to predict experiment, it has no obligations to be beautiful.

@jmcsquared18 3 ай бұрын

@@183lucrido_ase I didn't say it has to be beautiful. I said these ideas were beautiful imo, for several reasons. They also happen to be all be motivated extremely well.

@Mentaculus42 3 ай бұрын

At least they are thinking outside the box and not slaves to orthodoxy. But things seem to be moving slowly or not at all.

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

@GreylanderTV 3 ай бұрын

I remember the introduction to EPR & Bell's theorem in grad school, and my immediate thought was that all three relevant events: creation of entangled par, measurement A, and measurement B, have overlapping retro-light cones and thus have sufficient causal connection to explain the measurement correlations. In other words: super determinism. That said, I'm not a fan of superdeterminism, and prefer either nonlocal (i.e. global) hidden variables or, even better, _less_ local hidden variables, but which I mean some physical phenomenon not bound by special relativity -- FTL communication of some hidden variables. Better than any of the above is the possibility of non-intrinsic curvature of 3-space in higher dimensional space allowing any two points in our 3-manifold to be arbitrarily close, or touching, at any given moment. This is possible without affecting the apparent "flatness" of space. There's no reason an entangled particle pair may not remain in contact until a "measurement" causes them to decohere, snapping the connection. There is virtually unlimited potential warping of a 3-manifold in 6+ dimensions with zero or negligible intrinsic curvature.

@CrazyGaming-ig6qq 3 ай бұрын

0:47 "Can we calculate with certainty where we would find them? (....) ... the answer is no." (the electrons/photons). But see, what this argument ignores is the fact that we don't know WHY we can't seem to predict it. And to focus on that point: You need to realize the real implication of this fact: that you do not KNOW the REASON for this. So what could be the reason that we do not know why we can't predict it? Lets logically list the possibilities: 1: That there IS no reason. That there is some kind of total randomness "affecting"(or rather strangely that there is NOT anything affecting) the positions of the particles. Therefore super-determinism does not exist because it would exclude such true randomness. 2: There is a logical reason to their new position, we just simply have not been able to observe or detect whatever that reason is. Now lets look at validity and problems of these two possible explanations: 1: To accept this explanation, that there is no reason, would literally require the rejection of reason. It's literally unreasonable! If you believe in this explanation you have to reject reason. 2: All this explanation requires is the realization that we, as of yet, do not know everything and that we do, as of yet, not posses the ability to 100% fully and completely investigate and observe everything. It's HIGHLY likely that there is some forces or effects at play here that we have simply not discovered yet which may account for the seemingly "true" random nature of the particles behavior. We humans are, after all, not godlike beings with the ability to tap into every truth in this universe we live in. It's not just very reasonable to assume that there is still a lot of things we do not understand about the nature of the universe and how it works, we KNOW that, we KNOW that our knowledge is as of yet highly flawed and missing many pieces to solving the full puzzle. But lets just for a moment imagine that true randomness is actually real that the quantum particles can actually behavior in ways that are entirely without any reason. That there are effects where their behavior is completely severed from any kind of reason. Lets try and imagine that if you can: How would you ever prove it? Since it is unreasonable in nature what kind of reason or logic would you ever be able to apply to determine or prove it? None, there'd be none, by definition. You'd never be able to prove true randomness. On the other hand we can't rule out the possibility that the means to actually observe any possible reasons may be out of our reach, possible entirely, which could be an unfortunate, but logical effect of the actual real structure of how the universe works. If this is the case the knowledge of the real reasons will forever be denied. One might argue that this then would be what true randomness is. What's the difference between an effect that appears completely random because you are forever denied the knowledge of the actual reason and then actual true randomness that would truly not have any reason for it to happen? Obviously there would be a difference, but the knowledge of it would be unattainable. So in effect: true randomness would appear to be real to us, indistinguishable in every way from actual true randomness. In conclusion I think opponents of super determinism is in for a rough ride. They certainly have the challenge cut out for them: Need to disprove reason but you can't use reason to do so. At least proponents of super-determinism will always have logic and reason in their toolbox.

@albertorasa6220 3 ай бұрын

I don't like superdeterminism, but like a lot your comparison with Sabine's ideas in a video, because I like you both.

@Desertphile 3 ай бұрын

If there was an inflatron field that condensed while decaying, the rapid oscillation that created all of the subatomic particles would have correlated all particles before the reheating of the universe. It makes no sense to reject "super determinism" when we observe determinism.

