Let's explore this microscopic roundworm, which has been fully mapped to the neuron and simulated using consumer-grade computers. This is strong proof of simulation theory, in my opinion. The video is called "Does This Worm Prove We're In a Computer Simulation? 🤯" and it actually correlates to your point at 3:00 into your video. While correlation is not causation, It also warrants our contemplation in this case. Food for thought my friend. If we could map the universe as we HAVE THIS WORM TO A T (or as we will humans surely in the same way) Then you can extrapolate from here what that may imply in your video's scenario.
Hi Arvin ! Great Channel!! I agree with you, Superdeterminism is not testable, however you are making the same assumptions about free will. Just like science can't explain non-living from living matter, science can't explain free will and self-aware consciousness in the human mind. A scientific investigation wouldn't be possible without "free will". Without "free will", our minds ("brains") wouldn't know how to separate true information or usable data from influenced information or false data. The results from all scientific investigations would be corrupted. Although computers can be programmed to separate data, a computer can only process data by following a human programmer's instructions. For example, a computer can't decide on it's own to choose another way to separate data, it wasn't programmed to recognize as true information or usable data, and influence information or false data. Human beings can have unlimited creativity, like a professional master artist painting on a blank canvas (computers are limited by it's program and circuits), because of our unlimited imaginations. A human mind is more than chemical reactions reacting to the environment, or a product of the physical universe (God created us). We all have a mind ("self-aware consciousness") that is uniquely ours (including genetically identical twins). A human mind probably exist at the quantum energy level (quantum vacuum energy state of matter) that supersedes classical physics (the ordering of cause and effect of the observable physical universe). This superseding property is necessary to have free will. It allows human beings (with God's help) to overcome their emotions, biases, other preconceived ideas, and instantaneous temptations. Time is also needed to evaluate all possible choices accurately and completely, before a decision is made. Dr. Ruth Kastner PhD.; philosopher at physics department at New York State University (who believes "free will" is real and obeys the laws of quantum physics. The uncertain nature of people is not explained by randomness. Quantum phyics is not random. The positions of the subatomic particles only appear to be random, because exact measurements aren't possible (only probability measurements) with modern-day instruments. The Quantum Eraser experiment shows that quantum entangled particles, like a photon, can influence each other instantaneously across great distances in a timeless and spaceless quantum vacuum energy state of matter- "Is what really defines reality in this space-time" -PBS Space Time.
Super deterministic ideas, in my humble opinion, will eventually be footnotes in scientific history.. In essence, NOT taken seriously and with a tinge of amusement.. I still like Sabine, though! Good stuff..
@TuxedoMaskMusic The worm simulation you refer to is FAR from fully simulated despite suggestions it is.. It can't lay eggs with the ability to reproduce freely, right? At this point, it seems more like a mannequin or shell than a complete simulation..
What I think is missing - some analogues to criticism of superdeterminism in other interpretations. Like SD problem with hidden variables is mapped to wave function collapse problem in Copenhagen interpretation, etc.
10:28 Nothing is independent here in the universe everything came from The Big Bang Singularity so of course nothing is independent of the setup! If that is the ultimate conclusion then of course super determinism is real!
Why not accept both? "It's not rocket science" is just another way of saying that something is not complicated or not too difficult to understand. In that case, replacing one phrase for the other makes no sense.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
The interesting thing is that the Many Worlds interpretation does not automatically mean free will either. There is no splitting of worlds simply because a person makes a decision. The splitting of worlds occurs only when there there a quantum interaction.
I was presented with a 14-minute video of myself doing something completely different than my 30ish-hour contiguous memory spanning from the night prior through well past the recorded event, a full month after I had spent the full four weeks going through my recall of the whole day.. Something incredibly special happened in my recall. While the expression on my other self's visage I have not seen in my mirror for 30ish years. Which was ate the exact point in time the me then had a similar episode of an incredibly valuable situation that changed my life in a context that is the common denominator between the two. Not one mental I mean behavioral health psychiatrist allows me to speak or it. Their loss😂
@@calebbrunson7120that assumes determinists must be morally bankrupt to be able to object to free will. One can object to all sort of nebulous ideas without being accused with moral liability. In essence your argument is an appeal to authority whereas OP's is an observation. He does not stand to benefit from you being emotionally compromised in this debate. If you actually believe he is a determinist you have to concede the fact that he is not obligated to feel shame just because you accuse him of immorality. After all he is not responsible for his actions. Hope I was clear enough. Cheers.
17:03 There is no way to verify many worlds either, and it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exist, whereas SD only requires assuming that conservation laws are valid at all scales and we just cannot grasp all the virtual particle effects at such small scales.
you say " it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exis" no, the many worlds is a poor name as it is only locally that superpositions exist, not globally.
