TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Introduction 0:27 - Does Science need Philosophy? 6:00 - "Shut up and calculate" 7:59 - Physics & Fundamentality 11:19 - What is Matter? 20:53 - Limits of perception & unknown unknowns 25:25 - Consciousness renders the mind-body problem intractable 29:40 - The observer-effect 43:35 - Quantum consciousness & computation 51:28 - Conscious AI 56:43 - Unifying quantum theory with general relativity (theory of everything) 1:02:15 - Bell's Theorem & Non-locality 1:11:57 - Tension between special relativity & Bell's theorem 1:24:29 - Oppenheimer, Interstellar, The Prestige - logical coherence in film 1:34:54 - Time Travel & Many-worlds hypothesis 1:36:19 - Free Will Compatibilism & moral responsibility 1:47:27 - Moral absolutism 1:51:35 - The John Bell Institute (GoFundMe) 1:52:41 - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Scott Aaronson in his book “quantum computing since Democritus” answers this in a page or two for all time. He talks about all the areas of quantum mechanics that wouldn’t have even been analyzed at all without philosophers asking questions.
The book by Flann O'Brian that Msudlin mentioned is The Third Policeman and I highly recommend it. The nutcase researcher in the book is named De Selby. He is not a character in the main narrative. Rather, the main character discusses De Selby's craxed ideas. Literarily, this was a genius way to include a character and the high comedy he engenders into a story that otherwise has nothing to do with him.
Thank you!! Tim garbled the author's name so I despite listening to him say it a few times, I just could not make it out and doing a google search did not help. Then I decided to do a search in the comments for "book" - et voilà! Your comment supplied me with not only the author but the name of the book as well! I will definitely be checking it out.
So refreshing to see someone calling out the Idealism BS for what it is. Idealism is charlatanism, and in practice absolutely no one believes in it (as judged by actions/decisions rather than pronouncements). This stuff is hard enough to figure out without introducing total nonsense with no predictive or explanatory capacity whatsoever.
@@KRGruner The current physics is in a such bad condition, that we should explore literally all the possibilities. GR is wrong, QM is incomplete. WF collapse has no theory at all. Even math turn out to have a very shaky basis. Read Penrose and Bertrand Russel. Science in general is not what popularisers told you.
There's an ancient joke - due to Bertrand Russell? - about the relationship between mind and matter: 'What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? No matter.' Let me give Tim the highest praise I can: he speaks and writes (mindfully?) on such matters with Russell's deep clarity. Kudos!
How many times have we seen/ heard that "Einstein was wrong"? Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands? Some sociopsychological historical analysis is needed to describe this chronic stubborn persistence that some people have about Einstein's "wrongness"...
The overwhelming majority of modern philosophers including Maudlin presume that experience is a product of the mammalian brain and thus is exclusive to "conscious minds" and is "subjective" yet never justify it. All idealists and dualists and almost all physicalists who write about the "mystery of consciousness" including the likes of Chalmers and Nagel are entirely uninteresting because they assume from the get-go that mammalian brains create experience and yet can never tell you why.
I adopted a German Sheppard with Psi tattooed on her forehead. I taught her Calculus in 6 weeks and now she's helping me decompose the maths of Quantum Mechanics. Only a dog could love and support a nerd like me. On the serious side I am publishing a new hypothesis on Relativity as an emergent property of field interactions. No Space-Time or Time Dilation and falsifies the Relativity of Simultaneity. It's called ETA Relativity. I'm hoping to publish it on Cornell's ArXiv. I will also be posting a video on UA-cam to guide the layman on the paper's content.
Having watched Sabine Hossenfelder's UA-cam video "Why is quantum mechanics non-local?", I see that the violation of local causality is only shown to be true if measurement independence is assumed to be true. There is no reason that this assumption needs to be true. Even though quantum mechanics itself is non-locally causal, reality is not necessarily non-locally causal. Quantum mechanics is, after all, only a model. What is important here is to understand that "information" is locally known about the reality at another locality. That information is NOT transferred to the distant location. Reality can be understood as locally causal, if measurement independence is violated. In the case of the knowledge of two quantumly entangled particles, we know that measurement independence is violated: if each person making their measurements know that the particles are entangled, they know that when they make a measurement, it affects what THEY know about the measurement at the distant locality. There is nothing spooky here at all.
Violation of measurement independence = predestination If you don't know whether your results might have been rigged in advance, why bother with science?
Fun with matter. What if an electron was just an FTL point that defined "electron space". So when we make a measurement (I know Tim hates that "m" word) it assumes a state that be defined by typical macroscopic testing equipment. Besides, an FTL point would be indistinguishable from a "string".
A layperson telling you why I was confused about what observation meant... It's the terminology. I would have found it more helpful for the process to be better described. It's a measurement process that destroys the superposition of the original object. For instance most videos regarding the dual slit experiment... Remember that people today watch movies that put experiments in them as part of the plot. We know what equipment looks like. So somebody will make a diagram of the dual slit experiment but they won't show an actual photon being used to measure the electrons going through the slit. I think many more people are capable of understanding more details of the experiment. You just have to provide those details in the explanation. Tell people how you measure an electron going through a slit and explain exactly what that means and what it would look like and what things you used to do it. Obviously, just being detected is not measurement because we know where it's hitting on the wall so we're observing that but it's still a wave. We just can't tell what slit The electron went through without interfering with this journey directly. Maybe one day we can find a way around that. The illustrations for the dual slit experiment certainly have their place but some of these videos really should just include literally showing the experiment in real time. Some people are starting to do that. But I haven't seen anybody demonstrate, For instance you might want to eat a marshmallow. But you can't have the marshmallow until you can find out information about the marshmallow. The only way you can get information about the marshmallow is to completely destroy it. You destroy the marshmallow. Now that you've obtained information about the marshmallow it no longer exists in order for you to eat it. This is what seems to be the problem. Lol
@20:20 - 20:35 Dr. Naidu says, "... atmospheric ... " I cannot make out the word. It's not important, because the argument is perfectly understandable. Rarely I think, if ever, have I heard two physicists get into tricky Metaphysics so productively. What an honour and treat to listen to these two actual, real, true, beneficial, top-drawer, top-rank, top-notch, incredibly engaging and rewarding contributors whose influence upon laymen and mathies should be extended far and wide as quickly as possible. So, my inability to identify just one single irrelevant word is mostly a joke. It's just that I'm obsessed with puzzles, especially guessing words. If it's only funding needed to promote these two Earthly Treasures of men, then I commit my first million units right now, publically and sincerely. But, like the Little Drummer Boy, I'm giving all I have to give to commend Tevin Naidu and Tim Maudlin to Stockholm (not Copenhagen... sorry). WELL DONE GENTLEMEN!!
listening to tim, it seems like he acknowledges experientiality as a datum, but doesn't want to give up physics. BK's analytic idealism might be just perfect for him! a conversation between tim and bernardo would be very cool!