@mawnkey 3 ай бұрын

I honestly kind of wonder if superdeterminism will escape disprovability by simply being subject to Gödel's Incompleteness. Hidden variables might exist outside of the system they have an effect in (i.e. outside the universe as we can perceive it) and therefore only be subject to formal proof if we could escape our own universe. We might just be forced to accept their existence as an axiomatic fact once all other alternatives have been exhausted and leave it at that.

@marwellus1 3 ай бұрын

I really like Arvin as I like Sabine for all their passion, enthusiasm and the strong believe in education and enlightenment. But this discussion about Superdeterminism is not really helpful, I think, it will only backfire badly, I fear. I could argue that Sabines stubbornness to emphasize the law of physics might spark a weird anarchistic ideology in the foreseeable future where we all just start to do whatever we want, just because we will do it anyway, aren't we? What's the point of thinking and reflecting before acting - it's already determined, so who gives a sh*t? - What I want to say is that this particular argument is more likely to make us go nuts than it helps us, besides being utterly impossible to really - *really* prove it. This would mean that you would try to measure every single atom in the entire universe since the beginning of time every Plank second to this very moment. What is the point of that, really?! Imagine a world were we would accept this - it WILL inevitably change our behavior - and not for the better, I strongly believe. Our brains aren't made for this, they process "simple" information and this kind of information breaks the process - like a kind of destructive oxymoron.

@WalterSamuels 2 ай бұрын

All of this is a result of physicists confusing determinism and predictability, as if they're the same thing. They are not. The universe can be deterministic and have non-predictable pockets at the same time. Wolfram refers to these as as "pockets of irreducibility", and he refers to the universe as computationally irreducable. It's a much clearer way to think about all of this. Pretending that the local environment is not influenced by the environment around it, as if it's somehow magically disconnected and you can magically isolate objects, is absurd and it's surprising this ever became de-facto. Everything is influenced by everything, and it goes back to the Big Bang. We will never know these starting conditions. Any model that is not superdeterministic is suffering from the same loopholes and obvious logical contradiction as any model that allows for isolation of objects as if they are not in a universally sized environment. The observers are included in that environment, and their behavior is deterministic as well. The whole notion of "hidden variables" is also subtly misleading. We're viewing all of this incorrectly because of the choices of terrible terminologies physicists have given us, which has the unfortunate side effect of forcing people to look at reality through a particular constrained lens. Kind of like "dark" "matter". Physicists are notoriously bad at naming things. If you want to think about all of this clearly, think about it in terms of computation and cellular automata. Look into Wolfram's work. Or if you'd prefer to hear it from a physics Nobel prize winner because you have an appeal to authority bias, look into Gerard 't Hoofts "Cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics". There are no "hidden variables", there is simply the state of the universe at each time step. There are rules that govern the evolution of the universe, and these rules are the initial starting conditions. That's all you need. This still results in unpredictable and irreducible behavior. It still results in pockets of predictability. It still results in superdeterminism. Anyway, physicists will never embrace this because, as mentioned in the video, they have a religious issue with the notion of "lack of free will". But the issue is they aren't even viewing free will correctly to begin with. If we live in a computationally irreducible universe, it doesn't matter if we technically don't have free will, because the universe is non-predictable. So for all intents and purposes, we can consider ourselves to have it, with no issue. Further to that, for them to embrace this idea would give them far less b.s. to sell to the public. Their industry requires complicated scifi mumbo-jumbo to keep the wheels spinning, to sell books to the masses that don't know any better, and continue to dripfeed investors. Kind of like how the billion dollar cancer industry would completely crush itself if it developed a cure for cancer tomorrow. No surprises that we still don't have that yet either.

@Soooooooooooonicable 3 ай бұрын

The idea that the universe is unfolding as it was always destined to is a very comforting thought.

@jackieow 3 ай бұрын

Until you get mugged.

@racookster 3 ай бұрын

Not if you talk to a Calvinist.

@litsci4690 3 ай бұрын

@@racookster Indeed. The distinction between determinism and predestination or fatalism is too subtle for many.

@vhfarrell81 3 ай бұрын

Most interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to be fantasies. Copenhagen, many worlds, many histories, super determinism, ghost branches, etc., etc. Pilot waves seem to make the most sense, but they have all kinds of problems too.

@ArvinAsh 3 ай бұрын

Yep. I don't think Bohmian mechanics makes much sense. The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of a "guiding wave" that somehow pushes a particle around without itself being affected, and how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle.

