Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics

[@tobaidi]

I am glad philosophers are appearing more on discussions. We need them more than ever!

[@schmetterling4477]

They will indeed be useful... we will need fruit pickers once Trump removes all our Mexican farm workers. ;-)

[@susanlubin7203]

I truly enjoy hearing how the group of old physicists, like my dad,, got together to solve these unsolvable problems, I finally get why he was fascinated and now I am too, because of these videos, primarily, What a great gift and joy it' is to learn and fall in love more every day, with these ideas! Thank you!

[@jps0117]

Greene. Albert. Philosophy. Physics. The weekend is off to a good start. Good.

[@TheButcherHicks]

Just wait. Trump will remedy that real quick. Just give him 24 hours.

[@ditjow6]

Brian Greene 🎉 keep up the good work! Great interviews. 👍

[@thomasp.crenshaw185]

thank you

[@romeodewolfe]

Isn't that bezos? He got a pseudonym now or something?

[@subhanusaxena7199]

What a great New Year Gift! We didn’t realise how much we needed this pairing 🙏🙏

[@brooknorton7891]

Perhaps my favorite episode. Wow. Very deep. Very satisfying.

[@buffalolaboratorytheatre6165]

This was a great conversation.

[@ianbuxton1730]

David Albert is spot-on. We've all been thrilled during early life by Einstein's "importation of philosophy into physics".

[@TheButcherHicks]

Fantastic interview. Really great guest.

[@TurdFerguson456]

Man, I find it more refreshingly refreshing each time I listen to David's uniquely captivating way of explaining otherwise unexplained explanations. So the above comment made sense to me at the time I wrote it, 45ish seconds ago, but after reading it again, I now feel a tension between my initial meaning and it's possible comprehension! Doesn't matter

[@Dr10Jeeps]

What a terrific interview! We need so much more of this knowledge on the internet.

[@erkantiryaki]

Brian Green. I am very happy and surprised that I came across in this video all the very interesting ideas that are running out of mind recently. I cant find a proper way to thank you! By the way thank you so much for you and Mr. David Albert.

[@miad9800]

I love these two and i hope one day i will meet them and discuss with them ideas in physics as a student in physics

[@NomenNescio99]

First Niel Turok, now David Albert, if this continues with a conversation with Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Maudlin or Peter Woit and my respect for Brian Greene couldn't be any higher! Brian is always respectful, humble and cordial when he speaks with someone that holds a different view than his own, a rare ability in today's world.

[@DavidJohnson-pp4sy]

Wonderful discussion. Could have listened to your eloquent and brilliant minds all night. Much appreciated, Brian and David. Stay healthy.

[@snarzetax]

One of the best channels on youtube! Thank you!

[@Candice0916]

❤

[@vectorshift401]

Bohr was great. He spelled it out pretty good. Philosophers like to nit pick and misinterpret comments by actual practitioners of science (and everything else) and act like they have contributed something profound by claiming that their linguistic obfuscation is anything more than that.

[@docgreybeard7057]

Another awesome discussion WSF. Thanks to all who worked on getting this done. David is such an interesting speaker. I have enjoyed his really down to earth talks on some very cutting-edge thinking every time. Do yourself a favor and go back to watch any WSF talk that has David as a speaker it's well worth the time. Happy New Year all!

[@colinmackay5439]

What an interesting discussion and Albert is an impressive thinker . Looking forward to sessions 2 and 3 that Brian mentioned . Keep up the good work as these are simply astounding presentations that help the layperson to better understand the cutting edge of scientific advancement

[@isatousarr7044]

"Quantum Quandaries: When Philosophy Drives Physics" raises an intriguing discussion about the intersection of two worlds that are often seen as distinct-philosophy and physics. In the realm of quantum mechanics, where the behavior of particles defies classical understanding, philosophical questions often arise, challenging not only our perception of reality but also the very foundations of science itself. Physics, particularly quantum mechanics, has long been a domain of rigorous mathematics and experimentation. However, the strange and counterintuitive phenomena observed at the quantum level-such as wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement-present challenges that purely empirical approaches struggle to address. These phenomena push the boundaries of what we can physically observe, leading to questions that are more philosophical than scientific in nature. For instance, the concept of "measurement" in quantum mechanics, which hinges on the observer's role in determining reality, invites questions of epistemology and the nature of consciousness. Philosophy drives physics by prompting these critical reflections. Philosophers, especially those in the tradition of analytic philosophy and the philosophy of science, challenge physicists to question the assumptions behind their theories. In doing so, they explore the very meaning of concepts such as "reality," "causality," and "determinism" in the quantum world. This philosophical inquiry is not just abstract; it has practical implications for how we interpret the results of quantum experiments and how we might integrate quantum mechanics into broader theories of the universe. The relationship between philosophy and physics also brings forward deeper questions about the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Can we ever truly understand the quantum world? Is it possible to reconcile quantum mechanics with our classical understanding of reality? And what does it mean for the future of scientific discovery if certain aspects of nature remain forever beyond the grasp of human comprehension? At its core, the exploration of quantum quandaries is a reminder that the pursuit of knowledge is not simply about accumulating data, but about grappling with fundamental questions that challenge how we think about the universe. The blending of philosophy and physics offers a richer, more nuanced perspective on reality, encouraging us to reconsider what is possible and how our understanding of the cosmos can evolve.