So far Maudlin has not been radical enough to give Wolfram's approach a serious thought. Wolfram now openly says he's a platonist, which is some sort of idealism, and multicomputational paradigm raises all sorts of questions related to Plato's cave. Maudlin's idea of 'direction' as the ontic would offer an interesting approach also to reductionism and holism, which are bottom-up and top-down directions, with peer-to-peer directions between them. Either reductionism or holism is silly substance metaphysics, why assume we need to make a choice and can't think of dynamic holography? In my view these questions and the foundational experience of continuous directed movement lead to process philosophical idealism of relational holomovement, as synthesis of Bohm and Rovelli. Then the question gets delegated to math, can we find a foundational theory of math which fits coherently such ontology? Seems I've stumbled on such math theory. :)
How can it be this channel only has 6100 subscribers? Tim Maudlin is certainly one of the few philosophers of our time, and one of the brightest minds ever, but... ...one point he repeatedly makes: Quantum Theory is not a theory but a receipe to predict the results of experiments. Which, if you had the headache to "shut up and calculate" ("normailzation", anyone?) is certainly true. That's why I prefer the term "Quantum Mechanics". But this state of affairs is nothing new. Here's my point: Consider "Newton's theory of gravity". Newton, his contemporaries and for centuries to come, his disciples simply had no theory of gravity. They had a receipe to calculate the force of attraction between to massive bodies. A theory needs to answer the question of why there should be a force acting on bodies with a certain property "mass" instead of, say, temperature.
I'm just glad a bunch of really smart people are looking at all kinds of possibilities. I mean the fundamental issue of whether entangled particles have intristic properties related to the entanglement process or if they really can share a connection that is not susceptible to our current understanding of light speed, That's just awesome. Lol Obviously the possibility that that system can share a relationship across distance has the potential in a Syfy brain to lead to all kinds of possibilities that we are currently faced with as hurdles. Even if they're truly is the case that that is what is happening we still might not be able to utilize it whatsoever but just that possibility... I don't think it's a shortage of ideas but just methodologies to test. Like an additional special dimension that also is subject to light speed could be part of it. Like you could imagine two entangled photons as if you can only look at it from a 2D perspective... You create an entangled pair and you can't see how they're communicating yet it's quite obvious that they're connected in 3D. I don't know if there's another dimension that can do that or you can test it but just these ideas are fascinating and I hope on top of utilizing whatever we can regardless of understanding or not, that we do figure out how it works we can manipulate it potentially. There seem to be other hurdles in the entangled world. Although I think there are some methodologies that might be finding ways to overcome some issues. Such as The issue that we can only measure an electron or photon whatever one time. We can't measure it and then put it back in superposition then test it again. We can't really know that that particular quanta really had another spin possibility. We know that other ones have different spin possibilities because we can see that when we measure different ones But we never really can confirm that a particular electron has any other spin possibility because we only get the measure it one time. It seems quite reasonable to assume that these particles are all within a group that share the ability to be different spins or whatever. That's reasonable. But we can't actually test that to be certain that's true. Like I might be curious out of 100 people if a particular individual named Bob has good breath bad breath or neutral breath. I only get to measure Bob one time ever. Until I do that measurement then Bob could have superposition of breath I measure Bob's breath and it's good. but I can't measure Bob again to find out if Bob is capable of having neutral or bad breath. All I can do is measure other people and I find that sometimes they have good, sometimes bad and sometimes neutral breath. And I can only make the assumption that if these are all falling into a particular thing and that I call a group of humans with mouths then it's likely that if I could measure Bob again that I might find something else. But I can't empirically prove that. Science has a variety of things that fall in this category and that's also really amazing. Like we can't measure the one-way speed of light and that's a known issue of sorts although we have good reason to think from a variety of other methodologies that it really is what it is. I guess it's safe to say I would have fallen in the philosophical department. Lol Somebody find these answers because I want to find out before I exit this planet and not on a spaceship. Lol
We have an idea of local and no local because of our size. But from the universes' viewpoint, everything that is self contained in the universe is local.
I ask myself: Is this local vs nonlocal thing part of the finetuning system of our world, meaning, would the universe be the same if its the one or the other? For finetuning parameters, like speed of light or ratio of the 4 elementary forces it is not. So is it a don't care for the universe? Would surprise me. Entanglement is a must have...I think.
It's just part of the usual "people don't understand" business. That quantum fields are perfectly local is in every introductory textbook on quantum field theory in the first few chapters. That quantum states can be non-separable is usually already explained at the non-relativistic level, but most people can't seem to distinguish between non-locality and non-separability.
In my plasma box I can tell it too do many things with it's own dimensional language but I can't touch it physically so I add a thread of a thought to it and manipulate it with a Veteran traveler of timeless space which I am the only thing it's hearing inside of the container that is closed to the outsider's perspective of the plasicidity of the plasma I add plasma phire to the point where the plasma residue is starting to move away from the surface of the container the center point of charge is isolated and powered internally by inductive sing waves of music of currents changes the structure that holds the shape around it as a introduced pattern of a thought is the pulse of a different view of a glanced impactful lexicographer mapping of the mindsets toward the end points of sensitivity densities change in press release with internal forming what is the intention of observation that the plasma is reaching out to.?
11:22. When you discuss em waves, why don't neuroscientists understand that the brain generates em waves? i.e. alpha and beta. The liver, kidneys etc. do not generate em waves unless they are from the nerve cells in those organs. To an engineer the em waves coming from brain tissue indicate a synchronicity coming from neurons.
Thanks Dr Naidu for sharing. Seems like Tim is so materialistic he has lost touch with what would "matter" to find out if consciousness is fund-a-mental. Is it silly to stop killing each other in wars? Is it silly to stop starvation? Maybe one day he will re-member who he is and then he may see the "matter" as important. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
Does science need philosophy? Continues to watch on very interested….. I started here and thought hard before watching the whole video the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. -- Also we have so many cases where a “Person” will come with a theory (like DrEiny did with GR +more) , evolve into other things greater and more precise. But what’s important is a “person” comes up with these brilliant concepts and all of humanity is impacted. It’s truly great work and we should look at it it a mistake or mis information that was never Intentional !!
Kudos to you for doing this interview, Dr. Naidu ❤ Despite Tim's lucidity and modesty, he doesn't make clear why he takes ontological reductionism as a given. He clearly acknowledges the epistemic irreducibility and domain adequacy of different scientific modes of investigation. But he still thinks that ultimately, reality can in principle be reduced down to something physical, while still being ambivalent about the conceptuality of 'physical' itself. Tim is clear that it makes no sense to talk about genetics or electro-chemical configurations when investigating the moral efficacy of a person's actions. But he's not clear *why* exactly it makes no sense (this is where some sort of pragmatist hand-waving offsets Tim's usual cautiousness) Bohm (one of Bell's biggest influences) was open towards strong emergentism, which he thought was consistent with his own physical theory and metaphysics. Tim thinks Bohm was corrupted by spirituality and politics, but Tim is restricted here by his pragmatist and institutional considerations. I think there was something in Bohm far more valuable than typically acknowledged by philosophers and physicists. Bell was clearly an exception in paying close attention to heretics and atypical geniuses like Bohm.
@@alf9708 Why do you say that? I don't know about Tim Maudlin's interpretation of Bell, but why exactly do you think Bell is himself a wrong turn in physics when his contributions are more evident now than ever.
I found it DrTev !!! How could I have missed this , proves we are just humans 😅, can’t wait to go through this talk. I also didn’t realize how clean your content is and just how many videos you have !!! Time that’s what I need 😅 I just realized I watched this 3mos ago am I getting old 😂😂😂
Around the 1 hr mark Tim speaks of gravity. ”...Maxwell’s Encyclopedia Britannica article on the aether, in which it was regarded as ‘composed of corpuscles, moving in all directions with the velocity of light, never colliding with each other, and possessing some vector quality such as rotation.’” Sir Edmund Whittaker, AETHER & ELECTRICITY Vol II, p 247-248. In this sense aether is NOT IN space, aether IS space. Aether and space are one and the same. Maxwell hints at relativity here. A philosopher (Tim), willing to re-size those relativistic corpuscles, could use the principle of stationary action to link gravity and the electroweak force. Isn't that what you're looking for. Ahh, who doesn't love a good aether theory!