@Mentaculus42 3 ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh A great video! It seems that Bohemian Pilot-Wave Theory as is usually portrayed in videos that compare it to other interpretations is rather problematic and dated. I wish that “someone” would do a video on more modern variants on this “theme” that have a historical connection to Bohemian Mechanics but are inspired by more modern “Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs” that are talked about at the “International Conference on Advances in PilotWave Theory & HQA” and other places. Love the Yves Couder and John Bush research for inspiration. Tho it seems that the “pilot-wave” is going to require some sort of “new field” that will be a huge departure in thinking.

@alexanderkohler6439 3 ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh "The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of ... how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle." Your problem goes away by choosing the labels for the hidden variables appropriately. If you choose the initial positions of the particles as hidden variables, the hidden variables would essentially be a part of the defining inital conditions. Initial conditions don't change and hence don't communicate. They are just inital conditions and thus fixed. Apart from that: I really liked your video. It gave a very good explanation of the subtle differences between determinism and superdeterminism that made it easy to follow for me. Thanks.

@TheNexusComplex 3 ай бұрын

@@ArvinAshExactly put. Approved. 😊

@kurte5006 2 ай бұрын

I would like to see discussions around a pilot wave model where the non-locality between entangled particles is minimized to their last localized interaction so as to preserve the property of locality as much as possible, but still have the non-local behavior we observe between locally prepared entangled particles we see in experiments. Maybe there is something wrong with this approach, but I think it is the simplest and keeps with the intuition that the universe is for all practical purposes local.

@tristanmills4948 3 ай бұрын

I like superdeterminism. I think people don't like it because its uncomfortable. The issue of measurement is overlooked too readily, probably because its a very difficult one to reason about. I think it's a hangover from classical physics, but is an assumption which cannot be made at quantum levels. The issue is, fundamentals of physics research is not seen as needed when the calculations work so well, you can just 'shut up and calculate'.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

Exactly!

@gonavygonavy1193 3 ай бұрын

fundamentals of physics are non-classical and non-deterministic

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 And fairies ride on unicorns...

@tristanmills4948 3 ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 they are non-classical I agree, but I don't see anything that says they're necessarily non-deterministic. Super-determinism is as valid an interpretation as Copenhagen, or many worlds at this point. I prefer it, but as with all the others, we have no way to show which is the best model.

@b.munster2830 3 ай бұрын

In all debates about hidden variables (super deterministic or not) I’ve seen so far, it’s always about local vs non-local. After studying Bell’s theorem, my conclusion is that hidden variable theories (other than super determinism) would need non-local variables, but that doesn’t rule out local hidden variables. A theory with both local AND non-local hidden variables is not ruled out.

@irinabelkina1875 2 ай бұрын

Superdeterminism is my cup of tea

@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle 3 ай бұрын

What an amazing collab!

@vikkris 3 ай бұрын

If the hidden variable is at higher dimension, we are probably simply looking at the wrong place for clues

@Mentaculus42 3 ай бұрын

Arvin once mentioned “Super-dimensional Branes or Membranes” in a video. So …

@metanoia7217 3 ай бұрын

YUP! You've got it!

@sabbathguy1 3 ай бұрын

Super-determinism and holographic universe were meant for eachother!

@metanoia7217 3 ай бұрын

@sabbathguy1 Super-Determinism and the COMPUTER SIMULATION hypothesis were "meant for each other." The "Holographic" aspect being one interesting (albeit not defining) characteristic of the model I am currently working on... Stay tuned :)

@zukodude487987 3 ай бұрын

When i tell fitness folks that what you put in your mouth is not your choice then they get upset at me.

@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle 3 ай бұрын

😂 As a fitness person this makes me laugh

@BondJFK 3 ай бұрын

That's what she said

@AbsentMinded619 2 ай бұрын

Does it upset you when people get unhappy with their weight and successfully change their diet?

@zukodude487987 2 ай бұрын

@@AbsentMinded619 I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly.

