Quantum Gravity Breaks Causality -- And You Can Compute With It
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 бер 2024
- Check out my course about quantum mechanics on Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ brilliant.org/sabine.
If you flip a light switch, the light will turn on. A cause and its effect. Simple enough… until quantum gravity come into play. Once you add quantum gravity, lights can turn on and make switches flip. And some physicists think that this could help build better computers. Why does quantum physics make causality so strange? And how can we use quantum gravity to build faster computers? Let’s have a look.
The paper on indefinite causal structures is here: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701019
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #physics - Наука та технологія
Anyone else coming from the "my dream died" video? I'm here Sabina, watching "indefinite causal structures".
Yeah, we watched the future video first.
me too... Bing watching her science videos
Yes! She got me curious 😅
Me too
same
"What came first
Chicken or egg?"
Depends on how close the blackholes are.
I guess that both chicken and the egg popped into existence at the same time. Like particle - antiparticle.
The egg needs to be incubated by a chicken anyway.
Sounds like a promising scifi story
The egg. Because dinosaurs (which laid eggs) came before birds
Even if the question is sharpened to "which came first, the chicken or the _chicken_ egg," the answer depends on whether "chicken egg" (EC) is defined as "an egg laid by a chicken" (ELC) or "an egg that will hatch into a chicken (if it hatches)" (EHC).
A chicken preceded the first ELC, and an EHC preceded the first chicken.
@@brothermine2292 Or if eggs are meant in general, those existed long before chicken. Or even a specific egg.
I was thinking about how silly we all are being, but then I thought about how QM keeps throwing these mind benders at us.
I guess Newtonian mechanics also caused problems but now no one bothers with Newtonian inconsistencies as we are taught that from birth.
3:23 -- They actually covered this in episode 2 of season 1 of Star Trek: Voyager, "Parallax." As they flew by a singularity, they picked up a distress call from a ship near the event horizon. The crew later learns that the distress call was actually sent by themselves, and they were viewing a time-delayed mirror of their own ship. The singularity had nudged the effect before the cause, so they picked up their own distress call.
Ha! I remember that!
If math problems can be calculated in different order and have two or more correct answers at the same time, I have some calculus exams I want to retake.
Well, that's quadratic problems 😅
@@maxstirner6143 but all the quadratic equations are following the order of operations.
I think you mean you have some old exams you want re-graded.
"If we draw space on the vertical and time on the horizontal axis..." But you didn't! 😲
I did not notice, but thinking about it, we so often have time horizontally..
ugh, dang, sorry about that!
@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925🛌?
@@SabineHossenfelder No problem, there's another world in which you did get it right... 😄
@SabineHossenfelder have u done the dishes?
Well, this beats science fiction for sure. And it boggled my mind, and two Easter eggs fell from the table at the same time!!
It's finally completed: ua-cam.com/video/33rIY3b5DSQ/v-deo.html
two eggs fell up to the table from the floor 😳
Or … you can have eggs Benedict for breakfast while your guest can have green eggs and ham
@@johnpayne7873 Green eggs and ham... a thing that is desirable or undesirable, until one tries it.
Einstein taught us that both the egg falls to the table, and the table falls to the egg. it's all relative.
now we learn that the egg can both be falling towards the table, and from the table...
"Quantum-typical behavior only shows up if you measure quickly enough" I have never heard that qualifier before and it makes the whole video worthwhile! Thanks once again, Dr. Hossenfelder!
Dr Hossenfelder, you "hearted " me! I am officially chuffed...
Quantum behavior occurs no matter how slowly you measure; you just don't see it unless you measure quickly enough.
@@ericlipps9459 The only thing you _can_ see is quantum behaviour, if quantum physics is truly the law of physics. The aspects of quantum behaviour you report having observed may vary with how long you wait.
Now don't go down the Dark Matter rabbit hole again...
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
I kinda barely sorta understood quantum computing at one point a few years ago when I watched the Microsoft lecture for programmers on the subject, but now this... thanks Universe for refreshing my feeling of ignorance again! Well, maybe the Universe doesn't agree with quantized gravity, so at this point I should be thanking only the writers of the interesting paper.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
3:48 "If A was flipping a switch and B was the light turning on" - That's where the error lies. Yes, A and B are in super position of |A before B> + |B before A> but not |Switch before Light> + |Light before Switch>, more like |Switch labeled A before Light labeled B> + |Switch labeled B before Light labeled A>. Quantum gravity doesn't break cauasality, it just puts it into superposition. It can still be useful in quantum computing (because +3 and *7 arent dependent/caused by each other) but normal quantum computers can do this anyway, just a bit less efficient. (Altrough I wouldn't call holding a black hole in superposition near the quantum computer very efficient too).
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
I sincerely believe people are interested in Sci-Fi out of pure boredom. We desperately crave for something completely new, something that has never crossed our mind... but at the same time, not too crazy so we could still reasonably believe it could be real.
This stuff fits the bill way better than any Sci-Fi I've ever seen.
That makes sense, the human mind seeks variation and repetition, focus, balance, contrast etc.
Same principles as visual design and music design, both being reflection of the human mind, would also be reflected in literature and storytelling which is also an art.
Some people learn about science fiction first. Do they learn about science from boredom? I think rather it is because science fiction is the verb, the application to science’s noun.
@@isaackellogg3493 Well put. Even in the age of corrupt, sell-out, discredited science I can still sign that belief. What a time…
It seems you've never read the great sci-fi authors...
@@TartempionLampion I’m pretty sure I’ve read all the greats. But… better tell why you read them?
It sounds like a strong argument against space being quantized. Maybe this is the reason why we do not have a working quantum gravity theory
In fact, this is why I was looking at this to begin with!
I feel the same. A physical theory should START with causality and build itself up from there...
Maybe it only seems like space exists.