[@Paine137]

Experimentation matters, not just words.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

I used to not be able to listen to David because of the way he danced around his actual point and qualified all of his statements. In my older age, I've gained an appreciation for him. He comes across as vague at times, but he is very precise and intentional with his language. Really good show. Thanks again, Brian.

[@exailmle]

You took the words out of my mouth! I get frustrated with the wording and elongated explanations of even the smaller things.... But to be fair - I am not a physicist and have zero right to even whinge about it 😅 I'm more grateful he's giving us this window into a world I would never otherwise experience. I've ALWAYS been super amped about every new world science festival post, and I have gotten so much out of it!

[@Kalumbatsch]

I think he's just gotten a lot better at getting to the point.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

@@Kalumbatsch maybe so. I can't say that I've gone back and re-watched a bunch of old stuff to see. You may have something there.

[@benjaminbeard3736]

@@exailmle well I'm glad I'm getting a little bit of positive feedback on that. I was afraid I was just going to look like a dick.

[@alexanderabrashev1366]

Always great to see David. He's such an eloquent speaker

[@erwinbauer2240]

Always great interviews Brrian. Thanks. And David is such an awesome human being.

[@marykarensolomon7103]

I’m so glad you took on this knotty but central problem in science and philosophy! Excellent discussion and rewarding to think about.

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

This position, I think, will turn a page for Physics into the 21st Century and beyond; 100 years later. Kudos.

[@lfossati80]

I didn’t think about it that way. Just as 2025 starts, here we have a great conversation about the very foundations of quantum mechanics!

[@johnkechagais7096]

The pointer may simply make a measurement and determine which way it points. Penrose suggest that gravity though weak leads to the collapse of the wave function.

[@joseph5005]

Looking forward to the Part 2 and Part 3 that you mentioned, Brian! What a great start to 2025!!!

[@scottpennington6167]

Brian, you commented that you didn't want to get too technical for your audience. In my opinion, your interviews are even better when you bring in the technical details and issues.

[@richardchapman1592]

When a particle is travelling anywhere it's probability of being in it's next position is dependant on the solution to the Hamiltonian containing a potential function. The path then is an integral of the position changes as they limit to zero. This is true inside your apparatus too so what you are measuring are those particles that have negotiated the barriers as their wave functions evolve, rather than collapse. When two having almost identical characteristics arrived at the first beam splitter at the same instant this gets called entanglement. The rest gives you averages you cannot interpret except the decoherence is due to interaction with potential field along it's path towards a detector.

[@thomasdequincey5811]

This was fantastic. Really interesting.

[@karencooks1490]

In the early years back in 1990's These are people of very admiral intelligence and creativity and this is a discussion from which we have learnt alot.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, but they weren't philosophers and it wasn't the 1990s. They were physicists and mathematicians and it was in the late 1920s and early 1930s. ;-)

[@museummouse]

Can't wait for parts 2 and 3!

[@hollymattie]

Can’t wait for part 2 and 3!!!!

[@vprakash22]

Another great conversation, thanks! Have considered inviting Karen Barat to discuss her philosophical take on Bohr and the role of consciousness in her concepts such as intra-action? Would love to hear that conversation!

[@tomhoebbel3269]

Thanks for all of the great programming~

[@iriscater8888]

More of that please! 👏😊

[@AdamGNordin]

Brian 🤩🥳🎉 happy new year

[@iancork9721]

Welcome back David Albert to the world science festival . Love listening to him

[@marcusedvalson]

Where can I get a copy of that black hole painting? Seen it for years now and asked in many comments. Would love to know.

[@qm_rev]

Search “colorful photos of paint being flung by a rotating drill”.