@@varun7952Cosmologists break conservation laws all the time. They're hypothesing about the big bang so I guess anything goes when inflation is magically able to create matter out of nothing. Quantum mechanics is obviously very different. They can't expect you to believe in them when their theories clearly violate laws of thermodynamics in the here and now. Because unlike the big bang, their theories are expected to be experimentally reproducible.
@@georgerevell5643 no, the many world interpretation expands entanglement and superposition onto the entire universe, so whenever a wave collapses, the entire universe is split
@@HaeikeVraeik NO! If two quantum particles entangle on earth, the state of a particle on the other side of the universe does not instantly split into two versions, one for each of the versions of the particle on earth. That would be stupid if it split the whole universe as it would add non locality back which is half the point of MWI is to restore locality
Finally a new video explaining the concept of SUPERDETERMINISM! This new paradigm, even if it may be counterintuitive, seems to me more simple and realistic than the other interpretations because it does not postulate new exotic elements. It also has the advantage of being completely in line with the Einsteinian eternalist block universe!
This is what I call science. The continuous conversation between people with different interpretations of the evidences at hand! Bravo for be so amazing sir
Arvin and Sabine (along w Nick Lucid) are my favorites. Much respect to you, Arvin, for having a rebuttal in your own video. That sort of civility and debate is quite uncommon in today’s world. This is beyond the level of the students in my physics and chemistry classes but you often make great stuff for them too. You help make the world better.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
Totally agree, I think it is a sign of true scientific integrity to include a rebuttal. And I really enjoyed how clearly both viewpoints were expressed.
Thanks Arvin for your video! It's difficult to find podcasts arguing for both sides, mostly you have only one bell ringing.. and you took it seriously to propperly explain your opposing view, its so refreshing..!
With all the dodgy "science" that vested interests are paying for, it's nice to see true science where ideas are strengthened not by investment, but by conversation. Maybe Sabine can find the funding to formulate a worthwhile superdeterministic theory.....
If she was a man she would be considered a mediocre thinker. But she still made a whole song and dance ( LITERALLY) whining and complaining about "patriarchy". Virtuesignallist misandry isn't good science ...
No. Superdeterminism is hogwash. It is not sufficient to merely state that there are correlations. You have to explain, why and how they lead to uniform results that mimic the quantum theory.
Many things seem random until you find the pattern that connects them. In due time we will come to the understanding that the universe is superdeterministic.
Even if everything is predetermined, the system is so complex that our ability to reconize it as such is impossible at this point. For all practical purposes it is percieved as having choice.
But the social outcomes are important. If we accept we have no free will then we can talk about how to handle things like criminal justice. If the people doing crimes are not at fault, we can focus on restorative justice and behavior modification, not simply punitive punishments.
@@robsquared2 I disagree. Even if our choices are predetermined, the consequences or lack thereof are still used to make our decisions, using your logic nobody can be blamed for anything. The possibility of punishment is pre-emptive behavior modification
@@robsquared2 Your whole argument assumes that people can "decide" to accept not to have free will. Which would only be possible if they have free will...
But yeah. I ranted a lot, wsnted to wait a bit before reacting to this one, but here we are, and i enjoyed the video, it was very good and clear, thank you ^^.
Reality is more than a few specific equations, and thus hard to calculate. But it is not within absolute impossibility if we can access all parameters in real time. Hidden variables from non-locality is just delayed in a continuum spectrum.
Thanks for this wonderful video! When I was a graduate student, long ago, I tried to solve the measurement problem, not knowing that the correct answer (decoherence) was being developed elsewhere. That led to the many worlds interpretation, in which all possible futures exist somewhere in some pattern of the wave function. The common interpretation of that interpretation is that therefore the world is deterministic because if every pattern of waves in the wave function keeps on rolling on, and we are unaware of them solely because "our" wave pattern no longer interferes with the others, then there is a "them" equally unaware of "us" in their wave pattern. If every outcome happens "somewhere", then the only thing we can say about ourselves is that we are the version of "us" that just happens to be in this particular part of the wave function. Ergo, no free will. I came to the conclusion that there is a mistake - not in the theory, but in the way of looking at it - that not only rescues free will but makes it, if anything, more likely than determinism, even if one accepts every assumption behind many worlds. It is a long story to explain, but I am close to completing two novels (yes, novels!) that explain why. Hopefully the first will be out before the end of the year, so if you are interested, look for "For Selenya" and its sequel, "For Katenya" Now your excellent video has given us a neat summary by Sabine (clearer than her longer versions, imho) of superdeterminism. And it became clear that the same oversight is happening here. IOW, even if all the assumptions behind superdeterminism are correct, it still doesn't say anything about whether free will exists. I'll now have to bung that in somewhere! :-) Very best wishes for your future research! Cheers Ron House.