@@wintcwhy? We shouldn't ignore possibilities because they are unintuitive.
@@wintc If it makes you feel better, these phenomena would probably only actually (as in not involving only virtual particles) occur inside an event horizon of some sort. . . .
I’ve kinda had the idea that maybe entanglement/wave function collapse happens apparently faster than the speed of light because the two particles occupied the same spacetime. If spacetime was able to exist in a quantum superposition, that would maybe make this possible?
Since time near a black hole passes slower, light near a black hole must also move slower which means that your light cone curves towards the vertical where it approaches the black hole. A cannot influence B because there is not (in B's local time-slowed space) time for a signal from A to reach it.
As a software engineer, these race conditions regarding computations sound like Lovecraft-level nightmares
I am glad you are here Sabine. Thank you to you and your staff for all the work that goes into these videos.
Yet another sign that the models being internally consistent to some degree and having some mapping onto reality doesn't mean they are real. A result like this means we need new models.
thats why we call them models
there can be no complete model or theory, there is always a limit to their applicability.
No, a result like this means we need to test the models.
Just because a model is unintuitive to humans doesn't make it automatically wrong.
Reality is under no obligation to behave in a way our brains accept or like.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Interesting that this further demonstrates how at odds Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are with each other. My instinct would say causality seems to important to violate. I'd like to see what our current best theory of quantum gravity (string theory) would say about this phenomenon.
General Relativity has possibly of time travel in it. So it not in conflict with Quantum Mechanics having the same.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
You mentioned the limit of the speed of light, but what if that’s not a constraint and some things move faster than the speed of light? The parameters would be faster than we could see and faster than we could measure. Although once dead,
Schrodinger’s cat would always be dead.
Yes that's right! if the speed of light limit can be broken, then all kinds of computing limits also go out of the window.
It would be neat if the speed of light limit was removed in the calculations to determine if the experimental results can be explained. Entanglement would suddenly be untangled and string theory would be a string rather than bits of strings.
@@StardustShaman Essentially this is done in the pilot-wave Bohmian version of quantum mechanics. The results of Bell test measurements are explained by each particle being associated with a "pilot wave", a field throughout space, that can change instantaneously. Actually, when the particles are interacting, the number of these non-local fields increases exponentially with the number of particles. It's not a very satisfying interpretation of QM; you basically give up everything we expect from a physical theory, in order to regain the ability to think of particles as tiny billiard balls.
Tbf we say the speed of light is maximal specifically to preserve causality in relativistic equations.. If c was fixed (as we have experimentally-verified it is) without being maximal, there would be no way of reliably reproducing causality.. You can do an easy proof of this using time dilation. I have a hard time really understanding conceptually what a "velocity larger than c" would even mean
Alternatively, if something traveling no faster than light travels through a wormhole from point A to point B, it could exert an influence at B even if B is outside A's future lightcone. Einstein & Rosen understood that General Relativity allows wormholes. (ER 1935.) So it surprises me that they didn't write about whether wormholes might explain entanglement.
I can't say I fully grasp the physics jargon enough to be able to understand the paper, but you weren't exaggerating how interesting it is in the video you made about how you became a youtuber. :)
I was wondering, what problems does the following idea run into? The gravitational field of a particle in superposition exists in all positions that the particle could be in, but it's strength is weighted by how likely the particle is to be in that position.
That's actually kind of a neat idea
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
@@hyperduality2838 is this to say that one issue with the idea is that it leads to causality loops?
@@piershanson1784 The neuroscientist Karl Friston talks about causality loops!
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston.
Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"We predict ourselves into existence" -- Anil Seth, neuroscientist, watch at 56 minutes:-
ua-cam.com/video/qXcH26M7PQM/v-deo.html
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence -- a syntropic process, teleological.
If you accept causality loops then your brain/mind is converting effects into causes, thinking is the action of converting your perceptions, observations, measurements or intuitions into ideas and conceptions (causes).
The world or matter effects your mind and thinking leads to the creation or synthesis or causes.
Effects are dual to causes.
Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the Hegelian dialectic.
Forces are dual -- attraction is dual to repulsion.
The age-old question, what came first, the chicken or the egg? They're both cause and affect. The switch didn't turn on the light, I did because of my need to have more light in the room so I can see where the light switch is
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
@@hyperduality2838are you in the right channel?
Sabine - you must know about the 3 Body Problem Netflix series and the plot device they use of quantum entanglement.
Pretty please do a video on what it is and why it can't be used as a FTL communications method.
Thanks.
Hmmm I saw a video from PBS space time on the matter... and actually it could be used for FTL communication if... and it's an IF so big it would shadow the entire earth... if the theory of quantum gravity allows for non-linear solutions to the Shrodinger equation.
So yeah it's a huge if...
information is not transmitted, with quantum entanglement. the status cannot be checked before sending, and after checking there is no quantum entanglement.
Happy Easter! That was interesting. Thanks!
Has the potential to solve P=NP. All problems that can be checked efficiently could also be solved efficiently. We can effectively check all routes of a maze simultaneously, only keeping the outcome that exits first.
When you touched the little Einstein's head and inserted the funny noise I had to laugh out loud so bad that now I needed to tell you about it. Keep up the great work, Sabine.
I have a question I hope someone can help me with. There is an implication the objects being in different places at the same time affects the gravitational field. Yet, in certain configurations electrons don't dynamically affect the far electromagnetic field. E.g. The electron in the ground state of hydrogen. Why can't there be a similar mechanism when it comes to gravity. I.e. Only the average gravitational field is observed because some mechanism is preventing the system from radiating gravitationally.
A heavy ball on a rubber sheet attracts other balls, because of downwards gravity and not curvature. Well done, you've explained gravity with gravity.