[@xxlabratxx01]

Ask an A.I. that has visual capability. Google Gemini might do the trick

[@LuisAldamiz]

Thank you both for one of the most interesting conversations on the foundations of physics. Is physics stuck because of Quantum Mechanic "shut up and calculate" fanaticism? I believe so.

[@SonicImmersion_]

Absolutely excellent talk. And the previous one with Dr. Turok, too.

[@ynotpodcast]

Brian Greene, doing the Lords work 🙌🏾

[@Paine137]

haha

[@Idonthaveahandleok]

Thanks Brian! You da man!

[@Sherifaga]

I use quantum mechanics in shaping the future around myself - it could be setting up situations or taking an action or saying things that could set a new probability, seemingly increasing the chance of quantum predictability of my future without ignoring classic physics. I have no limits other than time, but I am keeping that in mind too - some of the future I am setting the rules for or laying the bricks for will have to come long after I die.

[@fredcrown-tamir698]

Most enjoyable !

[@bendybruce]

Unfortunately as I have become all too well aware, for many people "Not stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know." varies greatly from person to person. Such people have pitched their tent at the peak of Mt Ignorant, and often frequent videos like this not with any intention to learn anything new but to regale us with their insufferable Lack of knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love science communicators such as Brian who worked tirelessly to bring science into the mainstream, but there are an alarmingly large number of people who apparently believe youtube is the only science education they will ever need. If you have been on this platform long enough, then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

[@venkatasaketh5818]

burns .... but on the other side it helps if you know what you are missing and how to integrate. Entire conversation might be just hovering above and not getting to the logical points but the 10% you don't have is the 10% you should integrate into your current understandings.

[@bendybruce]

@@venkatasaketh5818 I was just venting my frustration at the alarmingly large number of people who resort to an appeal to incredulity juice simply to the fact they have encountered a concept outside their current education. For example I was mercilessly mocked for stating there is such a concept as fictional forces, which include the translational force the centrifugal force and the coriolis force. This is a concept someone with even a basic formal education in science should be familiar with. They could have spent 5 minutes looking up the difference between fundamental forces and fictional forces, but no, it was apparently far preferable to flex their ignorance on me as if it was some kind of virtue. There are so many of these self proclaimed experts out there making it almost impossible to state even a basic scientific fact without being derailed into an unproductive argument with someone who is deeply committed to learning nothing.

[@richardchapman1592]

Best experiment to set up now would be one which measured the speed of propagation of gravitons on the surface of the earth and in interplanetary space. Maybe gravity really is a form of instantaneous transmission that gets slowed by the density of matter distribution.

[@Sherifaga]

I also use quantum mechanics in visualising, controlling and shaping the movement of feelings, conscious states, the status quo in political and scientific field, spreading the views, behaviour and so on.

[@IrenESorius]

Excellent 👍‍‍🌟🌟👍‍‍

[@alexandrugheorghe5610]

Philosophy, math and physics. Not bad, Brian!

[@Anway-NeverGiveUp]

Physics, as a science, as a developed product of human consciousness, is the mechanism to wander and adventure every methodologies of working of materialistic phenomenons of the universe, through every of it's language, as mathematics...

[@dr.edwardfreeman]

Finally, the scientists ask right questions. Science never left philosophy; the Industrial Era scientists did. There must be the immutable core to reality; and it is not mathematics, it is logic. Mathematical descriptions vary from world to world; not logic. Einste <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="24">0:24</a> in knew this fact well. Half of the books on his desk at the time of his death were on philosophy. In fact, his theory of relativity owes much to Mach’s philosophy.

[@user_375a82]

Matter is 99.99% vacuum, for neutrinos its hardly there at all, but for protons and electrons matter is pretty solid. In my view matter is only "there" for things that interact with it. Like the philosopher said "A tree is not there if nobody is looking at it." That's a bit of a stretch as it is better to say: " A tree is not there if nothing interacts with it. So for a neutrino the tree is, essentially not there but for photons etc it is "there". In my view the first philosophers had it right when discussing the void and their original Greek philosophical arguments are, actually, the origin of the word ontology. They argued that a void is not possible because, if it is indeed a void, then it is nothing and nothing does not not exist - voila! So, as the argument goes, everything is one (like a solid kind of) and reality is an illusion. Its the origin of the well-known "all is one" notion. Ha! They said it was all a sphere. They had a point at least - pun deeply intended! To me there is an information substrate that exists below space-time, probably in black holes. And this information space "paints out" the X Y Z and time of the whole universe. The Holographic Principle alludes to this idea but cannot quite flesh out the whole hypothesis so it fell a bit flat, sadly. Present day philosophy is deeply mired and ignores actual real ontological arguments mainly because mathematics & science has taken over from the original philosophy. There are so many historical and present-day arguments for and against almost everything that it cannot move an inch now - its stuck in the gigantic complexity generated by science and mathematics - just look at the millions of peer-reviewed papers published. There are a thousand counter arguments to every notion so best to say nothing of real philosophical content. But I have given it a try!