@user-je3sk8cj6g 2 ай бұрын

I imagined the universe to be Superdeterministic ever since I was 7 years old. If a coin flip is deterministic, then everything else. It must be. The entire universe has an influence on me - the gravitational pull from the Andromeda Galaxy reaches out into us. But so to, the tiny gravitational pull from my body also influences Andromeda, even if only so slightly. Every single particle in the Universe influences every single other particles in the universe, and in return it is influenced by the entirety of the Universe. If the entirety of the gravity of every single particle distorts space time throughout the entire universe, even if so slightly, then everything is connected. It's like a tensed rope. Exerting pressure in any point of the rope will pull the entire rope, no matter the size of the rope, and no matter where that pressure is exerted. Even if the rope is infinite. Likewise, such is how the universe works. Imagine pulling in a black hole from another universe that didnt exist in ours previously. A massive black hole like no other, the size of a cluster of galaxies. Well, this hyper black hole would immediately start pulling the entire universe towards it, from one end to another (well, it would actually create a gravitational wave that would travel at light speed and what not, but you get what I mean). This hyper black hole would also be pulled by the combined gravity of the entire rest of the universe. The universe is like a blanket, everything is connected by gravity (and the other 3 fundamental forces, yes yes, but gravity here is the most important, since it appears to be the one that is stronger over longer distances, despite being weaker in closer proximity). This means that, changing one thing in one part of the universe will set a cascade effect in the entire universe. What's more: assuming the Big Bang (which may or may not be correct), there's no reason to assume that it was not a deterministic effect - but then in such case, everything that comes afterwards is also deterministic and even more, intrinsically connected. Like I said, I have always been sure of that ever since I was 7 years old. Everything in the Universe is intrinsically connected and absolutely Superdeterministic in nature.

@justapasserby6063 3 ай бұрын

All I got from this is my AI assisted Powerball winning number prediction algorithm has been a waste of time .......😉 (I do like the Opera browser by the way).

@nziom 3 ай бұрын

Nice

@michaelkelly9230 3 ай бұрын

Super-determinism is absolute BS. I am so surprised that so many people believe in it, even the PhD ones.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

Beyond that meaningless statement, any arguments?

@maritaschweizer1117 3 ай бұрын

An unfrofound opinion does not help at all. There are no better arguments for the Copenhagen interpretation.

@gonavygonavy1193 3 ай бұрын

@@maritaschweizer1117yes there is. occam's razor

@schawo2 3 ай бұрын

Superdeterminism (SD) is just another way of refuting true randomness. It is similar to information technology (IT), where computers cannot create true randomness with pure computer technologies spontaneously. You can make random generation complex, but it will always result in a pseudo-random procedure. SD is a real-world analogue of pseudo-randomness. If you make pseudo-random generation increasingly complex, it will become more difficult to distinguish from true randomness. However, with enough effort, you can always prove it to be fake. The real-world complexity of randomness makes it too difficult to prove as pseudo.

@Thomas-gk42 3 ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 Occam´s razor supports standard QM and the magic about it? That sounds ridiculous.

@scene2much 3 ай бұрын

Arvin and Sabina? That combo has the power of 9,000 Suns!

@csabanagy8071 3 ай бұрын

I think it needs to inspect the possibility of retro-causality in this story. It means the future outcome of an event may force the probability of the causing event much higher. That means time is a continues string from the past to the future and can rearrange changes backwards. What if Proton-Neutrons are a ball of timelessness. All the quarks are different waive form of that frontier. You can split or join those balls based on quantum rules, not sure what is happening when it destroyed by an anti particle and the bubble get dissolved. Inside supermassive black-holes those bubble could go huge! During the big bang when the timelessness broke apart the Neutrons have borne and they was all the same. There was no annihilation... there was no Protons... The charge what atoms has is decided!

@tonipejic2645 2 ай бұрын

I agree with superdeterminism, simply because of the nature of randomness, or rather the lack off. It can't be mathematically produced, this is a challenge in computer science especially when we use randomness for security critical computations, it needs to come from a high entropy source which is always sourced externally (crystal oscillations, atmospheric noise or even a video stream of wall with lava lamps), programmatically we can't make information out of thin air, there are no algorithms for this. So I believe the same principle applies in physics, a decision on where to collapse the wave function needs to be made somehow, otherwise it would mean that information is spawning into the universe out of nowhere for no reason, philosophically this seems much harder to explain than if we simply don't know all the variables. I think we internalized the existence of randomness as something real, because on our very abstract level of living there are many things that can't be distinguished from randomness, but in reality they are results of very complex processes. Randomness is an illusion created by complexity. So either way, if "randomness" exists it must mean that it comes from outside of the universe somehow, or it doesn't exists and is explained by the missing internal variables

@davisbest 3 ай бұрын

I'm with Sabine on this one, I believe as measurements get more refined, predicable outcomes will increase revealing an underlying super-determinism of the universe. Either way, super exciting stuff.

@fikretyet 3 ай бұрын

My opinion is, Superdeterminism is the grandchild of the "all-knowing god" in theology. It rejects randomness and describes time as a predetermined emergent block of incidents. While there is still no method that offers a universal, closed-form solution applicable to all scenarios to even three-body problems, considering the whole universe to be strictly emergent without any non-predictable randomness and throwing probability out of the window might be excessively pretentious.