It is an analogy
Sabine should do a video on why we should ban the rubber sheet analogy. It is generally the case that the alteration of the space is not what causes the apparent deflection, but the effect on the proper time of the moving object. Time distortion is not shown in the 2-D rubber sheet.
The using gravity to explain gravity isn't the half of it.
And what has the rubber sheet presentation done? The rubber sheet requires Newton's gravity to do its thing.
@@JackPullen-Paradox Pretend there is no gravity but that you still have a deformation of space time represented by the rubber sheet!
Fascinating. My own thinking on QM had already led me to suspect that the next big insight would be that "causality can work backwards in time," and that "the real experts" would soon start acknowledging this. Reverse causality makes a great number of otherwise counterintuitive QM experimental results suddenly very easy to explain.
This sounds very metaphysical. I've broken my head on this and I can only understand this if I imagine there are different realities, each with their own gravity fields and particles. Entanglement would mean, realities are synced up. In the end you can only realise in which reality you live, when you observe it... because you can only observe 1 reality at a time.
Possibly both the many worlds theorem and the novikov consistency principle are true. But you would never be able to tell because the act of observing your reality may define the reality you inhabit.
everything that depends on observation is unrealistic, by definition (subjective). that is, one cannot talk about quantum effects as real, they are relative "observations". but they manifest themselves precisely by comparing the results "without observation" and "with observation", and we can talk about the "non-locality" of quantum effects, smearing, and the absence between observations. Really, the absence of what?!
in mathematics, there is such a concept as "disposable uncertainty", the interaction of matter on detectors, in many senses, is similar to L'Hopital's rule.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
4:00 That doesn't make any sense - in your example, the black hole would be in a superposition of these locations, but once a gravitational interaction occurs, then the wavefunction would collapse and it would be in a definite position - no causality breaking required. The problem instead would lie in what is happening in wavefunction collapse which in my view is still the crux of where our understanding of QM goes awry
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
@@hyperduality2838 hahahahaha Kant and Yoda in one reply
@@JoeyFaller It gets better.
The neuroscientist Karl Friston talks about causality loops!
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston.
Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"We predict ourselves into existence" -- Anil Seth, neuroscientist, watch at 56 minutes:-
ua-cam.com/video/qXcH26M7PQM/v-deo.html
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence -- a syntropic process, teleological.
If you accept causality loops then your brain/mind is converting effects into causes, thinking is the action of converting your perceptions, observations, measurements or intuitions into ideas and conceptions (causes).
The world or matter effects your mind and thinking leads to the creation or synthesis or causes.
Effects are dual to causes.
Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the Hegelian dialectic.
Forces are dual -- attraction is dual to repulsion.
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two -- Darth Bane, Sith Lord.
@@JoeyFaller Main stream science has ignored Immanuel Kant for over 200 years!
"Philosophy is dead" -- Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking accepted the metaphor of Schrodinger's cat which is metaphysics!
Alive is dual to not alive.
Being is dual to non being create becoming -- Plato's cat.
Philosophy is therefore not dead -- Hawking is using antinomy!
@@hyperduality2838 define dual
Fascinating! It feels like a Star Trek episode!
Thanks, Sabine! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
"The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many" -- The Spock duality.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
We need a longer video on this!
Or shorter if the mass is in the wrong place...
I’m not all that convinced the universe cares as much about causality as we do. If locality is more of a strong suggestion than an immutable law, I would think causality (which is essentially locality applied to time) has similar exceptions.
If that’s true that opens the door to some form of ftl theoretically. Especially if we could ever find a way to manipulate mass etc.
Violating causality causes *logical * paradoxes, it's not for physical reasons we care about it.
@@ObjectsInMotion don’t we already know of quantum effects though that violate causality? That’s what they’re trying to make quantum batteries out of, the indefinite causal order
@@bradysmith4405 No, locality will not allow.
@@ObjectsInMotion It is not a causal relationship that leads to logical paradoxes, but inadequate assumptions, conflicting assumptions, and category substitution. There is no paradox, which consists solely in the absence of a causal relationship... especially in theories in which time is not absolute.
Scientific Nonsense is my favorite kind of nonsense.
One might say that the superposition of positions is contingent on the effect of fixing said position on observable curvature of spacetime to be below observable. It's basically the mass observing itself... For computing purposes this means you can use the effect to compute correct answer faster as long as you know what the correct answer is beforehand. If you know a wrong answer, you can compute that one faster too.
Love this video! It's indeed exciting! Just something to think about: tiny particles are always part of bigger particles so they will always influence everything they are connected with.
One of these days, we're going to look back on this and realize how stupid we were.
I really hope this will happen in my life time
I can't help but wodner... what if Causality is something our brains make up to make sense of their own existence and reality around us?
There's evidence supporting that. If thermodynamics/entropy didn't exist, there wouldn't be an "arrow of time", just time and space
🎉 I love your thought provoking youtubes like this Sabine !!! 🎉
If you assume A + B, then you have the original state, but at a slower pace. Neither A nor B influence either, but can influence any event where their light cones overlap.
I keep saying this but nobody pays attention so I'll say it again. What if you're looking in the wrong place? Perhaps gravity is quantized not as point excitations in a field like other quantum fields, but as vectors or tensors of infinite length.
Edit: to put it another way, we think of quantum "particles" as point excitations in a quantum field, but what if gravity involves lines instead of points?
So mass creates a perturbation in the "fabric" of spacetime, but this perturbation is not point-like, it's vector-like, and these lines add up to describe the geometry of spacetime in a an area.
These vectors could be quantized as well, and there could be ways of testing this idea, but they're hard to think of, since it is impossible to have a "neutral" gravity zone, since all of spacetime is warped by mass.
I also think this is a way to get around the 3-body problem. Essentially you model space as a fabric with ripples in it instead of modeling gravity as a force. Of course this is easier said than done.