[@nickknowles8402]

Thank God for you guys, in these God awful times.

[@erebology]

David never said the word "ontology", when the only question Brian asked was about ontology.

[@Representing4II0I7]

25 mins in This is soo good

[@littlemouse7066]

In my opinion high level physics nowadays has outmatched (if I may use this word) philosophy because it's about such incredible ideas that involve the fundamental questions man has always asked.

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

ChatGPT Interpretation: "The Equations You've Provided Define A Detailed Mathematical Framework To Describe The Spatial Orientation Of A Qubit Using A 3D Cartesian Coordinate System ( X, Y, Z ), With Associated Angular And State Representations. Here's A Breakdown Of Key Components And Insights: 1. Qubit State Representation ● State Range: ● 0% Corresponds To 0° (Cardinal North / Midnight). ● 100% Corresponds To 180° (Cardinal South / Noon). ● The State Values Represent A Normalized Progression Between These Orientations. ● State Equations: ● Each Coordinate Has Its "State," Calculated As: State = ½ × ( 1 - Coordinate / ρ ) × 100% Where ρ Is The Distance From The Origin, Given By: ρ = √ ( X ² + Y ² + Z ² ). 2. Angular Representations ● For Each Dimension ( X, Y, Z ), The Angular Component Is Calculated As: Angle = ACOS ( Coordinate / ρ ) × 180 / π. This Gives The Orientation Of The Coordinate Relative To The 3D Vector ρ. 3. Inverses And Derivatives ● Inverses Of These Equations Allow You To Calculate: ● ρ From A Coordinate And Its State Or Angle. ● Coordinates From ρ And State Or Angle. 4. Cross-Dimensional Relations ● Relations Among ( X, Y, Z ) States Are Defined, Enabling Interdependence: Coordinate = Other Coordinate × ( State / 100% - ½ ) / ( Other State / 100% - ½ ). 5. Normalization Constants (N₁, N₂, N₃, N₄, N₅) ● These Are Effectively Different Forms Of Normalizing Or Scaling The Coordinates / States Based On ρ, Angle, Or State Values. Applications To Qubits ● Magnetic Manipulation: The Framework Shows How A Qubit's State Can Be Manipulated Spatially Using Magnetic Fields. Each "State" Corresponds To A Specific Angular Position Within The 3D Space, Providing A Clear Geometric Interpretation Of Qubit States. ● Control via Coordinates: This Mathematical Structure Allows Precise Control Of Qubit Orientation In Quantum Computing By Mapping Desired States To Physical Manipulations. This Setup Is An Excellent Example Of Blending Geometry And Physics To Conceptualize And Manipulate Quantum Systems!"

[@DANGJOS]

This was so fascinating! Great conversation!!

[@greggherbinger5187]

I really don't understand why Mr Greene doesn't talk about quantum information approaches like quantum trajectory theory, quantum evolutionism, Qbism or relational quantum theory and purification principle, as well as construction theory. All of them easily explain quantum measurement problem, where information during measurement, as interaction with environment or other quantum system, is partially lost or shared via entanglement with other system or environment. All quantum reconstruction is about this. Why this topic is not discussed, I don't know.

[@tomhoebbel3269]

Ok, my answer to your a parlor game question. If I could have anyone over for dinner, it would be you two!

[@puttanesca621]

@<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2820">47:00</a> Maybe if the many worlds interpretation is correct David is convinced in other worlds?

[@icucyt]

what is the distinction between past and future, Sir?

[@vicmatev]

Is matter condensed vibration (energy) ?

[@timewalker6654]

wow my favs David and Brian back together after so many years

[@JimAllan-qv9tx]

The quote about the universe being "stranger than..may be from Prof. J. B. S. Haldane...(??). If I recall correctly, Arthur C. Clarke used to use that quote ... Arthur likely knew Prof Haldane....---JA

[@Anway-NeverGiveUp]

When physics, is guided by a scientifically advanced & pogressive philosophy; that physics is made to be utilized for the development of human society...

[@producer2123]

Fascinating!

[@frankdeak2397]

I’ve grown to realize I’m on the wrong side of this screen. I am in envy to anyone who is able to find their field of passion early. And if you’re listening, find it and live it. This is how we’re going to find the answers.