For a guy who acknowledges there are "unknown unknowns" and that consciousness may never be explained, he seems awfully dismissive ("crazy", "silly" etc) of the ideas and theories of other theorists and academics. Why is it that so many of these guys with fancy degrees seem never to have heard of the word "humility"?
Academic sociology is what it is, a deeply colonialistic institution which is highly fragmented, and it forces people who were good freads as students to fight against each other with backstab etc. Academic elpow tactics in cruel competition for Academic career jobs. In comparison, in animistic science of shamanhood and related, humility is among the first and most important lessons.
So true... You should watch the debate against Tim Palmer he did on Theories of Everything.. For me, Tim Palmer came out the victor and Tim Maudlin came out the child.
@@alf9708 Thanks for the tip. I agree with Maudlin on "direction" as the ontic, qualifying that as continuous directed movement. Which in terms of foundations of mathematics means rejection of metaphysical point-reductionim and returning to the empirism of Greek pure geometry.
@@alf9708 PS: it doesn't have to be an either-or game. I'm perfectly okey with giving up both localism and statistical independence. Of course that double negation of consequantalist reductionism (localism) and statistical mechanics pushes towards a good holistic comprehension of quantum contextuality. :)
@@alf9708 OK, I listened the debate more than half way, and it's already clear that Maudlin is badly lost there. Palmer has obviously well grounded sense of a genuine mathematician, and the non-statistical math he's talking about corresponds with Bohmian holism where everything is interconnected in the fashion of dynamical holography. Statistical mechanics is just classical heuristic method of "quantifying ignorance" into actual quantum math, not actual quantum processes as such. Elsewhere Maudlin has said that he's interested in getting rid of numbers in physics, and that's a good project which should be started from getting rid of statistics. "God doesn't throw dice", said Einstein, and I very much agree that the presupposition that Alice and Bob can only flip coins is untenable.
Neither does physics with an observer concern physicists. We can do without that idiotic concept just fine. Only the public seems enamored with it. But then... the public also thinks that Star Trek is a reality tv show... so there's that. ;-)
Tim Maudlin should read some Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Antonio Damasio...we're not totally clueless and forever cut off from understanding anything about consciousness. That's an absurd claim by Maudlin, didn't expect it since he says he is a materialist.
None of those people have offered a way of bridging the epistemic gap between experience and brain states (Graziano's aim is to pretend it doesn't exist). You can be a materialist and still acknowledge the obvious, it is absolutely incoherent to believe that physical descriptions of matter can somehow give knowledge of experiential qualities.
@@Sam-hh3ry It is not absolutely incoherent that scientific-physical descriptions can give us knowledge of subjective experiences. That's a baseless, dogmatic claim. There is and there will continue to be further understanding and progress in the science of consciousness.
@@Zayden.Marxist lmao it is obviously not a baseless or dogmatic claim. It follows from very basic observations about how knowledge works that have been discussed for decades by now (if not much longer). The knowledge argument is more than sufficient for showing why this is the case. The only way out is to deny that there’s something it’s like to have an experience, an extremely radical claim that serves no purpose other than to preserve your preferred metaphysics.
I never understood Maudlin's arbitrary dismissal of psi-epistemic viewpoints. He claims PBR theorem shows in favor of psi-ontic viewpoints but it literally begins with various local assumptions, despite Maudlin himself rejecting locality, so he rejects the premise of the theorem yet says the theorem debunks psi-epistemic viewpoints? Something Maudlin also seems to miss is that any proven psi-epistemic theory would have to be falsifiable, i.e. it would have to contradict with quantum mechanics / QFT, and how this contradiction takes place could open certain loopholes that allow for certain interpretations we think are unlikely today to be possible. It is a bit of a contradiction in terms to think there is a theory more fundamental than quantum mechanics while also using a theorem that relies on the assumption that quantum mechanics is fully correct as its proof. All psi-ontic interpretations have to be arbitrarily fine-tuned to the point that they become equivalent to Last Thursdayism. No one ever observes a particle taking multiple paths. If you do an experiment and the particle is observed at t=0 and t=1, you might claim it is in a "superposition" between these times where it takes all possible paths, but if you measure the particle at t=0.5 you will find it only took one path, if you measure it at t=0.25 you will it only took one path, so on and so forth. All the different interpretation then have to fine-tune a reason to why these others paths aren't visible, Copenhagen "collapse", MWI inaccessible branching, and PWT they become ghost branches that continue evolving independently not much different than MWI. Psi-ontiic interpretations also imply additional information can be stored in a single particle than its enumerable states would suggest. For example, if you used the spin up/down of an electron as the basis for a qubit, classical theory says it should only be able to hold 1 bit of information, if you think there is a psi-ontic wave function then it should be able to hold an infinite amount of information because there are an infinite number of possible states between 0 and 1. If you wanted to store the number 1337, you could do it by placing the qubit into a superposition that has a 13.37% chance of being a 1. Yet, Holeveo's theorem proves there is no possible way to extract more than 1 bit out of a qubit. You can only put in 1 bit, and only get out 1 bit. (Even the so-called "superdense coding" algorithm requires 2 qubits to transfer 2 bits so it does not break Holeveo's theorem.) No one has ever shown it is possible to extract more than 1 bit out of a qubit, which is exactly what we would expect if it could only contain 1 bit of information, despite psi-ontic interpretations implying it can contain an infinite amount of information. So again, you have to somehow explain away where all this information goes. PWT is again fairly similar to MWI, the information is encoded in some branching that is conveniently not possible to actually observe, so it is lost because either the particle only takes one branch in PWT and the others continue evolving independently in an immeasurable way, or the particle "splits" into all the branches in MWI which again continue to evolve independently in an immeasurable way, and so both just happen to take that information away from you precisely so that you are left with only 1 bit like we'd expect in a psi-epistemic interpretation. It just sounds all very convenient to me that quantum mechanics behaves exactly like we would expect if it was just normal probability theory in literally every other field of science which are universally epistemic, yet we're supposed to assume it deviates and the probabilities should be interpreted ontically in quantum mechanics. And then the reasoning for this is always an extreme reach like the bringing up the incredibly weak PBR theorem. It just all comes across as very suspicious to me. A lot of things are just so much easier to explain if we stop trying to fine-tune additional entities which we cannot see. Even the "measurement-free measurements" he mentions, i.e. the "bomb" thought experiment, can be explained in an epistemic model such as Spekkens toy model which does not even introduce nonlocality, meaning it is easier to explain than even Bell inequalities. I feel like there is definitely a bit of a bias against epistemic viewpoints from all physicists and philosophers despite there being no clear reason for this to be so.
From Maudlin framing conciousness as an intractable problem to presenting a completely baffled strawman-version of ontological idealism in merely 30 or so seconds is quite a performance. What is happening with our philosophers today?
Humans came up with Quantum Mechanics where dogs did not because humans have a richer language than dogs do. So we can extend our ancestor's thoughts better. Will AI have a richer language than we have?
That was weird. He firstly says that physics became just engineering nowadays, then uses this engineering approach when calls the attempts of understanding consciousness just idealism, not worthy of being taken seriously. Then he says that consciousness can't be an epiphenomenon in any known physical theory, then says that the consciousness is in the brain, but not in microtubules, but not in the penial gland either. Letting alone that he ignores the entanglement problem in the measurement, the fact that interactions in QM can only happen by entanglement of 2 systems, then adding to the unified system more and more layers, all the way up to the poor Schrodinger's cat that has to be in the superposition of the dead and alive states. The problem is that the WF collapse just never happens inside the QM framework, that's the real problem of measurement = WF collapse. And that's why living beings were introduced in this discussion, that's why many the worlds interpretation appeared, because a cat can't be both dead and alive inside just 1 same universe. Why did he ignore all of that? What a mess. Some self-castrated worldview.