Do the maths, proof it. Cant help you with this, too stupid in this regard 😢
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
An infinitely long loop would seem to have infinite energy, and if the energy is more localized along the line, wouldn't that just be a particle again?
@@kindlin you're right that if the vector has to propagate at the speed of light, you're probably left with points again. I'll need to think about this some more
@@ConsciousExpression Glad to help you get the critical thought juices flowing. Honestly, I didn't follow most of your post, but whenever infinity appears, you can be pretty sure something went wrong with the assumptions going into it.
Oh great. So now not only can it be on and off at the same time, but now might be stuck in last Tuesday.
not Tuesday, but there is an idea called Last Thursdayism (alternately Last Tuesdayism) is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday. (yeah, I basically stole all that from rationalwiki)
Hi Sabine, great video as always! This one left me with some questions though:
If it's the case that which event influenced which is dependant on the superposition of something, does the eventual measurement determine which one caused the other? Can that happen after the events unfold? If so, does this cause the breaking of causality that you mentioned? And if that's the case, how do some things happen instead of others? Is it randomness? Or do we just not know?
I'm sorry if I'm not formulating these questions properly. This is the best I could come up with.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
PBS Spacetime had a video where rather simple math shows if you want to see gravitons above planck noise, you get mass arranged beyond than the Schwarzschild Limit... which begged an obvious "resolution": maybe to get QM to merge with SR, QM has to become continuous - not SR quantized. I don't think I've ever seen it even argued, let alone studied.
This is, once again, the best explanation I've heard for why we don't have quantum gravity. I feel the universe can tolerate many things, but breaking causality is not one of them.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
It's just a hunch, but entangled causality sounds like something that could create the time arrow in the first place.
There is no reason that time cannot go in reverse, it's just our perception. If time could reverse with sufficient spacetime distortion, wouldn't causality be preserved, if say it's within a black hole?
Nothing will change. Richard Feynman dabbled in this even as a child.
And, there is nothing inside black holes, where the place of matter is occupied by an infinite space on the event horizon... We can assume that a black hole is an overgrowth of a neutron star standing on the edge of the birth of the local universe
@@ruby_linaris I don't think that is accurate at all.
@@maladyofdeath This was done by the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. (about the direction of time). and the shape of black holes follows from the geometry. not only light cannot move in a black hole, but also any matter. it is possible that there is a question about gravity in the center of a black hole, but it will not be possible to measure it, and its external of BH manifestation generates "measurable" gravity.
This reminds me of an animated meme of Thomas Young looking away from the double slit experiment and the pattern collapsing into two beams when he looks back, only reverting to the classic interference every time he turns back around
You know that moment after eating the mushroom..when the “this is meant to be” thoughts start to emerge?
(I like when the smoke comes out the chimney.)
Happy Easter!🐰
0:59 schrödinger used the cat to disprove superposition.
tried
He wanted to show the absurdity of the concept in daily life.
Well, I haven’t read his original work, but I hope that at the time he was trying to draw attention to this problem in the current understanding of quantum mechanics.
@@edwardlulofs444 Yes he presented it as a thought experiment, to point to the need for some more explanation of the transition from microscopic quantum to macroscopic classical. The point being that a cat in this superposition would be absurd (in contrast with modern popularizers who say "QM says the cat is alive and dead, isn't that a cool bunch of nonsense!"). The issue was resolved in my opinion in the 1930s as von Neumann developed a more detailed model of measurement that shows how lost information leads to a collapse of superpositions into ordinary statistical mixtures (decoherence). Some people prefer to say it isn't solved (they are drawn to a sense of mystery and 60 year old quotes about "nobody understands quantum mechanics", they feel better approaching physics if "no one understands it").
@@iyziejane thank you. The history of physics is useful.
but can it run Crysis
Hahahhahahhah, that’s what it’s swondering
Only if you have the Existential Crysis DLC.
On a macro scale might there be then two universes occupying space time simultaneously?
More likely that there's a superposition of infinite universes collapsing in our universe. Or in other words, our universe is the a lot of universes collapsing
So beyond my level of education and intelligence probably but the little bits I do understand are so cool for a layman to see. Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge.
We just got a quantum computer at SURF. It's still being set up. Now we just need to figure out in which utterly stupid and wasteful ways it can be used, for instance, to improve duckface in selfies, create cringy images of princesses with big booties and filler-swollen lips or anything just as utterly useless but able to dump millions of kilotons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
Sometimes I hate my job, really.
I know that feeling….
Be a rebel and do something useful when your boss isn’t around!
Humanity will never lack finding small answers for big questions
Your reaction is so ridiculously over-blown. I can't even tell if you're being serious. It doesn't seem like you know a single thing about quantum computers, so really, I don't even know how you've gotten to be so upset.
@@jaylewis9876 It's not us, we do research. It's what the private sector will do once they put their hands on quantum technology. It's the same with AI, it was used to crack the Sars-cov-2 spike protein... and to transform you into a cute animated furry on zoom. Yeah, people should be allowed to have choices... but these choices limit the choices of others.
Future Sabine sent me :)
Thank you for the video.
04:34 vayne with guinso in league of legends can relate to that, you hit and ur guinso/ W stacks stack up due to guinso b4 the actual hit fleis/reaches enemy and u can even dmg enemy instantly like that iots like riflemen hitting people in wc3
David Hume made the argument that causality is an abstraction. It's not a metaphysical feature of reality but a practical way for us to organize the world.
I believe Kant said something similar - causality was one of the filters through which we perceived things.
But this makes no sense. We are free to organize our life, but we're not free to determine causal connection.
@@Thomas-gk42 If you wear pink sunglasses, you will see the whole world as pink.
@@markdowning7959Nope. Green things would seem grey, blue things purple etc...
@@markdowning7959 Haha, fits well with Sabine's shirt and her last sunglasses short-vid.