"...it still doesn't say anything about whether free will exists." - exactly 💯! That's what all those half-intelligent philosophy-guys don't get, and it's what Sabine constantly explained a hundred times. U admire her patience.
From this exposition Superdeterminism sides with Einstein in his objection to Bohr's 'spooky action at a distance ', and supports his instinctual response that the glove was already right-handed before the box was opened. Very refreshing, I've always been partial to Einstein v Bohr on entanglement.
Me too. That's how I always imagined the Universe to operate ever since I was at least 7 years old, simply because I understood that everything affects and is affected by everything else in the universe. Therefore, the universe MUST be Superdeterministic. I just didn't know that it would have this name.
This was so cool!! I'm still on the fence about this one. I will just have to keep listening to the arguments coming from both of you. But then... I'm used to doing that - I've been listening to the both of you for years now :)
You can predict where that isolated particle will go with certainty, depending how you view it. That particle that gets isolated to fire through a slit is never outside of the field that carries it. Like isolating a drop of water in the ocean to look at. It's still in the ocean and will move in accordance with the motion of the waves. This is just energy we don't interact with till we isolate a particle to look at. A particle is a tiny tiny piece of wave, that never is outside of its carrier wave. You know when you fire it, it will appear with complete certainty in one of the normal wave impact zones on the other side of the slit.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
@@aicguy Rational, analytic (a priori) is dual to empirical, synthetic (a posteriori) -- Immanuel Kant. Before measurement (mathematics, a priori) is dual to after measurement (physics, a posteriori) -- knowledge is dual. Deductive reasoning (mathematics) is dual to inductive reasoning (physics) -- Immanuel Kant. Duality creates reality! If you read some Immanuel Kant then this should become obvious but you will have to do some work.
There is a discussion in law theory that we don’t need prisons or other kinds of criminal justice because of super determinism. Some argue that it’s not someone’s fault to be a criminal because the universe had already decided how the person would act.
Yeah that's pure academic stupidity used to justify a particular political view. The bottom line is that even with super determinism at play, you _still_ need to isolate them from society to prevent them from harming others in the future. It's just that now you're destined to do it or not rather than making a choice about it.
It is still their fault, even if they can't control it. The same way you lock up a lion that you know will eat you. The lion eats other animals by its nature. So by locking up a thief, they brain of the thief will remember what it is like to serve time and not commit more crimes. In other words there is a built in behavior that has to be modified , that behavior is what we call the fault. It is a fault because most people think it is very undesirable in society.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
Great talk, and the following may help Sabina without having to spend a lot of money on a new experiment but rather of implementing two other experiments…for a better understanding of physics in general. Something no one else has thought of… I call it the “Sourlis Implementation”… Combining the double-slit experiment with the photoelectric effect: Normally these are considered separate experimental setups, but merging them by using a metal plate instead of a standard detection screen is an innovative approach. The indirect observation of interference: Rather than directly observing the interference pattern on a screen, you are inferring it from the spatial distribution of the emitted photoelectrons/secondary electrons. This adds an extra layer of complexity. The delicate balance between wave and particle behavior: The ability to switch between observing interference (wave-like behavior) and obtaining "which-slit" information (particle-like behavior) by simply adding the detectors is a quintessential demonstration of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. The potential for new insights: This modified setup may provide additional insights into the fundamental principles governing the behavior of quantum particles and the measurement process. Exploring the interplay between interference, detection, and electron emission could lead to a deeper understanding into the: a) Wavefunction, as with no detectors in place behind the slits because of the wavefunction intensity will lead to higher emissions and thus provide insights or interpretation of the wavefunction by this intentional manipulation. b) It will reinforce superdeterminism and bohemian mechanics. c) The multiverse theory will have to be redefined. d) Potential Insights into Quantum Computing and Information: Understanding the relationship between wavefunction manipulation and quantum phenomena could have implications for the development of quantum technologies, such as quantum computing and quantum communication. And more And this is based on if the observed results match the standard quantum mechanical model, the very fact that we can intentionally control the wavefunction intensity to produce the anticipated outcomes could be seen as evidence supporting the principles of superdeterminism. The 3 scenarios of results are 1. Wavefunction Intensity play a role as this would be according to the standard Quantum Mechanical theory. 2. Wavefunction Intensity did not have an effect on results which would indicate something a miss with special relativity and that quantum mechanics would have to be redefined without its constraints place on it by special relativity. 3. No emission from plate with detectors in behind the slits would indicate a misunderstanding by mainstream physics, and if this was the case i would suggest the next step would be to remove the slits with leaving the detectors and the full implementation of the rest of the dual experiments intact, and if further no emissions my theory which I have would be of some use, and which lead me to suggesting this implementation being looked into. (Note the two fundamental concepts that the speed of light being constant and that of entanglement being a byproduct would remain yet the Doppler effect would have to be revised). Overall, the integration of these two foundational quantum experiments has the potential to provide a more comprehensive picture of the wavefunction and its behavior, as well as shed light on the ongoing debate between deterministic and probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the concept of superdeterminism.