@ocno 3 ай бұрын

Scientific arguments deserve better than to just be called "might be pretentious". Fundamentally, superdeterminism is about rejecting arguments based on measurement independence and seeing if it can lead you to new predictions. The implications about randomness are secondary and frankly not very interesting.

@rynther 3 ай бұрын

As it happens, the concept of sin is based on the idea of free will, determinism precludes the concept of free will, which would be a very critical theological problem. "All knowing god" would have to know the starting position, direction of travel, speed, charge, and spin, of every single elemental particle as it condensed from energy early in the expansion of the universe. That could maybe get you to Deism, the universe is god, but that is not what the churches are selling. The most generous description of "free will" is a cone of potential, looks a bit like a gravity well, it expresses the available freedom of motion (change) for a given object or person. The likelyhood that you will significantly change relative velocity or location much in the next 5 milliseconds is pretty low, where you could be any number of locations a year from now. This is greatly constrained by where you were born, who you were born to, and the circumstances that led up to it. Statistically these factors have an overwhelming impact on wealth and wellbeing, yet it isn't an iron clad indicator for any given individual, the uncertainty principle still applies. (hidden variables) What makes us truly unique is our experiences, which are by nature biased, the lack of free will isn't the same as a lack of agency, but you aren't likely to radically change your outlook on the world without some cause for that change. This dialog is far shorter than the internal dialog that created it, so just in the first step of communication there is significant data loss, we don't think and reason in a vacuum, our world view colors how we see information, and that colored information shapes our world.

@AbsentMinded619 2 ай бұрын

You’re not thinking like a scientist there. God knowing everything about every elemental particle is only a problem if you commit a category error, and assume that a being couldn’t know such things because you couldn’t. No theologian would assume that, nor even the Bible writers. What do you think it means that God is “past our understanding?” If God was aware of all outcomes upon creation of the universe/the Big Bang, then both humans and God can be in different senses responsible for human actions. Allowing for free will while also knowing all outcomes at conception can reconcile the older theological issue of Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s fascinating stuff, if you aren’t just looking to dunk on churches as if you learned about science from Rick and Morty episodes.

@John_Mack 3 ай бұрын

Adding hidden, unknown variables is like saying "I don't know". This is fine, as we know much less than we don't know.

@lesalmin 3 ай бұрын

We don't know and may never know, but we may still have a theory as to why this is so.

@victorfranca85 3 ай бұрын

I dont like the Copenhagen interpretation. Its a nice place holder because of the scale we operate in and cant measure below Planck. To me, pilot wave sure seems like gravity but you know, “tiny”. I sure seem to have no control over anything. And non locality seem to happen here and there for me. There is structure under Planck length, we just cant see it. And entanglement and tunneling seem kinda non local. All speculation, of course. Great vid. But I think all your vids are great, I have no choice over that as well. I see Ash, I click Ash.

@quantum_relativity 3 ай бұрын

quantum physics say there is no superdeterminism, but superposition and randomness only

@binbots 3 ай бұрын

@anywallsocket 3 ай бұрын

lmao so super determinism or no ?

@binbots 3 ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket lol. In an infinite universe it’s fundamentally unknowable.

@binbots 3 ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket also unknowable because we are inside the universe. A system is only knowable if one is outside of it.

@anywallsocket 3 ай бұрын

@@binbots yes i agree. even if we came up with a set of equations to simulate our own universe, we'd have to run the simulation to find out, and we could never do so completely -- for many reasons, namely we'd forever lack the sufficient resources, and also because we'd have to simulate ourselves simulating ourselves, which would require the simulation to know how it will run before it finishes running, which it cannot do lol.

@anywallsocket 3 ай бұрын

@@binbots note that is true even in a finite universe *

@johnmcwilliams379 3 ай бұрын

I think the problem stems from the fact that we’re 4D creatures, part of a 4D block universe, with a perception of 3D objects (with change and motion provided by the unseen 4th dimension), and we have evolved in a manner that allows only ‘seeing’ the past, not the future. So, the future seems mutable and the past immutable… and to us that’s true and real. But from a view outside our virtual 3D reality, looking at 4D space-time, all is not just deterministic, but determined. Could those hidden variables mentioned simply exist as the shape of space-time…as in general relativity’s explanation of gravity?