Both wave-function collapse and space-time are relativistic:
- 2 particles interact in isolation, collapsing their WFs from their POVs, but not from the POV of a 3rd particle outside the system.
- 2 events can happen in different orders (or even for entirely different reasons!) from the POV of observers at different places and speeds.
Mix the two and we get a purely relativistic system, where the state of reality depends on each observer, and is unique to it. Therefore, once the computational system is measured for its output, only 1 result should come out, so the exponential parallelization is actually linear parallelization (nice, but not impressive), which preserves causality
6:27 "It can be convincingly proved that reality cannot be represented by a continuous field at all. It seems to follow from quantum phenomena that a finite system with finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers - quantum numbers... A purely algebraic theory is required to describe reality." (Einstein, January, 1955).
Mass in 2 locations has 2 half integer spin meson fields dragging on higgs field. This makes intertial particle reference a moire field instead of a point to point interaction. Its just a switch from digital to analog computing.
I do not think gravity is a quantum effect. It is probably a mass effect caused by the three forces. Most likely predominantly bij electro magnetism because of it's longer range effects and the similarity of the speed of light and the speed of gravity. You may be able to quantize spacetime somehow but I do not think it has any relevance for gravity except through the three forces.
When electrical connections are loose, lights can go on and off from imperceptible tremors, no wonder they're so popular for ambiance in horror movies!
I think that at the scale where space time "fluctuates" (where it is quantum) ,so the causality could potentially be lost ,is so small that even quantum fields and theirs excitations do not exists there , even if theirs quantum vacuum necessarily exists there .
Another explanation (instead of only decoherence) for not seeing undead cats is: How would you look at one? The measurement apparatus would have to measure within this undead eigenstate (to not destroy the superposition of dead and alive) and that is a very complicated measurement as it cannot be easily separated to measuring the parts (i.e. body parts) of the cat. With a cat, it is especially difficult: The parts could be in addition at different positions, if the alive cat within the superposition actually moves around in the cat box. So where to position the sensors, which measure the superposition? For macro quantum objects not moving around, at least a quantum computer with attached quantum sensors could in theory measure such a large superposition state. But we should not expect to see a superposition state with bare eyes, bare brain and bare consciousness. As we are not made to experience such a state.
The decoherence then actually distributes the quantum state over an even larger number of objects, which we would have to measure in the exact perfect way, so we would have to predict the interactions instead of assuming them as random. There are classical interactions, which we can avoid (e.g. vacuum, isolation of the experiment, ...) and quantum interactions, tunneling, vacuum energy, spontaneous processes (which can be reduced, but not to zero).
This videos always blow my mind, I can't understand the math but it's amazing just to think about what the consequences would be, what I can't really understand is when quantum physics ends and when physics begin, I mean, how is it possible that the smallest parts of the Universe behave differently than the Universe of which they're the foundation?
Maybe it depends on the double slit experiment. For a photon to arrive in two different places at the same time and for the conservation of energy to still be valid it's double has to take the energy from somewhere, maybe by decreasing the number of virtual particles that pop in and out in the vacuum. If this is the case then for a atom or subatomic particle, it should lower the "gravity" in the area with reduced energy compared to the rest of space-time because of the reduced number of virtual particles, and that would "normalize" space time in a slightly larger area somewhat by compensating for the second place in the superposition , since the decrease in virtual particles would probably happen nearby.
3:55 - wait but the all you need is for space-time to also show those spacial simmetries along the time axis.
I know in physics we thing like you turn the switch thus the light is on, all it means is the light turning on would mean you would soon see someone turn on the switch, but since it's in the past it's outside your influence so you would see it happening but can't reach it to prevent.
All it means is that it's possible to know the answer ahead of time and I see no problem with that.
in special relativity class they gave us an example of causality breaking - if a gun fires a bullet sufficiently faster than the speed of light, directly straight up, when the bullet falls back to the ground it would hit the gun before it was even made.
I'm still waiting for the proof that causality is a thing that we even need to consider. People continuously proclaim that certain things must not be possible because it could possibly "break causality." In our observational experience, casualty is inferred to flow universally in one direction. But what exactly restricts the universe from doing it differently? Just because we haven't seen it, or we don't understand how it would work, doesn't mean it must be impossible.
2:33 yeah the differences in an area influence each other and that’s the push and pull of the many balancing or creating a stable range of differences. It’s not just 2 at once. Imagine a matrix of differences like a runic cube but with so many tiles that could change in so many ways it’s hard to see what’s close and what’s far and finding the path between is difficult if you’re zoomed in. If you zoom out and see you can see an overview of the whole matrix and see that many things are possible and maybe all is possible but our matrix currently is limited but the paths are still there even if we don’t see or our matrix/self/body/brain isn’t connected or aligned with like datapoints or info and our differences just seem imaginary but an inventor aligns the differences of the brain with the outside world and even brings the things of the mind into being because they found them within the fabrics of the universe. Imagine the unreal is just far and we learn and understand to align and reveal new portions of reality or even build a simulation that mimics reality but can expand differently but with less danger but actual data.
Causality isn't being broken here. It's more fundamental than spacetime. We're just peeling spacetime constraints from it. In reality, cause and effect are instantaneous and effectively the same thing outside of spacetime.
Can you be more specific about instantanous causslity or give references so i can ready myself?
@@mircorichter1375 Spooky action at a distance is instantaneous causality over any distance.
If causality is more fundamental than spacetime then it must be able to occur outside of time so what would it be but instantaneous?
I have no idea what you're talking about since I never took physics, but still subscribed because you rock ❤
Just Fantastic; mind blown!
Wir Lieben Dich, Sabine!
IMHO, Shroedinger was using the dead-and-alive cat example to illustrate the bizarre nature of particles, not to argue that objects at a larger scale ACTUALLY are likely to behave, as particles do, at the quantum level.