The Sourlis Implementation Of the double-slit and photoelectric effect experiments: Apparatus: 1. Monochromatic light source (e.g., LED or low-power laser) with a photon energy just above the work function of the metal plate 2. Double slit apparatus 3. Metal plate (e.g., thin aluminum or copper foil) chosen to have a work function matched to the photon energy 4. Photoelectron detectors (e.g., microchannel plate detectors) placed behind each slit 5. Voltage source to apply a potential difference across the metal plate 6. Ammeter or picoammeter to measure the photoelectric current 7. Collimating optics (e.g., lenses, apertures) to control the beam shape and angle of incidence 8. Mounting hardware to securely hold the components in place 9. Case 2: Using electrons as the source 10. Apparatus: 11. Electron source (e.g., thermionic electron gun) with an energy just above the work function of the metal plate 12. Double slit apparatus 13. Metal plate (e.g., thin aluminum or copper foil) chosen to have a work function matched to the electron energy 14. Electron detectors (e.g., microchannel plate detectors) placed behind each slit 15. Voltage source to apply a potential difference across the metal plate 16. Ammeter or picoammeter to measure the secondary electron current 17. Collimating and focusing optics (e.g., electrostatic or magnetic lenses) to control the electron beam 18. Vacuum chamber to maintain a high-vacuum environment 19. Mounting hardware to securely hold the components in place The key updates are: * Using a monochromatic light source or a low-energy electron source, just above the work function of the metal plate * Choosing the metal plate material to have a work function matched to the photon/electron energy * This ensures the photoelectric effect or secondary electron emission is induced, but without excessive energy that could complicate the experimental observations.
Regarding the multiverse or many worlds interpretation…the standard MWI predicts that the wavefunction should maintain its interference pattern and higher overall intensity, even with the presence of the slit detectors, since the wavefunction does not collapse according to this interpretation. However, the experimental findings show a lower wavefunction intensity when the detectors are in place, which appears to contradict the MWI's predictions. Overall, I believe the MWi can be further developed and combined with other quantum interpretations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the combined double slit and photoelectric effect experiment. By exploring the selective amplification or "biasing" of wavefunction branches, as well as the role of decoherence and measurement interactions, the MWI may be able to be reconciled with the experimental observations. But a case could be made for the MWI whereas the other interpretations could not, and, that would be if no difference is made from the wavefunction intensity (meaning no change in emissions)… explained… Experiment result #2… The experiment shows no reduction in wavefunction intensity, even with the presence of detectors. * This would be a surprising result, as it would contradict the established experimental evidence. * If verified, it would lend strong support to the standard MWI and its prediction of the preservation of the full wavefunction and interference pattern. * It could undermine the current understanding of the role of measurement and decoherence in quantum mechanics. * This outcome would likely require a significant rethinking of how we model the interactions between quantum systems, measurement devices, and the environment. • It could lead to a major shift in the theoretical foundations of quantum mechanics, potentially favoring the MWI over other interpretations.
The one thing that makes me think twice about this is that I am self aware. I am concious. And as such, most other people are probably also self aware. Now I cannot reconcile that with it being predetermined what I am going to do tomorrow. I cannot see how self awareness can exist in a predertimined world. And I do not think self awareness can be an illusion.
Sure you may not know what you’ll do tomorrow but that doesn’t mean that you’d be aware of deterministic forces in your brain that will be responsible for your actions. So one can do things without the awareness of all the chemical and electrical interactions that lead to those actions. There was a paper written about this a couple of years ago.
Interesting ... I can't help but wonder if consciousness is an epiphenomenon? If my sense of now is a product of all the processes that are on going in the brain, then it seems that my "now" is actually in the past. Even for top athletes their "now" is a few tens of milliseconds in the past. Also is superdeterminism easier to reconcile with relativity? Block universe and all that?
There is ZERO reason to think self-awareness is inconsistent with superdeterminism. Your actions are determined by YOU, though you are also determined by what came before. Your relative "awareness" of things is irrelevant to the fact that all events have causes.