The question is not - are "you" conscious like me. The deeper question he isn't seeing is - conscious of what? I am conscious of the zero point mystery of life beyond rational mind. The unknowable mystery of life. If another person is not fully in knowledge of this mystery, they are just in and identified with the robotic mind. Effectively they are not conscious of the source of consciousness. Thats when the real journey and discovery begin with the "other." And with all our relationships.
As an ex-materialist, I have difficulty not yawning and losing attention when I hear philosophers and scientists trying to maintain some form of materialism. The “who cares what we call it [the ontological primitive]” stance ignores the implications of matter being an artifact of mind.
Probably the combination of personal experiences I’ve had difficulty rationalizing away as anomalous brain states, the lack of plausibility of materialist interpretations of quantum phenomena, and Kastrup’s arguments for the incoherence of materialism. All that said, love your show and have great respect for what you’re doing here!
His skepticism arguments are old, tired and boring. Why is it so hard to postulate that there is another subtle layer of physics beyond the standard model that our instruments and energy levels can’t access yet? And that these subtler levels are where distinct minds reside, making brains more like transducers or receivers more than simple Turing machines? I guess if you spend a lifetime and career denying phenomenological reality, or crusading against the spiritual, you risk locking yourself out of future discovery that just might not align with your presuppositions.
He left out the terms .. love and truth when listing what philosophy IS , that is LITERALLY .. the love of truth. He said - “Understanding has been neglected” … The quality that really distinguishes us from computers and bacteria 🦠 is neglected by physics. The Uni-verse is obviously organismic . It is a vast nested holon which just doesn’t look like an organism. Physics just chooses to ignore the obvious. Plasma grew (call it evolved. If you prefer) into Einstein and Mickey Mouse with little more than clumping and cooling and waiting around (+ inherent geometry, 4 forces, the then undiscovered mathematical “territory” , time, space, entropy entanglement, holographic principle, fractal principle.) It just looks like a ball of plasma. Egg 🥚 .. some waiting around .. chicken 🐓 Seed .. some waiting around .. tree 🌲 Plasma .. some waiting around (via gas, planets, 🌍 seas 🌊 and cells 🦠). Einstein/Dali/Mickey. No one knows how chemistry became conscious biology No one knows what energy is .. but science assumes it is dead, mechanical and devoid of consciousness. Where is the lab with a sample of dead energy . What does that even mean? No one has the first clue how to make consciousness from dead Lego atoms comprising a dead Lego brain. (That’s the way Science sees the atomic world when they choose not to let it wave ) No one knows what life IS but college graduates when polled thought .. in the majority.. that cellular life and even a frog had been made from chemicals in a lab 🧪 The “theory of everything” has WAY to go if scientists have agreed between themselves to leave out all the hard stuff
Because there is no such layer. There are only lots and lots of people who weren't paying attention in high school science class when the relevant concepts of e.g. physical systems and energy were discussed.
@@schmetterling4477 What is the energy of life. What is the energy of consciousness/awareness. What is the energy of subjectivity. I wasn’t in class for the lecture’s which breath “fire into the equations” (Hawking) No physicist knows how to make conscious biology from chemistry.. What’s the missing sauce? Where is the seamless stage by level growth/evolutionary recipe for … big bang plasma to Einstein. That energy level evolution/path doesn’t exist in the library of science. Physics actually seems to believe it will make life and consciousness from Lego particles one day. Who knows .. but there is nothing on the horizon .However people like prof Brian Cox talk as if physicists have EVERYTHING figured out bar the details The details are .. conscious aware biology and subjectivity. All the woo woo. Great as the achievements of scitech are .. no physicist has the first clue about the hard stuff. Hawking knew practically nothing about philosophy/mysticism/the subjective Universe.
@@causalityismygod2983 Of physics? Typically around eight years of 24/7 studying and then you know enough to put it to use. And after you have been thinking about it for 30-40 years you discover that it all boils down to the stuff that they were trying to teach you in high school... only that the math is on a "slightly" higher level, but the actual physics is exactly the same as it was when you got started learning it for the first time. I find that disappointing and uplifting at the same time because I realize that I was "always in the home stretch", even at the height of my confusion. Whatever detail I may never understand, it is still "just" a (non-trivial) combination of the basics. Maybe it is this ability of nature to make a sheer infinite number of phenomena out of very few basic ingredients that always fascinated me about the subject. Learning to break her paintings down into their primary colors, that's the fun part, at least for me.
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
0:27 - Does Science need Philosophy?
6:00 - "Shut up and calculate"
7:59 - Physics & Fundamentality
11:19 - What is Matter?
20:53 - Limits of perception & unknown unknowns
25:25 - Consciousness renders the mind-body problem intractable
29:40 - The observer-effect
43:35 - Quantum consciousness & computation
51:28 - Conscious AI
56:43 - Unifying quantum theory with general relativity (theory of everything)
1:02:15 - Bell's Theorem & Non-locality
1:11:57 - Tension between special relativity & Bell's theorem
1:24:29 - Oppenheimer, Interstellar, The Prestige - logical coherence in film
1:34:54 - Time Travel & Many-worlds hypothesis
1:36:19 - Free Will Compatibilism & moral responsibility
1:47:27 - Moral absolutism
1:51:35 - The John Bell Institute (GoFundMe)
1:52:41 - Conclusion
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
The best interview with Mr Malden I’ve ever seen. Excellent interview.
Thank you!
Scott Aaronson in his book “quantum computing since Democritus” answers this in a page or two for all time. He talks about all the areas of quantum mechanics that wouldn’t have even been analyzed at all without philosophers asking questions.
Amazing how a person could imagine these concepts at that time.
So Scott Aaronson is an idiot. Got it. ;-)
The section on free will and its link to determinism was excellent. Everyone needs to understand what is meant by free will under these terms.
Glad you enjoyed it🙌🏽
The book by Flann O'Brian that Msudlin mentioned is The Third Policeman and I highly recommend it. The nutcase researcher in the book is named De Selby. He is not a character in the main narrative. Rather, the main character discusses De Selby's craxed ideas. Literarily, this was a genius way to include a character and the high comedy he engenders into a story that otherwise has nothing to do with him.
Thank you!! Tim garbled the author's name so I despite listening to him say it a few times, I just could not make it out and doing a google search did not help. Then I decided to do a search in the comments for "book" - et voilà! Your comment supplied me with not only the author but the name of the book as well! I will definitely be checking it out.
So refreshing to see someone calling out the Idealism BS for what it is. Idealism is charlatanism, and in practice absolutely no one believes in it (as judged by actions/decisions rather than pronouncements). This stuff is hard enough to figure out without introducing total nonsense with no predictive or explanatory capacity whatsoever.
Why are you so angry?
@@syzygyman7367 Say what? I was complimentary of Mauldin, not angry! Are you daft?
@@KRGruner I meant why are you so angry about idealism. So - why?
@@syzygyman7367 Not angry, just pointing out it is sheer stupidity that explains absolutely nothing.
@@KRGruner The current physics is in a such bad condition, that we should explore literally all the possibilities. GR is wrong, QM is incomplete. WF collapse has no theory at all. Even math turn out to have a very shaky basis. Read Penrose and Bertrand Russel. Science in general is not what popularisers told you.
There's an ancient joke - due to Bertrand Russell? - about the relationship between mind and matter:
'What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? No matter.' Let me give Tim the highest praise I can: he speaks and writes (mindfully?) on such matters with Russell's deep clarity. Kudos!