@getziie 3 ай бұрын

I was thinking about that! Time perception and free will could be illusions like colors or taste. These concepts might not exist outside of human brain

@JodattisLoeschblatt 3 ай бұрын

The question is, whether our universe is a determined shape within this 4D space you speak of, or not. To simplify it by looking at a 2D-creature with the shape of a point that can move and that experiences the z-axis as time: Does the creature look like one continuous line through 3D space, or would we see lines branching into multiple possible positions that could be reached by the creature and the manifestation of the "actual position" at z=currently is found by observing which branch it moves along, as we move up along the z-axis. In that case, the outside observer still wouldn't know what happens in "the future"(higher z-axis points), as the actual shape is "rendering" while we move along the z-axis. If a particle can go left or right, without it making a difference in the energy potential, why must we assume, that a hidden variable must make the decision for it? If it is possible for such a situation to arise, then two branches should be equally likely and only the rendering of the present moment can show, which branch our observation is on. I am not saying, that this is the truth, I am just saying, that it is not clear, that the description as a 4D space would force our experienced reality to be a determined object for an outside observer.

@halfnattyboomer354 3 ай бұрын

@@getziie So we're just characters playing a role and the jokes on us because we actually believe we can determine our fates. But to a true higher dimensional observer watching us on their TV it would be just as absurd as us thinking a prerecorded shows characters can suddenly to something differently. Man maybe Buddhists have it right, just accept everything that happens because it can't unhappen. Just try adapt as best we can with what we currently understand and know because that's all we can do.

@ninabar4359 3 ай бұрын

Without accepting multidimensionality in all of the objects, any theory is dormant.

@johnmcwilliams379 3 ай бұрын

@@JodattisLoeschblatt I see what you’re saying. I was imagining the outside observer as outside of time. As able to see the past, the present, and future as one 4D block (as one might hold a cube in one’s hand). To the observer the block would contain only 4D space. Nothing like time (i.e.: no change, no motion). And, in that way, the probability is entirely a perception (or conception) of the creature (us) from within that 4D block. So, yes, you’re right… it comes down to whether there exists a ‘View’ from the outside from which space and time are fixed and immutable. I suppose that’s really what determines the question of determinism.

3 ай бұрын

Superderminism is real thing. And very simple to explain if you know about two things. Cellular automaton theory and computability. Simply put, in very simplified explanation, to be able to predict next state of the universe, thus of any particular part of the universe, you would need a machine with say "memory capacity" of size of number of all elements in the universe. Intentionaly using word elements rather than particles, as we currently don't know what are the building blocks or smaller elements are. But this is not in collision with what been said. Thus even every moment or future state of the universe is perfectly predetermined, it is not computable due obvious physical limitations. We simply cannot build a machine of the size of our universe within our universe. Righ?

@hyperduality2838 3 ай бұрын

@gcewing 3 ай бұрын

Precisely, and this is where the "determinism doesn't allow for free will" argument breaks down. We feel as though we have free will because we can't predict our own actions, not because the universe isn't deterministic.

@FisicaModerna 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for the video, it has been inspiring and very clear ! I guess that conservation of information and reversibility would strongly imply superdeterminism.

@christopherchilton-smith6482 3 ай бұрын

Your content has really grown on me over time, I'm glad I subscribed years ago even though I started out suspicious of your objectivity. Took me some time to realize I was actually being racist. You are one of my favorite science communicators at this point, sorry I ever doubted you.

@carlossoares712 3 ай бұрын

i think it makes more sense than conpenhagem interpretation

@litsci4690 3 ай бұрын

Certainly ASSUMES much less . . . Occam's razor.

@Severance-j6b 3 ай бұрын

Is every action in the universe predictable? Yes. Does humanity have enough computing power to predict everything in the universe at this stage ? No

@DrVictorVasconcelos 3 ай бұрын

But that's exactly what opponents to superdeterminism disagree about. I'm not sure it's "predictable" in the sense of a computer prediction, though. It's more in the sense that there's only one way things can happen to begin with given their history.

@Feefa99 3 ай бұрын

You can't predict me, hahaaa!

@harshad761977 3 ай бұрын

I don’t think we can build such a supercomputer which can include all affecting factors since everything inside universe strictly follows laws of physics with fastest possible way. So consider universe itself a giant supercomputer and we can’t match its processing power

@LTVoyager 3 ай бұрын

I think the computing power is the least of the challenges. The harder part is measuring the initial conditions with infinite accuracy. And then there is Heisenberg…

@WindingShadows 3 ай бұрын

Thats not the point. It's that free will doesn't exist in any actual sense. We have about as much free will as a rock.