Me: "How common or rare is a belief in super-determinism (or strict determinism) among those with PhDs in physics?" Belief in strict determinism is uncommon among physicists with PhDs, and super-determinism is even less frequent. Here's why: Strict Determinism: Most physicists accept that the universe operates under physical laws, but randomness plays a role at the quantum level. Strict determinism suggests everything is predetermined, which clashes with quantum mechanics. Super-determinism: This is a loophole in Bell's theorem, a famous physics concept. It proposes hidden variables pre-determine everything, including the choices scientists make during experiments. While a technical possibility, it's seen as unlikely due to: Lack of explanatory power: It doesn't explain much beyond the correlations observed in Bell's theorem. Occam's razor: Simpler explanations (like randomness in quantum mechanics) are preferred. However, there are a few physicists who advocate for super-determinism, like Sabine Hossenfelder. But it's a minority view. Love Sabine. But she's such a borderline crank on this issue, Gemini ends up mentioning her (and her alone) by name.
"borderline crank" - something like that might have told Albert Einstein too, when he first time came up with special relativity. Trust in Gemini? Well there are some others out there on the field: Tim Palmer, Sandro Donadi, Emely Adlam, Gerard T´Hooft (Noble winner), Gilles Brassard...
@@Thomas-gk42 Other than Einstein himself knowing he was being a dumbass? Look, nothing is ever proven or disproven in philosophy, including metaphysics. But determinism is about as dead as Last Thursdayism. Have a nice day, crackpot!
Sabine's rebuttal is shockingly bad. She desperately needs to read some Karl Popper if this is her take on falsifiability. The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory *that we have tried to falsify, but failed!* - this crucial distinction is the entire crux of the scientific enterprise. It's a process afterall, not some deductive property. What makes falsifiability valuable is precisely the power that lies in carrying out the falsification attempt. Because once we try to falsify a theory, and fail, then we're closer to being correct than we were before, by definition. Sabine brings up the example of coming up with 20 falsifiable theories, and falsifying them immediately, and concluding falsifiability is overrated, well, duh. Of course when your example is structured that way, it's the conclusion you reach. Look, I can do the same thing with repeatability. "I have come up with 20 different theories to test, and all of them are repeatable - they all fail the tests every time! Look how overrated repeatability is, it's practically worthless!" - is what Sabine would say. Disappointed. But good video from Arvin overall. I never had a clear picture of local hidden variables prior to this video. Though I do feel like there's some explaining to do when it comes to bohmian mechanics, we have countless QM experiments of conditions changing after we've made a measurement, and the particle somehow taking a different path that should be impossible given our prior measurement.
Did you even listen to her or did you just want to make a self presentation? She´s a leading mathematician and thinker and you are megalomaniac enough to explain her Popper, that´s ridiculous.
"The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory that we have tried to falsify, but failed!" I think you should watch her statement again, because she is essentially saying the very same @18:28 : Having a "falsifiable theory" is not enough, because it is easy to come up with one. It is difficult, however, to come up with "good falsifiable theory" (i.e. one we can and have tried to falsify but failed).
@@Thomas-gk42 How is it ridiculous? Most mathematicians are platonists, they've never read a lick of philosophy. I don't expect Sabine to have read much either. Course I expect her to have heard of Popper, but her presentation made it clear she doesn't understand the value of falsifiability properly.
@@alexanderkohler6439 You're retrofitting her "good falsifiable theory" statement into what I said because it's convenient, but the likelihood that is what she means, given what she said the few sentences prior to it, is negligble. "good falsifiable theory" can mean anything in the world. Just like "good politics" or "good philosophy" or "good science" is a vague term. But nice try.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter I am not retrofitting, because it is convenient, but because it is a fact based on what she started her argument with @18:00 : She argues that the criticism most often comes from physicists which don't keep in mind that falsifiability alone is NOT enough. You need to have some additional properties in order to get a "good falisifiable theory". Yes, she doesn't go into further details by explicitly stating what those additional properties precisely would have to be in order to get the quality mark "good". Instead, she gives an indirect indication by pointing to a ton of "bad falsifiable theories" in particle physics as counterexamples. I think, that is fair enough for a short appearance in someone else's video.
I honestly kind of wonder if superdeterminism will escape disprovability by simply being subject to Gödel's Incompleteness. Hidden variables might exist outside of the system they have an effect in (i.e. outside the universe as we can perceive it) and therefore only be subject to formal proof if we could escape our own universe. We might just be forced to accept their existence as an axiomatic fact once all other alternatives have been exhausted and leave it at that.