These apparent causality paradoxes are a result of the interpretation of space and time as a geometry that can be curved. But that's just an interpretation coming from the field representation of space-time, a *mathematical convenience* introduced by Marcel Grossmann to help Albert with his general relativity.
As a mathematical description, it is not necessarily a physical interpretation. Physically, it's not space-time that curves. Instead, rulers and clocks change shape/rate. In this "ruler-clock" physical interpretation, these objects are quantum objects. Quantum-superposed rulers and clocks would produce interesting interference effects, but not break causality.
Reversing causality means any finite process can complete instantly. Imagine a computer that receives a number and returns back that number +1. The one exception is if the input is the 100th ackerman number, in which case the computer simply returns back the same number. Looping the computers output back to its input makes it run in a loop until it reaches the conclusion. If the causality is reversed, the only number the computer can produce is the 100th ackerman number.
1) The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics
Contradictory:
Standard Copenhagen Interpretation
If a system interacts with a measurement device, the quantum state undergoes wave function collapse into an eigenstate of the measured observable.
This introduces an ad-hoc, unphysical process that is inconsistent with the deterministic Schrödinger evolution.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Quantum Mechanics
|Ψ>total = Σn cn |Un>system |Vn>apparatus
Measurement = Modulation of relations between |Un>, |Vn>
By treating measurements as interactions modulating relational correlations between monadic system and apparatus states |Un>, |Vn>, collapse can be avoided while preserving definite records.
2) Renormalization Issues in Quantum Field Theory
Contradictory:
Renormalization via infinite subtractions
Feynman diagrams contain divergences like ∫d4k/k2 = ∞ which must be absorbed by redefining parameters.
This ad-hoc renormalization procedure lacks physical justification and does not converge in realistic models.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Regulator Approach
∫d4k/[k2 + ρ2]1/2 < ∞ (ρ is infinitesimal regulator)
All calculations manifestly finite using infinitesimals ρ
Introducing infinitesimals avoids true mathematical infinities from the start, removing the need for unmotivated subtractions.
3) Paradoxes in Set Theory
Contradictory:
Naive Set Theory
Russell's Paradox, Burali-Forti Paradox arise from unrestricted set comprehension axioms.
These paradoxes undermined early attempts at formalizing abstract set theory foundations.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Topos Theory / Categorical Set Theory
X ≃ Y ⇐⇒ ∃n, IsEquivalent(X,Y) in (∞,1)-Category(n)
U: ∞-Topos → ∞-Groupoids (univalent universes)
Representing sets/classes as higher identifications up to homotopy equivalence in (∞,1)-categories avoids the self-referential paradoxes.
4) The Problem of Mental Causation
Contradictory:
Classical Property Dualism
Mental properties and physical properties are distinct.
But how can the mental cause any physical effects/behavior?
This is the core paradox of the mind-body problem - mental causation seems impossible on dualist premises.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Neutral Monism
Qsystem = Usystem|0> (mental state from monad perspective)
Physical = RelativeState(Qsystem, Qenv)
If mental states are monadic perspectives and physics arises relationally between monads, mental causation is simply the modulation of physical relative states via monadic perspectival transitions.
5) The Continuum Hypothesis in Set Theory
Contradictory:
Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms
CH: There are no sets whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers.
However, CH is logically independent of ZFC, and leads to paradoxes like the Banach-Tarski paradox of measure.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Non-standard Analysis
Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1
*R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements
Treating the real continuum *R as derived from ordered infinitesimal monadic extensions resolves CH by assigning a higher cardinality, avoiding paradoxes.
6) Paradoxes of Spacetime Singularities
Contradictory:
General Relativity
Gμν = 8πTμν
Solutions contain spacetime singularities where geometric description breaks down.
The presence of singularities where physics becomes transcendentally ill-defined represents a fatal flaw.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Combinatorial Algebraic Quantum Gravity
ds2 = Σx,y Γxy dxdy (metric from monadic charge relations)
Gμν = f(Γxy, mx, qx, ...) (monadic gravitational dynamics)
Representing spacetime/gravity algebraically from relations Γxy among discrete quantized monadic charges/masses avoids singular infinities entirely.
7) The Liar's Paradox in Logic
Contradictory:
"This statement is false."
If true, it is false. If false, it is true.
This simple self-referential statement leads to a paradox that undermines classical bivalent logic.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Pluriverse-Valued Realizability Logic
⌈A⌉ = {Vn(A) | n∈N} (truth value as monadic realization projections)
A ↔ B ⇐⇒ ⌈A⌉ = ⌈B⌉ (equivalence between realization pluriverses)
Representing statements as pluriverses of realizability projections Vn(A) across monads, rather than binary truth values, avoids self-referential paradoxes.
8 ) The Black Hole Information Paradox
Contradictory:
Classical Black Hole Models
As matter crosses the event horizon, information about its initial state is irretrievably lost to external observers.
This seems to violate unitarity and entropy increase principles of quantum theory.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Black Hole Complementarity
|Ψ>exterior = Σn cn |Un>horizon
|Ψ>interior = Σn cn |Vn>trans-pit
Treating the exterior/interior as distinct monadic realizations |Un>, |Vn> of the same superposition allows information to be holographically distributed across all perspectives.
In each case, the classical theory is either outright paradoxical or produces unphysical pathological solutions due to flawed assumptions like:
- Primacy of infinitely precise continua over discrete elements
- strictly separable geometric manifold description
- bivalent logic and binary truth values
- Requiring information destruction from external perspective
The non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological approaches resolve these issues by:
- Treating continua as derived from ordered monadic pluralities
- Representing geometric observables algebraically from relational pluralities
- Using pluriverse-valued realizability projections rather than binary truth
- Allowing for holographic information distribution across perspectives
By systematically avoiding over-idealized separability axioms in favor of integrated pluralistic relational accounts, these new frameworks have the potential to resolve paradoxes plaguing our current best theories from first principles.