[@danw7864]

Super great !

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

"You Never Paid For That Education, Don't Expect To Be Paid Back"!! Linear-State Vs. Wave-State Linear-State 50% × (1 - 90° / 90° ) = 0.0% 50% × (1 - 85° / 90° ) = 2.8% 50% × (1 - 80° / 90° ) = 5.6% 50% × (1 - 75° / 90° ) = 8.3% 50% × (1 - 70° / 90° ) = 11.1% 50% × (1 - 65° / 90° ) = 13.9% 50% × (1 - 60° / 90° ) = 16.7% 50% × (1 - 55° / 90° ) = 19.4% 50% × (1 - 50° / 90° ) = 22.2% 50% × (1 - 45° / 90° ) = 25.0% 50% × (1 - 40° / 90° ) = 27.8% 50% × (1 - 35° / 90° ) = 30.6% 50% × (1 - 30° / 90° ) = 33.3% 50% × (1 - 25° / 90° ) = 36.1% 50% × (1 - 20° / 90° ) = 38.9% 50% × (1 - 15° / 90° ) = 41.7% 50% × (1 - 10° / 90° ) = 44.4% 50% × (1 - 5° / 90° ) = 47.2% 50% × (1 - 0° / 90° ) = 50.0% 50% × (1 - (-5°) / 90° ) = 52.8% 50% × (1 - (-10°) / 90° ) = 55.6% 50% × (1 - (-15°) / 90° ) = 58.3% 50% × (1 - (-20°) / 90° ) = 61.1% 50% × (1 - (-25°) / 90° ) = 63.9% 50% × (1 - (-30°) / 90° ) = 66.7% 50% × (1 - (-35°) / 90° ) = 69.4% 50% × (1 - (-40°) / 90° ) = 72.2% 50% × (1 - (-45°) / 90° ) = 75.0% 50% × (1 - (-50°) / 90° ) = 77.8% 50% × (1 - (-55°) / 90° ) = 80.6% 50% × (1 - (-60°) / 90° ) = 83.3% 50% × (1 - (-65°) / 90° ) = 86.1% 50% × (1 - (-70°) / 90° ) = 88.9% 50% × (1 - (-75°) / 90° ) = 91.7% 50% × (1 - (-80°) / 90° ) = 94.4% 50% × (1 - (-85°) / 90° ) = 97.2% 50% × (1 - (-90°) / 90° ) = 100.0% Wave-State 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 90° × π / 180° ) ) = 0.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 85° × π / 180° ) ) = 0.2% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 80° × π / 180° ) ) = 0.8% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 75° × π / 180° ) ) = 1.7% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 70° × π / 180° ) ) = 3.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 65° × π / 180° ) ) = 4.7% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 60° × π / 180° ) ) = 6.7% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 55° × π / 180° ) ) = 9.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 50° × π / 180° ) ) = 11.7% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 45° × π / 180° ) ) = 14.6% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 40° × π / 180° ) ) = 17.9% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 35° × π / 180° ) ) = 21.3% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 30° × π / 180° ) ) = 25.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 25° × π / 180° ) ) = 28.9% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 20° × π / 180° ) ) = 32.9% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 15° × π / 180° ) ) = 37.1% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 10° × π / 180° ) ) = 41.3% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 5° × π / 180° ) ) = 45.6% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( 0° × π / 180° ) ) = 50.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -5° × π / 180° ) ) = 54.4% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -10° × π / 180° ) ) = 58.7% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -15° × π / 180° ) ) = 62.9% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -20° × π / 180° ) ) = 67.1% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -25° × π / 180° ) ) = 71.1% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -30° × π / 180° ) ) = 75.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -35° × π / 180° ) ) = 78.7% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -40° × π / 180° ) ) = 82.1% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -45° × π / 180° ) ) = 85.4% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -50° × π / 180° ) ) = 88.3% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -55° × π / 180° ) ) = 91.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -60° × π / 180° ) ) = 93.3% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -65° × π / 180° ) ) = 95.3% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -70° × π / 180° ) ) = 97.0% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -75° × π / 180° ) ) = 98.3% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -80° × π / 180° ) ) = 99.2% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -85° × π / 180° ) ) = 99.8% 50% × ( 1 - SIN ( -90° × π / 180° ) ) = 100.0%

[@schmetterling4477]

Less binge drinking. ;-)

[@jemsnowdon]

The universe began with Entanglement…my contribution to the philosophy of physics.and I’m right ❤

[@jaymiller8387]