10:33 Prior to the Copenhagen interpretation the idea that the observer is exactly correlated to the observation would be the accepted view given the classical view that all particles have fully determined propagation via laws of physics. Only after the wave function/probability theory was introduced was there now a way to escape from the fully determined Universe.
This is what the excellent show “Devs” was about, which was written and directed by Alex Garland (Civil War, Ex Machina, etc.) It posed the central question that if we live in a deterministic universe and had the tech to measure and compute the universe forwards and backwards in time, could we act in a way contrary to what such a system would predict? Highly recommend watching. Still available on Hulu.
Given the relative simplicity of Superdeterminism (compared to QM) I'd accept it more than I do the Copenhagen Interpretation. I'm also not bothered with the thought of giving up free will, so it's easier for me to accept Superdeterminism.
Plus, the free will discussion doesn't even have much to do with superdeterminism. Regular determinism already is incompatible with the existance of free will, depending on how one defines the prefix "free" in free will.
Copenhagen's interpretation is basically witchcraft. Instead of the "God of the gaps", it's the "QM of the gaps". And add some Jedi mind bending reality nonsense to the mix. That's not science, that's superstition.
@@user-je3sk8cj6g "Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors." Wow, so superstitious.
Superdeterminism is absolutely my cup of tea. But I also add in an epistemological argument against the Copenhagen-etc.-interpretations, and their perpetuation of the status quo of Western Metaphysics. That's all they serve to do. Instead of taking an epistemically agnostic position, so many physicists rush to defend the last hope for 'free will,' while sacrificing all those who suffer by it to their undeserved fates. Is that fair?
I think you make a good point. Scientists in general do potentially sacrifice good ideas in an effort to save Free Will...because after all, without Free Will, I'm not sure any scientific endeavor has meaning.
@@ArvinAsh I just think the existential dread of some scientists and religious people is a really bad reason to sacrifice the rest of humanity. Your fear conecessitates with all manner of contemporary politics (all wrong), along with the sort of interreligious and international conflict (all in vain) that will result in nuclear annihilation anyway. Why not take a revolutionary stance against what amounts to an anti-episteme?
In all debates about hidden variables (super deterministic or not) I’ve seen so far, it’s always about local vs non-local. After studying Bell’s theorem, my conclusion is that hidden variable theories (other than super determinism) would need non-local variables, but that doesn’t rule out local hidden variables. A theory with both local AND non-local hidden variables is not ruled out.
If there was an inflatron field that condensed while decaying, the rapid oscillation that created all of the subatomic particles would have correlated all particles before the reheating of the universe. It makes no sense to reject "super determinism" when we observe determinism.
Right away I'll say that I prefer Sabine's approach to SD. On that note, I also think it is "better" than Copenhagen and many worlds. In Copenhagen the measurement is equivalent to the "and then a miracle happens" of those science jokes. It's completely mysterious and taken on faith. Similarly, many worlds depends on "just trust me, there are other universes but we can't ever prove it" because the math somehow allows it. Why would any of these two alternatives be better than simply allowing for all causes and correlations to have been fixed since the beginning? The alternative is some kind of acausal motion, not even probabilistic, but without any reference to the past.
It's why the argument that superdeterminism is unfalsifiable doesn't hold up, since it applies just as much to wave function collapse. If there's no mechanism behind it, how can you prove that's what's happening in the first place? How do you undergrid your interpretation without a mechanism that proves your interpretation correct? Of course, if we did know the mechanism of wave function collapse, then it would cease to be probabilistic in the first place and would render the theory deterministic. It seems paradoxical.
People prefer these because they allow for free will in some way. Superdeterminism strips that away and exposes the illusion of free will (although we still tend to act as if we have it, because it is a great psychological tool to survive without a complete existential crisis).
The massive leap in logic to “you don’t have free will!” from an unfalsifiable model involving quantum interactions is just another example of how so much of science is driven by competing politics and worldview. We don’t even know how the brain makes a thought. We do know that decisions are made based on external information and that we experience and exercise free will by any reasonable definition; including the ability to alter our choices on a whim just to demonstrate that we have free will. Rather than free will being preserved by people “afraid” that nothing matters, there seem to be too many nihilists terrified that everything matters.
Whatever the answer, I doubt we will solve the measurement problem until we find out how quantum mechanics interacts with gravity. Some of the most beautiful proposals solve both the measurement problem and quantum gravity with the same idea (e.g., Penose's objective collapse, ER = EPR, Oppenheim's postquantum theory).