How many times have we seen/ heard that "Einstein was wrong"?
Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands?
Some sociopsychological historical analysis is needed to describe this chronic stubborn persistence that some people have about Einstein's "wrongness"...
😂
But Einstein indeed turned out to be wrong. GR is wrong, QM is incomplete, that's the state of current physics.
I really think Dr. Maudlin would love reading Alva Noe's work on perceptual consciousness (particularly, his book "Out of Our Heads").
The overwhelming majority of modern philosophers including Maudlin presume that experience is a product of the mammalian brain and thus is exclusive to "conscious minds" and is "subjective" yet never justify it. All idealists and dualists and almost all physicalists who write about the "mystery of consciousness" including the likes of Chalmers and Nagel are entirely uninteresting because they assume from the get-go that mammalian brains create experience and yet can never tell you why.
I adopted a German Sheppard with Psi tattooed on her forehead. I taught her Calculus in 6 weeks and now she's helping me decompose the maths of Quantum Mechanics. Only a dog could love and support a nerd like me. On the serious side I am publishing a new hypothesis on Relativity as an emergent property of field interactions. No Space-Time or Time Dilation and falsifies the Relativity of Simultaneity. It's called ETA Relativity. I'm hoping to publish it on Cornell's ArXiv. I will also be posting a video on UA-cam to guide the layman on the paper's content.
The phenomenology course in college was one of best ones taken
Having watched Sabine Hossenfelder's UA-cam video "Why is quantum mechanics non-local?", I see that the violation of local causality is only shown to be true if measurement independence is assumed to be true. There is no reason that this assumption needs to be true. Even though quantum mechanics itself is non-locally causal, reality is not necessarily non-locally causal. Quantum mechanics is, after all, only a model. What is important here is to understand that "information" is locally known about the reality at another locality. That information is NOT transferred to the distant location. Reality can be understood as locally causal, if measurement independence is violated. In the case of the knowledge of two quantumly entangled particles, we know that measurement independence is violated: if each person making their measurements know that the particles are entangled, they know that when they make a measurement, it affects what THEY know about the measurement at the distant locality. There is nothing spooky here at all.
Violation of measurement independence = predestination
If you don't know whether your results might have been rigged in advance, why bother with science?
It amazed me how the deeper physicists got into any subject, philosophy was inevitably needed. That always has stayed with me.
What happens in one lab does *not have a physical affect on another nonlocal lab.
Love your podcasts and listening to this guest.
I would be really interested to listen to his views on Bernardo Kastrup
Thanks so much! Next time I chat to Tim, I'll ask him about Bernardo's Analytic Idealism.👍🏽
He doesn't think too highly of him.
every video I see of Maudlin he looks like a different person, only his voice remains the same
❤❤❤❤ guy's generous with his time that is hard to do
You don't have to give up on locality.
Why all the physicists of the 20th century were he'll bent to join gravity
With 3 other force,if it is not force?
The trouble with physics is it's in need of an audit.
... everything is in need of an auditience. Can (i) get a witness-? ... ...
Philosophy and free will, solids within conscious mind.
Fun with matter. What if an electron was just an FTL point that defined "electron space". So when we make a measurement (I know Tim hates that "m" word) it assumes a state that be defined by typical macroscopic testing equipment. Besides, an FTL point would be indistinguishable from a "string".
All particles are simply a quantum of space that only has measurable characteristics when observed at smeared-out macroscopic speeds.
Ya got yer instantaneous and probabilistic all in one convenient package that can be infinitesimally small. A singularity.
When time collapses everything is local.
1:13:13 Einstein and Bell
Isn't Zeno effect the same as the collapse of the wave functio?..Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA
A layperson telling you why I was confused about what observation meant...
It's the terminology. I would have found it more helpful for the process to be better described. It's a measurement process that destroys the superposition of the original object. For instance most videos regarding the dual slit experiment... Remember that people today watch movies that put experiments in them as part of the plot. We know what equipment looks like.
So somebody will make a diagram of the dual slit experiment but they won't show an actual photon being used to measure the electrons going through the slit.
I think many more people are capable of understanding more details of the experiment. You just have to provide those details in the explanation. Tell people how you measure an electron going through a slit and explain exactly what that means and what it would look like and what things you used to do it.
Obviously, just being detected is not measurement because we know where it's hitting on the wall so we're observing that but it's still a wave. We just can't tell what slit The electron went through without interfering with this journey directly.
Maybe one day we can find a way around that.
The illustrations for the dual slit experiment certainly have their place but some of these videos really should just include literally showing the experiment in real time. Some people are starting to do that. But I haven't seen anybody demonstrate,
For instance you might want to eat a marshmallow. But you can't have the marshmallow until you can find out information about the marshmallow. The only way you can get information about the marshmallow is to completely destroy it. You destroy the marshmallow. Now that you've obtained information about the marshmallow it no longer exists in order for you to eat it.
This is what seems to be the problem. Lol
Why are you so confused? We told you all that is relevant here already in high school. ;-)
@20:20 - 20:35 Dr. Naidu says, "... atmospheric ... " I cannot make out the word. It's not important, because the argument is perfectly understandable. Rarely I think, if ever, have I heard two physicists get into tricky Metaphysics so productively. What an honour and treat to listen to these two actual, real, true, beneficial, top-drawer, top-rank, top-notch, incredibly engaging and rewarding contributors whose influence upon laymen and mathies should be extended far and wide as quickly as possible. So, my inability to identify just one single irrelevant word is mostly a joke. It's just that I'm obsessed with puzzles, especially guessing words. If it's only funding needed to promote these two Earthly Treasures of men, then I commit my first million units right now, publically and sincerely. But, like the Little Drummer Boy, I'm giving all I have to give to commend Tevin Naidu and Tim Maudlin to Stockholm (not Copenhagen... sorry). WELL DONE GENTLEMEN!!
Thank you so much for these kind words. It really means a lot to me!💙
Atmospheric filter* (optical window)
listening to tim, it seems like he acknowledges experientiality as a datum, but doesn't want to give up physics. BK's analytic idealism might be just perfect for him! a conversation between tim and bernardo would be very cool!
So far Maudlin has not been radical enough to give Wolfram's approach a serious thought. Wolfram now openly says he's a platonist, which is some sort of idealism, and multicomputational paradigm raises all sorts of questions related to Plato's cave.
Maudlin's idea of 'direction' as the ontic would offer an interesting approach also to reductionism and holism, which are bottom-up and top-down directions, with peer-to-peer directions between them. Either reductionism or holism is silly substance metaphysics, why assume we need to make a choice and can't think of dynamic holography?
In my view these questions and the foundational experience of continuous directed movement lead to process philosophical idealism of relational holomovement, as synthesis of Bohm and Rovelli. Then the question gets delegated to math, can we find a foundational theory of math which fits coherently such ontology?
Seems I've stumbled on such math theory. :)
Great suggestion! Thank you
👌🏽🙌🏽
that conversation didn't go well - ua-cam.com/video/rd7a_5M_37I/v-deo.html
How can it be this channel only has 6100 subscribers?
Tim Maudlin is certainly one of the few philosophers of our time, and one of the brightest minds ever, but...
...one point he repeatedly makes: Quantum Theory is not a theory but a receipe to predict the results of experiments.
Which, if you had the headache to "shut up and calculate" ("normailzation", anyone?) is certainly true.
That's why I prefer the term "Quantum Mechanics". But this state of affairs is nothing new. Here's my point:
Consider "Newton's theory of gravity". Newton, his contemporaries and for centuries to come, his disciples simply had no theory of gravity.