@NyteRazor 3 ай бұрын

I agree with Sabine as superdetermined. Let's sing it! 🎶Que sera, sera. 🎶

@mawnkey 3 ай бұрын

Her argument consisted of a hand wave and a "just trust me, bro". Rather unconvincing for me.

@Takyodor2 3 ай бұрын

@@mawnkey non-determinism gang, let's go!

@mawnkey 3 ай бұрын

@@Takyodor2 I'm not necessarily saying that either. I remain thoroughly agnostic on the subject. It's entirely possible that the real answer will forever elude us if the evidence exists on whatever layer of reality exists outside our perception of our universe. Godel's Incompleteness is a thing, and this subject starts to bump up against it being the possible answer.

@Takyodor2 3 ай бұрын

@@mawnkey I don't see a reason to be agnostic. If you accept that some things (properties that can be in a superposition) are truly impossible to predict based on earlier state (truly random), there's a whole lot excuses, hand-waving, "trust me bro" etc which are simply not needed. It's absolutely wild to me that some people prefer "every particle's every interaction, over billions of years, have been pre-programmed to _seem_ like there's randomness and cause/effect" over "some things are truly random". As far as I'm aware, the incompleteness theorem is a pure math thing (as opposed to reality)?

@mawnkey 3 ай бұрын

@@Takyodor2 Set theory very much operates within reality. That's how Godel formulated his theorem. Math certainly appears to be at the root of reality itself or at the very least describe it. The only question in this case is if determinism is axiomatic within our universe or if it is in fact possible to describe it with a mathematical proof. This is why her hand wave annoys me. We simply don't have anywhere near the answer yet.

@maha-madpedo-gayphukumber1533 3 ай бұрын

Scientifically Free will and free choice exists. It is vary cause of suffering😮. Scientifically speaking not spiritually and metaphysicaly.

@blijebij 3 ай бұрын

Superdeterminism with integrated degrees of freedom would simplify all at the foundation of reality. Lowest complexity&highest functionality.

@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch 3 ай бұрын

It is pretty obvious there is at least ONE variable we are not accounting for because we have not discovered it yet. That is what is causing the illusion of superposition.

@gonavygonavy1193 3 ай бұрын

Superposition is not an illusion. It is the way things fundamentally are.

@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch 3 ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 Our perception of it is an illusion. I am not denying its reality as a concept. The same way gravity is an illusion. It is really just the curvature of space time, not an attractive force.

@gonavygonavy1193 3 ай бұрын

@@Dr.HowieFeltersnatchOur perception of it is real. It's the only thing about it that can be called real. There's nothing underlying superposition. It's not like touching an elephant blindfolded,which implies the existence of an objective elephant independent of our touch. There is no elephant. What you touch is what it is. .

@gonavygonavy1193 3 ай бұрын

non-local hidden variables violate locality, which is backed by special relativity. What scientific theory backs objective reality? Nothing. Only philosophical ones like marxist materialism

@CaptainPeterRMiller 3 ай бұрын

Very illustrative video and excellent content. Thanks Arvin.

@ministerofjoy 3 ай бұрын

Thank you both, what an starry appearance 🌌👁️🙌✨👏🏽👏🏼👏🏼

@jacksourlis4151 3 ай бұрын

Great talk, and the following may help Sabina without having to spend a lot of money on a new experiment but rather of implementing two other experiments…for a better understanding of physics in general. Something no one else has thought of… I call it the “Sourlis Implementation”… Combining the double-slit experiment with the photoelectric effect: Normally these are considered separate experimental setups, but merging them by using a metal plate instead of a standard detection screen is an innovative approach. The indirect observation of interference: Rather than directly observing the interference pattern on a screen, you are inferring it from the spatial distribution of the emitted photoelectrons/secondary electrons. This adds an extra layer of complexity. The delicate balance between wave and particle behavior: The ability to switch between observing interference (wave-like behavior) and obtaining "which-slit" information (particle-like behavior) by simply adding the detectors is a quintessential demonstration of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. The potential for new insights: This modified setup may provide additional insights into the fundamental principles governing the behavior of quantum particles and the measurement process. Exploring the interplay between interference, detection, and electron emission could lead to a deeper understanding into the: a) Wavefunction, as with no detectors in place behind the slits because of the wavefunction intensity will lead to higher emissions and thus provide insights or interpretation of the wavefunction by this intentional manipulation. b) It will reinforce superdeterminism and bohemian mechanics. c) The multiverse theory will have to be redefined. d) Potential Insights into Quantum Computing and Information: Understanding the relationship between wavefunction manipulation and quantum phenomena could have implications for the development of quantum technologies, such as quantum computing and quantum communication. And more And this is based on if the observed results match the standard quantum mechanical model, the very fact that we can intentionally control the wavefunction intensity to produce the anticipated outcomes could be seen as evidence supporting the principles of superdeterminism. The 3 scenarios of results are 1. Wavefunction Intensity play a role as this would be according to the standard Quantum Mechanical theory. 2. Wavefunction Intensity did not have an effect on results which would indicate something a miss with special relativity and that quantum mechanics would have to be redefined without its constraints place on it by special relativity. 3. No emission from plate with detectors in behind the slits would indicate a misunderstanding by mainstream physics, and if this was the case i would suggest the next step would be to remove the slits with leaving the detectors and the full implementation of the rest of the dual experiments intact, and if further no emissions my theory which I have would be of some use, and which lead me to suggesting this implementation being looked into. (Note the two fundamental concepts that the speed of light being constant and that of entanglement being a byproduct would remain yet the Doppler effect would have to be revised). Overall, the integration of these two foundational quantum experiments has the potential to provide a more comprehensive picture of the wavefunction and its behavior, as well as shed light on the ongoing debate between deterministic and probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the concept of superdeterminism.