@@183lucrido_ase I didn't say it has to be beautiful. I said these ideas were beautiful imo, for several reasons. They also happen to be all be motivated extremely well.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
This channel has grown in my attention more and more until the subscription point today❤ In this episode you seemed the more scientist in the room. Sabine is so theatrical, and seems to blame the lack of superdeterministic theories on the lack of funding for the subject. I admit I’m more of a multiverse explanation enthusiast, following Sean Carroll, but I would happily listen to your personal opinion on the matter. Would you take on the challenge to oversee all the existing QM interpretations from your own point of view ? Which is YOUR personal favorite ?
Thanks! I've interviewed Sean on this channel, and asked him questions about Many Worlds. I'll stick with the Copenhagen interpretation until there is a more complete explanation. Bohmian mechanics has too many problems, and the Many Worlds idea creates more questions than it answers, imo. There is no way to test the theory either.
Science is not about being enthusiastic, it´s based on hypothesis and data. MW and CH have given up to solve an inconsistency in the data. Bad science, to say we don´t see the inconsistency by just not watching it.
The wonderful thing about videos like this is that I'm more confused after watching them than I was before because I better understand what we don't understand.
Indeed! I knew I didn't understand the questions and I still don't, but I know I feel that I have a few neurons worth of understanding my lack of understanding
About 15 years ago, I came up with the idea that a totally deterministic universe is compatible with, and, in a sense, necessary for free will - the opposite of what you would expect. Model/Analogy #1: the steering wheel of an automobile would be useless unless there was a deterministic affect on the automobile's wheels when turning the steering wheel. Model/Analogy #2: Conway's "Game of Life" has totally deterministic rules. But, I can determine (steer) the outcome of the game by changing the boundary conditions -- I can add or remove "particles" at any time during the simulation. (Remember, the boundary conditions are not part of the deterministic rules, as they say in PDE class.) Analogously, of course, that means that free will is not part of the universe, but interacts with the universe via a suitable "servo" mechanism, analogous to the power steering assist in an automobile, such as a brain. I suppose it also means that there is something akin to another dimension of time outside of the simulation (universe), that is not the same as the dimension of time inside of the simulation (universe). (I could be wrong, but doesn't LQG also need another dimension of time that is not the same as the time "created" within LQG.)
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
Glad to hear that two of my fave physicists are friends. Well I have a good feeling about super-determinism and am excited about developments. I have reason to believe there is no such thing as free will. But I'm open to the unfolding science.
If superdeteminism is real, couldn't emergence save free will? If everything was determined, though, what implications would it have on philosophical matters like free will or ethical questions? That's what interests me the most.
3 місяці тому
If everything is determined and there's no free will in the universe, there's no will at all, no "knowledge" or discovery, no justification behind science or the scientific method, no justification for epistemology since your starting point defeats the possibility of you "obtaining" "knowledge". Things would just be, and there would be no oughts, everything would be a mechanistic soup of molecules... which makes it silly to even entertain, how is a soup of meaningless molecules ever gonna know or justify that claim logically. People need to start looking into philosophy of science and leaving physics where needs to be.
weak emergence means the dynamics of a system of a given level become decoupled with the dynamics of the system at a lower level -- you can imagine it as simply when the higher level dynamics are functions of the *average* of the lower dynamics. strong determinism therefore doesn't lose its consistency, rather it loses its relevance, and indeed, while the universe itself may be taken to 'compute' every nuance and detail of its dynamics, each hierarchical layer distinguishing subsystems needs only 'compute' itself.
I'm with Sabine on this one, I believe as measurements get more refined, predicable outcomes will increase revealing an underlying super-determinism of the universe. Either way, super exciting stuff.
Wow, that was really great, since I like both channels so mutch. Wonderful and unbiased explanation and summary on the topic. Thank you both for being here and educating us stupid folks. Sabine is one of the bravest, smartest, most soulful, most honest and trustworhy scientists and thinkers, humanity can count on currently.
Thank you for the great video. It was a pleasant surprise to see Sabine commenting here. SD sounds like a discussion of, if there is a God with the entire knowledge of the universe, is he able to predict everything or is he subject to the same probabilistic universe? That's pretty much a philosophical discussion, rather than a scientific one. I believe the most important part of the discussion is, in your own words, "You can make any non-deterministic theory a deterministic one by introducing hidden variables." I think SD will just be a philosophical interpretation seeking the comfort of getting rid of the "spooky action at a distance" and in my opinion, this search for comfort is indeed a side effect of our fear of a non-deterministic universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some argue that weather events are also non-deterministic and inherently unpredictable. Similarly, one could counter-argue that there is actually superdeterminism at play, governed by hidden variables that no one is aware of yet. That doesn’t change anything except for providing the comfort and belief that we are not completely helpless in explaining and predicting the weather. Besides, not only the quantum events but any ordinary life event, such as whether I will be the first person on Jupiter, is quite unpredictable. I can still argue that the universe was aligned at the Big Bang in such a way that will make me the first one landing on Jupiter . It is unfalsifiable, yet such a discussion would just be a waste of time until I come up with some of those variables
While I agree with you on your objection of treating superdeterminism as a scientific theory vs. a philosophical one, there is a big error in the argument on weather events. Weather events are governed by nonlinear dynamics that is characterized by chaos, which is fully deterministic but not predictable.
