We have had to revise the laws many times in all sciences. It really just means "according to the patterns seen in every observation thus far, this is not allowed". It real'y just means that it's extremely implausible, not literally absolutely impossoble
Why focus on quantum teleportation and not just nonlocality? Non locality in general is a disaster for science which einstein emphasized. But this has been a problem before (newtons gravity was a nonlocal theory for many years until we figured out the mechanism), we dont currently know if its a problem with qm (there are local interpretations) and could be a problem with other theories in future. Science assumes locality thats the big issue. The other potential problem for reductionism is strong emergence which we also dont know whether it exists or not yet. How does reductionism relate to the video title?
@@neildutoit5177 I almost put "material reduction" in the title. Material reduction is related to the title because it lets you jump from simple rules to proving that something is impossible. Without material reduction you can't generalize from small scale constraints to large scale constraints. I left out Newtonian nonlocality because it's been superceded (falsified) by relativity. As for nonlocality, I'm currently halfway through making a video more focused on that topic. I'm not sure what you mean by "strong emergence".
@@lsusr265 Not qualified to give my own definition but here's wikipedia's "Strong emergence: This type of emergence involves properties that are fundamentally new and cannot be predicted or explained by the behavior of the lower-level components." The emergent properties we usually think of are not apparent from the constituent parts of the system but are nonetheless fully predictable if you know the full state of the component parts of the system. No additional information is needed. A strongly emergent property would require additional information to predict beyond mere knowledge of the constituent parts of the system. I happen to think it exists but I'm noone and my understanding is that most physicists disagree. I look forward to your next video on nonlocality then.
@@neildutoit5177 I see. There are two kinds of emergence: strong and weak. Weak emergence is just what happens when the results of a simple set of rules are too hard to predict. Biology is downstream of physics, but good luck predicting biology from physics. This kind of emergence is not predictive, which makes for bad science, but it's not necessarily wrong. Strong emergence is a contradiction of material reduction. Personally, I dismiss it as pseudoscience. So does the scientific consensus, insofar as there is one. If a counterexample is found then we'd almost have to throw out physics and start over. However, no such counterexample has been found (except quantum teleportation). If you're into emergence, I recommend this blog post: www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence
I love this vid omg finally something I care about 😭 now I’m gonna watch a 45m vid on quantum entanglement
I'm so happy you enjoyed! I hope you enjoy the quantum entanglement video too.
your editting is surprisingly good for such anew channel keep it up !
@@michaelcogan270 Thanks! I'm trying to get better every video.
We have had to revise the laws many times in all sciences. It really just means "according to the patterns seen in every observation thus far, this is not allowed". It real'y just means that it's extremely implausible, not literally absolutely impossoble
@@1495978707 Ah, a wild Bayesian has entered the chat.
The quality of the video and the content is really good for a new channel. I am your subscriber now 😊😊
@@shoaibaalam8978 Thanks! This is encouraging to me.
Bro kept all the voicecracks in the final edit
@@yeetogami2575 Thanks for the feedback. I'm still figuring out how to do audo right.
Why focus on quantum teleportation and not just nonlocality? Non locality in general is a disaster for science which einstein emphasized. But this has been a problem before (newtons gravity was a nonlocal theory for many years until we figured out the mechanism), we dont currently know if its a problem with qm (there are local interpretations) and could be a problem with other theories in future. Science assumes locality thats the big issue.
The other potential problem for reductionism is strong emergence which we also dont know whether it exists or not yet.
How does reductionism relate to the video title?
@@neildutoit5177 I almost put "material reduction" in the title. Material reduction is related to the title because it lets you jump from simple rules to proving that something is impossible. Without material reduction you can't generalize from small scale constraints to large scale constraints.
I left out Newtonian nonlocality because it's been superceded (falsified) by relativity. As for nonlocality, I'm currently halfway through making a video more focused on that topic.
I'm not sure what you mean by "strong emergence".
@@lsusr265 Not qualified to give my own definition but here's wikipedia's "Strong emergence: This type of emergence involves properties that are fundamentally new and cannot be predicted or explained by the behavior of the lower-level components." The emergent properties we usually think of are not apparent from the constituent parts of the system but are nonetheless fully predictable if you know the full state of the component parts of the system. No additional information is needed. A strongly emergent property would require additional information to predict beyond mere knowledge of the constituent parts of the system. I happen to think it exists but I'm noone and my understanding is that most physicists disagree.
I look forward to your next video on nonlocality then.
@@neildutoit5177 I see. There are two kinds of emergence: strong and weak.
Weak emergence is just what happens when the results of a simple set of rules are too hard to predict. Biology is downstream of physics, but good luck predicting biology from physics. This kind of emergence is not predictive, which makes for bad science, but it's not necessarily wrong.
Strong emergence is a contradiction of material reduction. Personally, I dismiss it as pseudoscience. So does the scientific consensus, insofar as there is one. If a counterexample is found then we'd almost have to throw out physics and start over. However, no such counterexample has been found (except quantum teleportation).
If you're into emergence, I recommend this blog post: www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence
@@lsusr265 Haha always happy to read some Yudkowski
bless
Update: the locality video is done
ua-cam.com/video/Nnrs-5g1BRQ/v-deo.html