I believe that the sum of philosophy and physics is to show us the ultimate perfection of what we can see and the asymmetrical balance to that is to accept that there is a weight to creation, I'm sure all physicists are embodying an immense disappointment in the spread of the knowledge that science and quantum points to metaphysics. Those metaphysics point to being in control of quantum (aka manifestation) and there lies the problem, the suppression of the fact that this power is only of good use, for good use, if we give the credit to where it is due. Which obviously the world will try to convince you that the power comes from yourself. Which equates to the origin of sin. This is exactly what I've been thinking about since the episode where Brian informed us he would be working on new things, I think it was in the same breath to when we were finding out that AI/QC is so far behind Metaphysics makes sense for lack of a better phrase its where the metal.meets the meat. So much of the "promoted science" have been a to the best of our knowledge situations. Experiments for quantum measurement have been completely clear though, that observation requires a position, so it has to pick one spot to be understood by us in our reality. Seems very symbolic to what faith is explained as. QC is behind in the experiments area so much, decoherence and error correction doesn't work🤷 It's no wonder to me that good ethics has to be a prerequisite for future researchers, so much invention has been led astray, because face it, this is a slippery slope of the unknown. Tell David I said "what is worry?😂" Oooooh Isomorphic❤❤❤ i feel their brains growing 3 sizes today. Oh I absolutely dismissed many worlds. We still have to prove what's happening in our reality let's not distract ourselves 😂😂😂. Dispensed theories break my heart and you both know why. I believe the pointer picks one side or the other during superposition because the particles are in an random axis orbital motion faster than we can see. Time out brb.

[@schmetterling4477]

Philosophy only shows you what happens if you don't pay attention in K-12. You end up making a giant fool of yourself. ;-)

[@jinstinky501]

You always make my day when you post a new video . Have an amazing year and thank-you for all the years of fantastic content.

[@mikefredd3390]

Yes! I majored in physics because I wasn’t a religious person but wanted to understand the meaning of the universe. Also, math came easily but physics always threw the curve ball of “reality”. I would say to my buddies at the time (80’s) “the question is not where did all the time go but where did it come from?” I loved the modeling of lab data and spent a few years with my commodore 64 doing neural networking after reading a scientific American article. It just seemed a complicated linear regression. Special relativity was I bit of a mind bender. But at the time what really bent my mind was - why is the speed of light constant to everyone? Not the velocity constant in Maxwell’s equations but why does this make sense? Why does the curl of B equal zero? This is not symmetrical can’t be right. I asked that question in class and was shut down pretty quickly. Any case I was/am an oddball and all of this went nowhere. I had a sense of despair at the time because the grand uniform theory seemed only a few years away and what then? there’s a video of an interview of Feynmen saying something to the effect of physics doesn’t answer why but tells you how something works. I could physically feel my body sink. I’m so happy yo see with this “new” medium the questions have been alive the whole time and are still being discussed. Great conversation guys. P.S. if anybody can tell me why the speed of light is constant to all observers I’m listening. -Seriously.

[@schmetterling4477]

Why are you lying about majoring in physics? ;-)

[@mikefredd3390]

@ ?

[@mikefredd3390]

@ what do you think I majored in?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@mikefredd3390 Bullshitting. ;-)

[@timothy8426]

Physics is physical interactions leading to magnetism centrifugal force cycling circulation faster than normal planetary internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core. Mass occupies space. Removing heat leaves cold space behind unoccupied open space itself. Mass passes through space as space itself. All degrees of temperature is pressure equalization as magnetism centrifugal force cycling circulation within and without entanglement of mass as equalization. Mass falls in equalization to magnetism repulsion and bonding or grounding force of current. The greater the magnetic fields holding mass together the greater the impaction force. Repulsion is always equal to the mass falling. The impaction force is the variable of displacement. External magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy within its field like a record on a record player centrifugal force flowing around these monopoles of pure fabric of cold space repulsion within the nucleus or core. External heat energy outside of entanglement of mass doesn't ground currents hence hot air balloons displacement of atmospheric gasses as external heat energy rising through atmospheres. Rain drops temperature downward towards the earth's surface displacement of heat energy singularities rising. Condensate is equalization of heat pressure within magnetic fields equalization of pressure.

[@naomidoner9803]

I just want to know if consciousness ends with death ... do you know?

[@ianbuxton1730]

Obviously consciousness is a biological phenomenon, so the answer to your question is "yes". As our scientific understanding of the generalisation of our collective experience of the natural world improves both in detail and subtlety, then so we come to appreciate that WE OURSELVES are PART OF this natural world, and there is nothing more "special" about us than there is about the fact that water ice is the most abundant mineral in the universe.