The vision is an entirely coherent, non-contradictory mathematics and physics founded on the primordial pluralities inherent to subjective conscious experience. Reality is modeled as perfectly cohesive patterns across infinite intersecting perspectives, rather than vexing self-undermining singularities.
A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors.
9) The Paradoxes of Zeno
Contradictory:
Zeno's Paradoxes of Motion
- The Dichotomy Paradox (having to travel 1/2 the distance, then 1/4, 1/8...)
- The Arrow Paradox (at any given instant, the arrow is at rest)
These paradoxes arise from assuming space and time are infinitely divisible continua, leading to logical contradictions.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Geometric Calculus
x = a + Σi ɛi (Paths are finite sums of infinitesimals ɛi)
v = dx/dt = const (Derivative is ratio of differentials)
Modeling motion using infinitesimals avoids the paradoxes by treating space and time as quantized, with definite non-zero displacements across finite subintervals.
10) The Statistical Mechanics Paradoxes
Contradictory:
- The Gibbs Paradox about indistinguishable particles
- The Maxwellian Demon Paradox regarding information and entropy
- Loschmidt's Paradox about time-reversal symmetry
Classical statistical mechanics produces paradoxes about the nature of entropy, information and time asymmetry.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Ergodic Theory
S = -kB Σi pi ln(pi) (Entropy from realization weights)
pi = Tr[ρ Ui(H)] (Weights from monadic energy projections)
Representing entropy as a measure over the infinitesimal statistic over distinct monadic energy realizations Ui(H) avoids the paradoxes.
11) The Magnetic Monopole Paradox
Contradictory:
Classical Electromagnetism
∇ × B = μ0j (Magnetic fields have no sources/monopoles)
∇ ⋅ B = 0 (Magnetic flux is solenoidal)
This appears paradoxical since individual magnetic charges are allowed by the laws of physics.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Charge Network Electrodynamics
F = q(Ax - Γx,y Ay) (Force from difference in vector potentials)
Γx,y = gx gy / rxy (Monadic charge relations)
Treating magnetism as collective network phenomena arising from vectorial differences in monadic charge perspective phases Ax, Ay with relations Γx,y avoids paradoxes.
12) The Paradoxes of Computational Complexity
Contradictory:
- The Halting Problem for Turing Machines
- Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems
- Chaitin's Computational Irreducibility
These results show fundamental limitations and paradoxes in classical computability and provability theory.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitary Realizability Logics
|A> = ΣTr(T) |PT> (Truth as projection over infinite paths)
ProveA ≡ PathA ∈ Paths (Provability from path realizability)
Representing provability as path realizability over infinitary computational models built from pluralistic monadic perspectives avoids diagonalization paradoxes.
13) Foundational Paradoxes in Arithmetic
Contradictory:
- Russell's Paradox about sets/classes
- Berry's Paradox about definability
- Other set-theoretic pathologies
These paradoxes revealed fundamental inconsistencies in early naive attempts to formalize arithmetic foundations.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Homotopy Type Theory / Univalent Foundations
a ≃ b ⇐⇒ α : a =A b (Equivalence as paths in ∞-groupoids)
Arithmetic ≃ ∞-Topos(A) (Numbers as objects in higher toposes)
Representing arithmetic objects categorically as identifications in higher homotopy types and toposes avoids the self-referential paradoxes.
14) Causal Paradoxes in General Relativity
Contradictory:
- Grandfather Paradox from time travel
- Unprovoked formation of closed timelike curves
- No global time coordinate from infinities/singularities
General Relativity allows paradoxical causal scenarios and lacks a coherent treatment of cosmic time.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Pluriverse Models
Ψn(M) = Σk ck Uk(M) (State is superposition over pluriverse)
Uk(M) = Πi Γk,i(mi, ji, ...) (Monadic realizations)
Causality ≡ Paths(Uk -> Uj) (Causal as paths between realizations)
Treating spacetime/causality relationally as paths between superposed monadic realizations in a coherent pluriverse avoids the paradoxes.
In all these cases, the classical theories encounter paradoxes and inconsistencies because they:
- Assume infinite precision continua rather than discrete elements
- Define observables absolutely rather than relationally
- Use bivalent logic and binary truth values
- Over-idealize geometric manifold descriptions
The non-contradictory monadological approaches resolve the paradoxes by:
- Using infinitesimals and finitary realizations
- Representing observables algebraically from monadic interactions
- Adopting pluralistically-valued realizability logic
- Treating geometry/causality as emergent from relations
By realigning the foundations with the primordial unified pluralities of subjective experience, these frameworks prometalingu coherent, paradox-free accounts faithfully reflecting Reality's inter-dependent monadic structure.
The vision is an entirely renovated mathematics and physics - one where paradox has been extinguished at the roots by centering the irreducible constituentses of first-person conscious facts within a metaphysically rigorous symbolic register. Only such a profound foundations-realignment can facilitate our sciences' liberation from the artificial conundrums plaguing our excessively separatist and idealizing legacy models.
"There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field." A. Einstein from Relativity, appendix V, 15 ed. Translation by Lawson. Quantizing space-time makes little sense if space and time don't exist by themselves in the first place. We are missing something.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
i mean, it would appear to me personally that space and time both exist.
@@citricdemon Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
The future is dual to the past -- time duality.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle or duality in geometry (space duality).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
It's been shown, when a bulb lights up when you connect the battery, it isn't a circuit. In fact electrons stay pretty much where they are.
4:11 yeah, the causal relationship can be altered.