@jacksourlis4151 3 ай бұрын

The Sourlis Implementation Of the double-slit and photoelectric effect experiments: Apparatus: 1. Monochromatic light source (e.g., LED or low-power laser) with a photon energy just above the work function of the metal plate 2. Double slit apparatus 3. Metal plate (e.g., thin aluminum or copper foil) chosen to have a work function matched to the photon energy 4. Photoelectron detectors (e.g., microchannel plate detectors) placed behind each slit 5. Voltage source to apply a potential difference across the metal plate 6. Ammeter or picoammeter to measure the photoelectric current 7. Collimating optics (e.g., lenses, apertures) to control the beam shape and angle of incidence 8. Mounting hardware to securely hold the components in place 9. Case 2: Using electrons as the source 10. Apparatus: 11. Electron source (e.g., thermionic electron gun) with an energy just above the work function of the metal plate 12. Double slit apparatus 13. Metal plate (e.g., thin aluminum or copper foil) chosen to have a work function matched to the electron energy 14. Electron detectors (e.g., microchannel plate detectors) placed behind each slit 15. Voltage source to apply a potential difference across the metal plate 16. Ammeter or picoammeter to measure the secondary electron current 17. Collimating and focusing optics (e.g., electrostatic or magnetic lenses) to control the electron beam 18. Vacuum chamber to maintain a high-vacuum environment 19. Mounting hardware to securely hold the components in place The key updates are: * Using a monochromatic light source or a low-energy electron source, just above the work function of the metal plate * Choosing the metal plate material to have a work function matched to the photon/electron energy * This ensures the photoelectric effect or secondary electron emission is induced, but without excessive energy that could complicate the experimental observations.

@jacksourlis4151 3 ай бұрын

Regarding the multiverse or many worlds interpretation…the standard MWI predicts that the wavefunction should maintain its interference pattern and higher overall intensity, even with the presence of the slit detectors, since the wavefunction does not collapse according to this interpretation. However, the experimental findings show a lower wavefunction intensity when the detectors are in place, which appears to contradict the MWI's predictions. Overall, I believe the MWi can be further developed and combined with other quantum interpretations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the combined double slit and photoelectric effect experiment. By exploring the selective amplification or "biasing" of wavefunction branches, as well as the role of decoherence and measurement interactions, the MWI may be able to be reconciled with the experimental observations. But a case could be made for the MWI whereas the other interpretations could not, and, that would be if no difference is made from the wavefunction intensity (meaning no change in emissions)… explained… Experiment result #2… The experiment shows no reduction in wavefunction intensity, even with the presence of detectors. * This would be a surprising result, as it would contradict the established experimental evidence. * If verified, it would lend strong support to the standard MWI and its prediction of the preservation of the full wavefunction and interference pattern. * It could undermine the current understanding of the role of measurement and decoherence in quantum mechanics. * This outcome would likely require a significant rethinking of how we model the interactions between quantum systems, measurement devices, and the environment. • It could lead to a major shift in the theoretical foundations of quantum mechanics, potentially favoring the MWI over other interpretations.

@JustinSolms 3 ай бұрын

Glad to hear that two of my fave physicists are friends. Well I have a good feeling about super-determinism and am excited about developments. I have reason to believe there is no such thing as free will. But I'm open to the unfolding science.