They had a receipe to calculate the force of attraction between to massive bodies. A theory needs to answer the question of why there should be a force acting on bodies with a certain property "mass" instead of, say, temperature.
Thanks Thomas. What we lack in quantity of subscribers, we make up for in quality!😆
I'm just glad a bunch of really smart people are looking at all kinds of possibilities.
I mean the fundamental issue of whether entangled particles have intristic properties related to the entanglement process or if they really can share a connection that is not susceptible to our current understanding of light speed, That's just awesome. Lol
Obviously the possibility that that system can share a relationship across distance has the potential in a Syfy brain to lead to all kinds of possibilities that we are currently faced with as hurdles. Even if they're truly is the case that that is what is happening we still might not be able to utilize it whatsoever but just that possibility...
I don't think it's a shortage of ideas but just methodologies to test. Like an additional special dimension that also is subject to light speed could be part of it.
Like you could imagine two entangled photons as if you can only look at it from a 2D perspective... You create an entangled pair and you can't see how they're communicating yet it's quite obvious that they're connected in 3D.
I don't know if there's another dimension that can do that or you can test it but just these ideas are fascinating and I hope on top of utilizing whatever we can regardless of understanding or not, that we do figure out how it works we can manipulate it potentially.
There seem to be other hurdles in the entangled world. Although I think there are some methodologies that might be finding ways to overcome some issues.
Such as The issue that we can only measure an electron or photon whatever one time. We can't measure it and then put it back in superposition then test it again.
We can't really know that that particular quanta really had another spin possibility. We know that other ones have different spin possibilities because we can see that when we measure different ones
But we never really can confirm that a particular electron has any other spin possibility because we only get the measure it one time.
It seems quite reasonable to assume that these particles are all within a group that share the ability to be different spins or whatever. That's reasonable. But we can't actually test that to be certain that's true.
Like I might be curious out of 100 people if a particular individual named Bob has good breath bad breath or neutral breath. I only get to measure Bob one time ever. Until I do that measurement then Bob could have superposition of breath
I measure Bob's breath and it's good. but I can't measure Bob again to find out if Bob is capable of having neutral or bad breath.
All I can do is measure other people and I find that sometimes they have good, sometimes bad and sometimes neutral breath. And I can only make the assumption that if these are all falling into a particular thing and that I call a group of humans with mouths then it's likely that if I could measure Bob again that I might find something else.
But I can't empirically prove that.
Science has a variety of things that fall in this category and that's also really amazing. Like we can't measure the one-way speed of light and that's a known issue of sorts although we have good reason to think from a variety of other methodologies that it really is what it is.
I guess it's safe to say I would have fallen in the philosophical department. Lol
Somebody find these answers because I want to find out before I exit this planet and not on a spaceship. Lol
We have an idea of local and no local because of our size. But from the universes' viewpoint, everything that is self contained in the universe is local.
Yeah, that is not what is at work here. ;-)
I ask myself: Is this local vs nonlocal thing part of the finetuning system of our world, meaning, would the universe be the same if its the one or the other? For finetuning parameters, like speed of light or ratio of the 4 elementary forces it is not. So is it a don't care for the universe? Would surprise me. Entanglement is a must have...I think.
It's just part of the usual "people don't understand" business. That quantum fields are perfectly local is in every introductory textbook on quantum field theory in the first few chapters. That quantum states can be non-separable is usually already explained at the non-relativistic level, but most people can't seem to distinguish between non-locality and non-separability.
Society has objectively made moral progress with respect to what goal?
Higgs boson said to be the interpreter of reality gone silent, why?
In my plasma box I can tell it too do many things with it's own dimensional language but I can't touch it physically so I add a thread of a thought to it and manipulate it with a Veteran traveler of timeless space which I am the only thing it's hearing inside of the container that is closed to the outsider's perspective of the plasicidity of the plasma I add plasma phire to the point where the plasma residue is starting to move away from the surface of the container the center point of charge is isolated and powered internally by inductive sing waves of music of currents changes the structure that holds the shape around it as a introduced pattern of a thought is the pulse of a different view of a glanced impactful lexicographer mapping of the mindsets toward the end points of sensitivity densities change in press release with internal forming what is the intention of observation that the plasma is reaching out to.?
11:22. When you discuss em waves, why don't neuroscientists understand that the brain generates em waves? i.e. alpha and beta. The liver, kidneys etc. do not generate em waves unless they are from the nerve cells in those organs. To an engineer the em waves coming from brain tissue indicate a synchronicity coming from neurons.
Electroencephalography is a topic very misunderstood and misinterpreted
Why desired all thy shared Feet? Without preserve a New Permanent Foundation?
Thanks Dr Naidu for sharing. Seems like Tim is so materialistic he has lost touch with what would "matter" to find out if consciousness is fund-a-mental. Is it silly to stop killing each other in wars? Is it silly to stop starvation? Maybe one day he will re-member who he is and then he may see the "matter" as important. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Does science need philosophy? Continues to watch on very interested…..
I started here and thought hard before watching the whole video
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
--
Also we have so many cases where a “Person” will come with a theory (like DrEiny did with GR +more) , evolve into other things greater and more precise. But what’s important is a “person” comes up with these brilliant concepts and all of humanity is impacted. It’s truly great work and we should look at it it a mistake or mis information that was never Intentional !!
Science doesn't need any philosophy. Science needs kids who are paying attention in science class. ;-)
Kudos to you for doing this interview, Dr. Naidu ❤
Despite Tim's lucidity and modesty, he doesn't make clear why he takes ontological reductionism as a given. He clearly acknowledges the epistemic irreducibility and domain adequacy of different scientific modes of investigation. But he still thinks that ultimately, reality can in principle be reduced down to something physical, while still being ambivalent about the conceptuality of 'physical' itself. Tim is clear that it makes no sense to talk about genetics or electro-chemical configurations when investigating the moral efficacy of a person's actions. But he's not clear *why* exactly it makes no sense (this is where some sort of pragmatist hand-waving offsets Tim's usual cautiousness)
Bohm (one of Bell's biggest influences) was open towards strong emergentism, which he thought was consistent with his own physical theory and metaphysics. Tim thinks Bohm was corrupted by spirituality and politics, but Tim is restricted here by his pragmatist and institutional considerations. I think there was something in Bohm far more valuable than typically acknowledged by philosophers and physicists. Bell was clearly an exception in paying close attention to heretics and atypical geniuses like Bohm.
Thank you for this wonderful comment!🙏🏽
@@drtevinnaidu 🫂
The way Maudlin interprets Bell, and Bell himself, are big wrong turns in physics.
@@alf9708 Why do you say that? I don't know about Tim Maudlin's interpretation of Bell, but why exactly do you think Bell is himself a wrong turn in physics when his contributions are more evident now than ever.
What is tax for WHOM?
I found it DrTev !!! How could I have missed this , proves we are just humans 😅, can’t wait to go through this talk. I also didn’t realize how clean your content is and just how many videos you have !!! Time that’s what I need 😅
I just realized I watched this 3mos ago am I getting old 😂😂😂
😆🙌🏽🙏🏽
Around the 1 hr mark Tim speaks of gravity. ”...Maxwell’s Encyclopedia Britannica article on the aether, in which it was regarded as ‘composed of corpuscles, moving in all directions with the velocity of light, never colliding with each other, and possessing some vector quality such as rotation.’” Sir Edmund Whittaker, AETHER & ELECTRICITY Vol II, p 247-248. In this sense aether is NOT IN space, aether IS space. Aether and space are one and the same.