Great episode 😊
Thanks for the great Video. Sounds like people might be figuring some pretty cool stuff out. 🤓🙏
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Jonathan Oppenheim actually finishs Quantum Gravity and the principle of causality outdoes all physical ‚laws‘. Indeterminism of whatever sort doesn’t ever mean or imply a violation of the principle of causality
This women knows how to capture an audience I was hooked from "My dream Died" and now I am here. She is good.
3:48 Personally I don't find anything remarkable in this, but I think the dance between temporal and spacial is a a little more complicated. Re-draw the diagram of the light cones with a large triangle at the bottom and then 2 smaller triangles at the top. Initially the 2 small triangles are not touching (crossing their light cone boundary). Pause it there and we have some rather interesting and weird interactions. Move the illustration forward until the two small triangle begin to cross and we have an even more complex interaction in our concept of causality.
>
Ultimately I don't think causality is broken, it just gives the appearance of it in the spacial dimensions.
‘If quantum gravity gives rise to such indefinite causal orders, then maybe that means that gravity shouldn’t be quantized in the first place’
- Definitely agree with this. Think about it - if gravity were quantized, it would have been turned into a particle state through its waves being struck so violently that it would be splattered. That would be very unwise and might even cause the future to collapse (relativistically).
Another thing to consider is that this may have already happened, and that those who collapsed it have now disappeared completely from time.
you can only view one result the wave state collapses depending where you are looking from
and the state of (N)blackholes are not stable or something that can be used for compute 😅
Sabina you got me, for 5 minutes and 50 seconds before I remembered the date. Well done.
Planck space obscures the existence of fundamental causal nodes, holographically, there’s obscured physics at r=infinity between Planck areas on that holographic surface.
This sounds really like the basics for all the future science fiction stuff.
Like what?
Your sleight of hand was pretty clever, Sabine, but it didn't fool me!
The (X + 3) *7 vs X*7 + 3 'causal duality' makes sense because both processes can happen readily in an appropriately-configured computer. So, either way, we have satisfactory cause-and-effect mechanisms.
The slight of hand comes from pretending that the same applies to switching on a light. There is only one mechanism for this: flicking the switch is a physical mechanism to make the light work but there is no physical mechanism to have the light somehow turn on independently of the switch and for that to cause the switch to flick!
Ultimately, there has to be a valid mechanism that is the process for a cause bringing about an effect. (I am not interested in the reversible nature of Quantum Mechanics meaning that with infinite time we can expect to see the reverse process of anything, like a broken egg becoming whole again. That's is not applicable here.)
Nonetheless, thanks for the video 🙂
Awesome!!! 🤯
When I watched your quantum vortex video I wondered if it would be possible to store and process information in it's waves.
Thank you so much
Sibling rivalry seems to be a macroscopic superposition confounding causal relationships: each say the other started it.
So you can solve the nonabilean hidden subgroup problem with this!
That's amazing!
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
@@hyperduality2838 Thank you very much.
There already was experiment, where order of operations in quantum computer was in superposition even without quantum gravity.
So, apparently quantum systems could work with weird causal relationships.
There is a flaw in the logic of this example. In short, if A and B are not in each other's light cones, they are not causally connected. Even if extreme gravitational effects shunt one of them into the other's light cone, that only means that they may one day influence or "see" each other. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will interact, and if they do there is still nothing to suggest a causal relationship.
For A to cause B, then A must have already been in B's past light cone. For A to be in B's future, it must exist in both places. If A isn't in B's past, then B ceases to exist and never existed, and the whole thing is moot.
So now you have an event, A, that exists in both the past and the future, but represent the same event at the same point in spacetime. We have a name for this already: a Closed Timelike Curve.
As best as we can guess, Closed Timelike Curves don't exist. If they do, probably only below the event horizons of black holes, where causality itself might mean something totally different.
Causality loops:-
Cause (matter) is dual to effect (mind) -- causality.
Causes in the external world effect your mind, in turn causes in your mind can effect the external world.
Effect is dual to cause -- retro-causality.
Your mind is converting effects into causes -- a syntropic process, retro-causality.
Thinking is the process of converting effects from the external world into concepts and hence causes which can influence the outside world of matter -- retro-causality or syntropy.
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
External is dual to internal.
The external world influences or effects your mind which then converts theses effects into causes -- effects becoming causes is retro-causality in action -- causality loops.
Measurements or perceptions (effects) become conceptions (causes) -- retro-causality.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
The mind is not reality, only the perception of reality. While real in its own way, it cannot make the light bulb retroactively cause its switch to flip, unless you receive causality itself to mean something different than what it means.
@@sabinrawr he neuroscientist Karl Friston talks about causality loops!
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston.
Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"We predict ourselves into existence" -- Anil Seth, neuroscientist, watch at 56 minutes:-
ua-cam.com/video/qXcH26M7PQM/v-deo.html
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence -- a syntropic process, teleological.
If you accept causality loops then your brain/mind is converting effects into causes, thinking is the action of converting your perceptions, observations, measurements or intuitions into ideas and conceptions (causes).
The world or matter effects your mind and thinking leads to the creation or synthesis or causes.
Effects are dual to causes.
Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the Hegelian dialectic.
Forces are dual -- attraction is dual to repulsion.
In defense of quantum gravity: Allowing events with indefinite causal structure is exactly what I would expect from a theory which becomes important close to the big bang, rendering the question what came before kind of meaningless.
Roger Penrose repeated on several occasions that Schroedinger has been misunderstood, and that his remark of the cat being alive and dead at the same time was in fact a sarcastic remark to show how absurd this was and that he, in fact didn’t believe in that theory!
I’m in the Albert camp. ST is the “room” or “play ground” where the other phenomena (players) get to “play”. It’s not another “player”. It’s the “field” that the “players” get to play on with the ball. Don’t ask what the ball is…call the ball randomness, probability, statistics, chance? God does play dice and rigs the game too😂 God has great humor…Happy Easter