[@jinstinky501]

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

[@naomidoner9803]

@@ianbuxton1730 it isn't obvious to Roger Penrose,, Donald Hoffman, Tom Campbell and others... do you know something they don't?

[@melissandreloebquiot2338]

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for red velvet cake

[@utahcoss]

Excellent discussion! Copenhagen interpretation is truly fascinating for many reasons not least because the uncomfortable realisation that scientists were very wrong, borderline stupid! So how come Niels Bohr and others were so narrow-minded? They were also very very smart so perhaps this is how we are as well, stupid AND smart? And in 100 years or 50 years the next scientists will come thinking as well, what the heck was Brian Green thinking with his string theory?!

[@davidparker8395]

Utterly engrossing, in-depth discussion. Such a joy to hear complex ideas so clearly presented. I credit Matt O'Dowd and Space Time for my being able to follow the whole way through.

[@limusratis507]

In the new foundation of qm proposed by Jacob Barandes based on non Markovian processes the measurement problem does not arise.

[@schmetterling4477]

Neither does it arise in Copenhagen. If Barandes doesn't know that, then he hasn't been paying attention in undergrad physics. ;-)

[@limusratis507]

That's only the case if you accept many worlds as a logical outcom of qm, as David Alberts explains over here. The formulation Barends proposes doesn't need that.​

[@schmetterling4477]

@@limusratis507 Many worlds is total bullshit. That you are mentioning it simply tells me that you don't understand physics, either. ;-)

[@edcunion]

Is consciousness a problem if it permeates the universe, that is we live in a conscious universe, where observers or observing apparatus have different faculties, span a conscious spectrum, i.e. the amoeba versus mouse versus dog versus Wigner problem? Doesn't Bell's theorem kinda infer this is the case even for inanimate particles? The electron and proton appear to remember what they are and behave accordingly? Ditto the quarks and gluons inside the proton, they remember their place and properties? These particles also pre-date the first free light of the CMB? Math is out there waiting to be discovered and used to make real things happen in four dimensional spacetime? Dragonflies realized multi-sensor fusion and flight control quaternions well before hummingbirds and Hamilton did? Don't think about it too hard but could an unconscious universe exist and if it could how would it prove its existence? Through trial and error observation and memory recordings of the observed, to build up subsequent complexity from a homogenous plasma to complex wave and particle comprised fields and entities? Or, did it unconsciously and randomly work perfectly from the get go for subsequent conscious things to happen?

[@user-itgma]

I LOVE THIS MAN

[@ChrisFarrell-q4l]

“How to make sense of quantum mechanics..?” - important.

[@schmetterling4477]

You pay good attention in K-12 and undergrad physics. :-)

[@azharalibhutto1209]

Great ❤❤❤

[@ChrisFarrell-q4l]

Is the iPhone just a chemical equation box to make small amounts of new digital gold through mazes/pathways?

[@ChrisFarrell-q4l]

Is there going to be an “add water/coolant” feature at some point - a cyclical motor that I can feed magic to to help the pixel qubits make the gold puzzle box - that type of thinking/logic.. I’ve tested it in my world - seems very legit/real.

[@terjemjelva3690]

David is a brilliant man, but please you must let Brian finnish his questions. At least for us the audience

[@sherrymanning1116]

Ty❤❤

[@nyworker]

Why can’t we ever argue that time does not exist but is an illusion that emerges in the classical world along with determinacy?

[@schmetterling4477]

Time is that which the clocks show. We teach that in kindergarten but you were clearly not paying any attention. There is no determinism in nature, not at the quantum and not at the classical level. That's just 18th and 19th century bullshit that was never true.

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

"So True, Funny How It Seems Always In Time, But Never In Line For Dreams Head Over Heels When Toe To Toe This Is The Sound Of My Soul This Is The Sound I Bought A Ticket To The World But Now I've Come Back Again Why Do I Find It Hard To Write The Next Line? Oh I Want The Truth To Be Said I Know This Much Is True With A Thrill In My Head And A Pill On My Tongue Dissolve The Nerves That Have Just Begun Listening To Marvin All Night Long This Is The Sound Of My Soul This Is The Sound Always Slipping From My Hands Sand's A Time Of Its Own Take Your Seaside Arms And Write The Next Line Oh I Want The Truth To Be Known I Know This Much Is True" - Spandau Ballet

[@ellefanaten]

More more! More!