Maxwell hints at relativity here. A philosopher (Tim), willing to re-size those relativistic corpuscles, could use the principle of stationary action to link gravity and the electroweak force. Isn't that what you're looking for. Ahh, who doesn't love a good aether theory!
👌🏽😂
Dude you gotta get ogi Ogas on...
I do have him on. Check the previous episode!🙌🏽
Just heard them mention the Steve Steven neuromathamaticion fella working with ogi.
This guy's Dunning-Kruger has stellar mass compared to everyone else's particle mass.
For a guy who acknowledges there are "unknown unknowns" and that consciousness may never be explained, he seems awfully dismissive ("crazy", "silly" etc) of the ideas and theories of other theorists and academics. Why is it that so many of these guys with fancy degrees seem never to have heard of the word "humility"?
Academic sociology is what it is, a deeply colonialistic institution which is highly fragmented, and it forces people who were good freads as students to fight against each other with backstab etc. Academic elpow tactics in cruel competition for Academic career jobs.
In comparison, in animistic science of shamanhood and related, humility is among the first and most important lessons.
So true... You should watch the debate against Tim Palmer he did on Theories of Everything.. For me, Tim Palmer came out the victor and Tim Maudlin came out the child.
@@alf9708 Thanks for the tip. I agree with Maudlin on "direction" as the ontic, qualifying that as continuous directed movement. Which in terms of foundations of mathematics means rejection of metaphysical point-reductionim and returning to the empirism of Greek pure geometry.
@@alf9708 PS: it doesn't have to be an either-or game. I'm perfectly okey with giving up both localism and statistical independence.
Of course that double negation of consequantalist reductionism (localism) and statistical mechanics pushes towards a good holistic comprehension of quantum contextuality. :)
@@alf9708 OK, I listened the debate more than half way, and it's already clear that Maudlin is badly lost there. Palmer has obviously well grounded sense of a genuine mathematician, and the non-statistical math he's talking about corresponds with Bohmian holism where everything is interconnected in the fashion of dynamical holography.
Statistical mechanics is just classical heuristic method of "quantifying ignorance" into actual quantum math, not actual quantum processes as such.
Elsewhere Maudlin has said that he's interested in getting rid of numbers in physics, and that's a good project which should be started from getting rid of statistics.
"God doesn't throw dice", said Einstein, and I very much agree that the presupposition that Alice and Bob can only flip coins is untenable.
A physics without an observer literally does not concern anyone
Neither does physics with an observer concern physicists. We can do without that idiotic concept just fine. Only the public seems enamored with it. But then... the public also thinks that Star Trek is a reality tv show... so there's that. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477the stupidity in your statement is mind blowing....there won't be any physics without an observer. Dumbass..
Tim Maudlin should read some Michael Graziano, Anil Seth, Antonio Damasio...we're not totally clueless and forever cut off from understanding anything about consciousness. That's an absurd claim by Maudlin, didn't expect it since he says he is a materialist.
Love Graziano, Seth & Damasio. The prior was my first guest on the show and the latter are coming soon!
None of those people have offered a way of bridging the epistemic gap between experience and brain states (Graziano's aim is to pretend it doesn't exist). You can be a materialist and still acknowledge the obvious, it is absolutely incoherent to believe that physical descriptions of matter can somehow give knowledge of experiential qualities.
@@Sam-hh3ry It is not absolutely incoherent that scientific-physical descriptions can give us knowledge of subjective experiences. That's a baseless, dogmatic claim. There is and there will continue to be further understanding and progress in the science of consciousness.
@@Zayden.Marxist lmao it is obviously not a baseless or dogmatic claim. It follows from very basic observations about how knowledge works that have been discussed for decades by now (if not much longer). The knowledge argument is more than sufficient for showing why this is the case. The only way out is to deny that there’s something it’s like to have an experience, an extremely radical claim that serves no purpose other than to preserve your preferred metaphysics.
I never understood Maudlin's arbitrary dismissal of psi-epistemic viewpoints. He claims PBR theorem shows in favor of psi-ontic viewpoints but it literally begins with various local assumptions, despite Maudlin himself rejecting locality, so he rejects the premise of the theorem yet says the theorem debunks psi-epistemic viewpoints? Something Maudlin also seems to miss is that any proven psi-epistemic theory would have to be falsifiable, i.e. it would have to contradict with quantum mechanics / QFT, and how this contradiction takes place could open certain loopholes that allow for certain interpretations we think are unlikely today to be possible. It is a bit of a contradiction in terms to think there is a theory more fundamental than quantum mechanics while also using a theorem that relies on the assumption that quantum mechanics is fully correct as its proof.
All psi-ontic interpretations have to be arbitrarily fine-tuned to the point that they become equivalent to Last Thursdayism. No one ever observes a particle taking multiple paths. If you do an experiment and the particle is observed at t=0 and t=1, you might claim it is in a "superposition" between these times where it takes all possible paths, but if you measure the particle at t=0.5 you will find it only took one path, if you measure it at t=0.25 you will it only took one path, so on and so forth. All the different interpretation then have to fine-tune a reason to why these others paths aren't visible, Copenhagen "collapse", MWI inaccessible branching, and PWT they become ghost branches that continue evolving independently not much different than MWI.
Psi-ontiic interpretations also imply additional information can be stored in a single particle than its enumerable states would suggest. For example, if you used the spin up/down of an electron as the basis for a qubit, classical theory says it should only be able to hold 1 bit of information, if you think there is a psi-ontic wave function then it should be able to hold an infinite amount of information because there are an infinite number of possible states between 0 and 1. If you wanted to store the number 1337, you could do it by placing the qubit into a superposition that has a 13.37% chance of being a 1.
Yet, Holeveo's theorem proves there is no possible way to extract more than 1 bit out of a qubit. You can only put in 1 bit, and only get out 1 bit. (Even the so-called "superdense coding" algorithm requires 2 qubits to transfer 2 bits so it does not break Holeveo's theorem.) No one has ever shown it is possible to extract more than 1 bit out of a qubit, which is exactly what we would expect if it could only contain 1 bit of information, despite psi-ontic interpretations implying it can contain an infinite amount of information. So again, you have to somehow explain away where all this information goes. PWT is again fairly similar to MWI, the information is encoded in some branching that is conveniently not possible to actually observe, so it is lost because either the particle only takes one branch in PWT and the others continue evolving independently in an immeasurable way, or the particle "splits" into all the branches in MWI which again continue to evolve independently in an immeasurable way, and so both just happen to take that information away from you precisely so that you are left with only 1 bit like we'd expect in a psi-epistemic interpretation.
It just sounds all very convenient to me that quantum mechanics behaves exactly like we would expect if it was just normal probability theory in literally every other field of science which are universally epistemic, yet we're supposed to assume it deviates and the probabilities should be interpreted ontically in quantum mechanics. And then the reasoning for this is always an extreme reach like the bringing up the incredibly weak PBR theorem. It just all comes across as very suspicious to me.
A lot of things are just so much easier to explain if we stop trying to fine-tune additional entities which we cannot see. Even the "measurement-free measurements" he mentions, i.e. the "bomb" thought experiment, can be explained in an epistemic model such as Spekkens toy model which does not even introduce nonlocality, meaning it is easier to explain than even Bell inequalities. I feel like there is definitely a bit of a bias against epistemic viewpoints from all physicists and philosophers despite there being no clear reason for this to be so.
Remember all thy shared "i" AM came with sincere conversations given just for thee in front!,
From Maudlin framing conciousness as an intractable problem to presenting a completely baffled strawman-version of ontological idealism in merely 30 or so seconds is quite a performance. What is happening with our philosophers today?
Thomas Nagel shared that sentiment about consciousness rendering the mind-body problem intractable. I empathize with that view💭
@@drtevinnaidu I share that view - that's why I have become a pretty hard-headed idealist.
Maudlin is awful.
The whole universe is conscious
Humans came up with Quantum Mechanics where dogs did not because humans have a richer language than dogs do. So we can extend our ancestor's thoughts better. Will AI have a richer language than we have?
Is language the right medium to understand the universe.
of course lobsters and octopus are conscious
That was weird. He firstly says that physics became just engineering nowadays, then uses this engineering approach when calls the attempts of understanding consciousness just idealism, not worthy of being taken seriously. Then he says that consciousness can't be an epiphenomenon in any known physical theory, then says that the consciousness is in the brain, but not in microtubules, but not in the penial gland either. Letting alone that he ignores the entanglement problem in the measurement, the fact that interactions in QM can only happen by entanglement of 2 systems, then adding to the unified system more and more layers, all the way up to the poor Schrodinger's cat that has to be in the superposition of the dead and alive states. The problem is that the WF collapse just never happens inside the QM framework, that's the real problem of measurement = WF collapse. And that's why living beings were introduced in this discussion, that's why many the worlds interpretation appeared, because a cat can't be both dead and alive inside just 1 same universe. Why did he ignore all of that? What a mess. Some self-castrated worldview.
Honesty.
The question is not - are "you" conscious like me. The deeper question he isn't seeing is - conscious of what? I am conscious of the zero point mystery of life beyond rational mind. The unknowable mystery of life. If another person is not fully in knowledge of this mystery, they are just in and identified with the robotic mind. Effectively they are not conscious of the source of consciousness. Thats when the real journey and discovery begin with the "other." And with all our relationships.
I don't see why they see consciousness like this almost divine, mysterious force. It's not that impressive.
Hearing shut up and calculate
Sounds like the lowest common denominator
Yes, that's for people who weren't paying attention in science class. The rest of us understand this stuff just fine. ;-)
I can only see a non local universe as deterministic... But i obv have a free will, so bells theorem must be wrong.
😮
As an ex-materialist, I have difficulty not yawning and losing attention when I hear philosophers and scientists trying to maintain some form of materialism. The “who cares what we call it [the ontological primitive]” stance ignores the implications of matter being an artifact of mind.
I'm curious to know what finally changed your mind about Materialism? :)
Probably the combination of personal experiences I’ve had difficulty rationalizing away as anomalous brain states, the lack of plausibility of materialist interpretations of quantum phenomena, and Kastrup’s arguments for the incoherence of materialism.
All that said, love your show and have great respect for what you’re doing here!
@CJ-cd5cd thank you so much!! I appreciate your support
This seems to be BK's comment..🤔🤔🤔
Just some remark: the hums come over a bit loud.
Is like....tax collector come down from my TREE!
Lunatic if luckily can live that long!
Lunatics upon all dry grounds come here in front!
Science comes out of philosophy
Get this smart guy with Bernardo Kastrup (another smart guy). Guaranteed brilliance
I'll see what I can do😁
Agreed. Would be interesting to see two different perspectives in dialogue from two people who have put a lot of thought into foundations of physics.
Welp bad news lol
They already had a bad experience together on Jaimungal’s channel. Doubt it will happen. BK was a baby…
Why ye climb up my TREE? Who ye looking for?
Thy LORD left HIS PRESENCE!
😂😂😂😂
@@christopherhamilton3621 what is Lord nor HIS PRESENCE? KEEP WATCH!
His skepticism arguments are old, tired and boring. Why is it so hard to postulate that there is another subtle layer of physics beyond the standard model that our instruments and energy levels can’t access yet? And that these subtler levels are where distinct minds reside, making brains more like transducers or receivers more than simple Turing machines? I guess if you spend a lifetime and career denying phenomenological reality, or crusading against the spiritual, you risk locking yourself out of future discovery that just might not align with your presuppositions.
He left out the terms .. love and truth when listing what philosophy IS , that is LITERALLY .. the love of truth.
He said -
“Understanding has been neglected” … The quality that really distinguishes us from computers and bacteria 🦠 is neglected by physics.
The Uni-verse is obviously organismic . It is a vast nested holon which just doesn’t look like an organism. Physics just chooses to ignore the obvious.
Plasma grew (call it evolved. If you prefer) into Einstein and Mickey Mouse with little more than clumping and cooling and waiting around (+ inherent geometry, 4 forces, the then undiscovered mathematical “territory” , time, space, entropy entanglement, holographic principle, fractal principle.) It just looks like a ball of plasma.
Egg 🥚 .. some waiting around .. chicken 🐓
Seed .. some waiting around .. tree 🌲
Plasma .. some waiting around (via gas, planets, 🌍 seas 🌊 and cells 🦠). Einstein/Dali/Mickey.
No one knows how chemistry became conscious biology
No one knows what energy is .. but science assumes it is dead, mechanical and devoid of consciousness. Where is the lab with a sample of dead energy . What does that even mean?
No one has the first clue how to make consciousness from dead Lego atoms comprising a dead Lego brain. (That’s the way Science sees the atomic world when they choose not to let it wave )
No one knows what life IS but college graduates when polled thought .. in the majority.. that cellular life and even a frog had been made from chemicals in a lab 🧪
The “theory of everything” has WAY to go if scientists have agreed between themselves to leave out all the hard stuff
Because there is no such layer. There are only lots and lots of people who weren't paying attention in high school science class when the relevant concepts of e.g. physical systems and energy were discussed.
@@schmetterling4477 What is the energy of life. What is the energy of consciousness/awareness. What is the energy of subjectivity. I wasn’t in
class for the lecture’s which breath “fire into the equations” (Hawking)
No physicist knows how to make conscious biology from chemistry.. What’s the missing sauce?
Where is the seamless stage by level growth/evolutionary recipe for … big bang plasma to Einstein.
That energy level evolution/path doesn’t exist in the library of science.
Physics actually seems to believe it will make life and consciousness from Lego particles one day. Who knows .. but there is nothing on the horizon .However people like prof Brian Cox talk as if physicists have EVERYTHING figured out bar the details
The details are .. conscious aware biology and subjectivity. All the woo woo. Great as the achievements of scitech are .. no physicist has the first clue about the hard stuff.
Hawking knew practically nothing about philosophy/mysticism/the subjective Universe.
@@schmetterling4477what is actually the first person perspective?...
@@causalityismygod2983 Of physics? Typically around eight years of 24/7 studying and then you know enough to put it to use. And after you have been thinking about it for 30-40 years you discover that it all boils down to the stuff that they were trying to teach you in high school... only that the math is on a "slightly" higher level, but the actual physics is exactly the same as it was when you got started learning it for the first time. I find that disappointing and uplifting at the same time because I realize that I was "always in the home stretch", even at the height of my confusion. Whatever detail I may never understand, it is still "just" a (non-trivial) combination of the basics. Maybe it is this ability of nature to make a sheer infinite number of phenomena out of very few basic ingredients that always fascinated me about the subject. Learning to break her paintings down into their primary colors, that's the fun part, at least for me.
Feet resting upon the NEW Permanent Foundation will say where else all thy Names exist in front of HIM?
L😂L
Einstein......not einshhhtien.....😅
😂 He’s saying it correctly.
Materialist. Some physical stuff just exists and always has. Ok… no. Simulation, wake up.
Physics hasn't been materialist since the 1920s. You were clearly sleeping for a hundred years, Sleeping Beauty. ;-)
A simulation is just physical stuff.