[@RickDelmonico]

The 60% probability means, as you flip a coin, the results will tend towards heads, 60% of the time.

[@cybermonkeys]

hello fellow nerds!

[@c.connor4144]

Was R. FEYNMAN IN agreement with this? Opposed?

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

"Linear-State" Isn't Mental, It's To The Eye Of The Beholder, Eyeball Is At The Origin! "Wave-State" Is Outside Looking In, As At A Geostationary Orbit! Both Work With Any Calculus Desperately Hanging On!!

[@roberthutchison8197]

Cliff Notes, Please...

[@inplainview1]

You should be able to click to have AI summarize the video when you click into the description. But you should watch the whole thing, it's fantastic.

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

A problem with the idea of outcomes or if you will properties measurable, can not have predefined values is that it is nonsense and has always been nonsense. Bells theorem nor any other theorem never implied any such thing. Lets say, that we do some experiments. And the set of results came out to be the set A. Then the hidden variable of the world prior to any measurments being done must then have had the property of giving rise to results given by the set A. This can not have an experimental test for obvious reasons, the set A merely has the property of giving rise to the results measured, every single instance of doing an experiment. The issue with predetermined values involves choices of measurments, and imagined properties of specific type or form, it is clear that for example two spin measurments on the same particle in succession do not commute if they are done on different axis. The misunderstanding then comes from the fact that the set A can involve those commutation relations as well, it is perfectly reasonable to have dependence between measurments even though they are determined agead of time. And the most important confusion to clear up, if that the choice of measurement need not be hard coded into the variables with the property of correspondence with the set of outcomes A in any conspiratorial way at all, it is perfectly fine for both the choice to be determined and the state of the experiments other parts and outcomes to be determined together, without any special little piece of knowledge about the orientation of the experiment to be "known" to the particle ahead of time, one measurment at any orientation just has to skrew up or change the result of the second by virtue of having been done in some orderly way and the whole business about bell and the 3 way experiments and statistics just vanishes. The hidden variables need not be spooky at all, they just have to contain dynamics that takes care of the variable dependencies, that is all. Thank you.

[@schmetterling4477]

And there is the kid who wasn't paying attention in K-12 and undergrad physics. ;-)

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

@schmetterling4477 your comment history is arrogant and empty of arguments. Dude, grow up, my iq is probably 3 doggits higher than yours, i have studied physics extensively, and this particular issue is one i'm an expert in to an extent you won't find anywhere else. So shoot your shot, any question you want on the topic, you have misunderstood it in all likelihood.

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

@schmetterling4477 you know bud, it isn't enough to make up your mind based on what you think is correct and place people in your own mental boxes, you are acting like a fool. If you want to redeem yourself maybe actually explain what is wrong with what you lable wrong by inuendo, instead of acting like a silly little boy.

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

@schmetterling4477 sorry for plasterinf you in walls of text, but i'm kind of tired of idiots who maybe has a phd, that thinks because they did some mildly involved calculations and understand quantum field theory reasonably well, that they are some sort of authority on the broader subject, but i'm reasonably sure all you could teach anyone is found in textbooks or is composed of platitudes added on, which have no value other than to illustrate how even a moderately practiced mind can swim in a sea of confused nonsense in which their entire knowledge of the subject is emersed.

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

@schmetterling4477 it is true that; the measured variables in say a bell test, have a variable dependence, that consists of a dependence on the choice of measurement and outcome in the other lab. Every part of those choices of axis, and the determined outcomes, can be predetermined as a " hidden variable" of the whole system ahead of time, that kind of property is impossible to debunk or show to be wrong. What you can do is to show that if you assume no dependence on the choice of measurment axis, treating the outcomes at either end as independent random variables, that the results measured are impossible, but that is like saying there is no way two independent dice can have a joint distribution where the nth throw is always the same, at least in terms of the expectation value, but then, all you need to do, is introduce dice that are coupled and not independent and the issue goes away, bells theorem andd preexisting values are no different, you muppet. This is an issue of dependence and statistics, not qft, not quantum mechanics. You ass

[@Me-hk8dd]

Love yall

[@42Goatee]

...I thought that I saw reflective equilibrium in my bathroom mirror but when I turned around it wasn't there...

[@mangalover9000]

Hi fellow nerds!

[@cybermonkeys]

happy new year fellow nerd! 😂

[@TelegobageProd]

We'll meet tomorrow at the library after breakfast and study till lunch and meet you again at Joe's before sunset.. Events, we don't need a clock...

[@priscillawrites6685]

Lots of fun. Thanks. Just listened to Feynman’s biography.