I like superdeterminism. I think people don't like it because its uncomfortable. The issue of measurement is overlooked too readily, probably because its a very difficult one to reason about. I think it's a hangover from classical physics, but is an assumption which cannot be made at quantum levels. The issue is, fundamentals of physics research is not seen as needed when the calculations work so well, you can just 'shut up and calculate'.
@@gonavygonavy1193 they are non-classical I agree, but I don't see anything that says they're necessarily non-deterministic. Super-determinism is as valid an interpretation as Copenhagen, or many worlds at this point. I prefer it, but as with all the others, we have no way to show which is the best model.
Most interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to be fantasies. Copenhagen, many worlds, many histories, super determinism, ghost branches, etc., etc. Pilot waves seem to make the most sense, but they have all kinds of problems too.
Yep. I don't think Bohmian mechanics makes much sense. The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of a "guiding wave" that somehow pushes a particle around without itself being affected, and how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle.
@@ArvinAsh A great video! It seems that Bohemian Pilot-Wave Theory as is usually portrayed in videos that compare it to other interpretations is rather problematic and dated. I wish that “someone” would do a video on more modern variants on this “theme” that have a historical connection to Bohemian Mechanics but are inspired by more modern “Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs” that are talked about at the “International Conference on Advances in PilotWave Theory & HQA” and other places. Love the Yves Couder and John Bush research for inspiration. Tho it seems that the “pilot-wave” is going to require some sort of “new field” that will be a huge departure in thinking.
@@ArvinAsh "The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of ... how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle." Your problem goes away by choosing the labels for the hidden variables appropriately. If you choose the initial positions of the particles as hidden variables, the hidden variables would essentially be a part of the defining inital conditions. Initial conditions don't change and hence don't communicate. They are just inital conditions and thus fixed. Apart from that: I really liked your video. It gave a very good explanation of the subtle differences between determinism and superdeterminism that made it easy to follow for me. Thanks.
I would like to see discussions around a pilot wave model where the non-locality between entangled particles is minimized to their last localized interaction so as to preserve the property of locality as much as possible, but still have the non-local behavior we observe between locally prepared entangled particles we see in experiments. Maybe there is something wrong with this approach, but I think it is the simplest and keeps with the intuition that the universe is for all practical purposes local.
My opinion is, Superdeterminism is the grandchild of the "all-knowing god" in theology. It rejects randomness and describes time as a predetermined emergent block of incidents. While there is still no method that offers a universal, closed-form solution applicable to all scenarios to even three-body problems, considering the whole universe to be strictly emergent without any non-predictable randomness and throwing probability out of the window might be excessively pretentious.
Scientific arguments deserve better than to just be called "might be pretentious". Fundamentally, superdeterminism is about rejecting arguments based on measurement independence and seeing if it can lead you to new predictions. The implications about randomness are secondary and frankly not very interesting.
As it happens, the concept of sin is based on the idea of free will, determinism precludes the concept of free will, which would be a very critical theological problem. "All knowing god" would have to know the starting position, direction of travel, speed, charge, and spin, of every single elemental particle as it condensed from energy early in the expansion of the universe. That could maybe get you to Deism, the universe is god, but that is not what the churches are selling. The most generous description of "free will" is a cone of potential, looks a bit like a gravity well, it expresses the available freedom of motion (change) for a given object or person. The likelyhood that you will significantly change relative velocity or location much in the next 5 milliseconds is pretty low, where you could be any number of locations a year from now. This is greatly constrained by where you were born, who you were born to, and the circumstances that led up to it. Statistically these factors have an overwhelming impact on wealth and wellbeing, yet it isn't an iron clad indicator for any given individual, the uncertainty principle still applies. (hidden variables) What makes us truly unique is our experiences, which are by nature biased, the lack of free will isn't the same as a lack of agency, but you aren't likely to radically change your outlook on the world without some cause for that change. This dialog is far shorter than the internal dialog that created it, so just in the first step of communication there is significant data loss, we don't think and reason in a vacuum, our world view colors how we see information, and that colored information shapes our world.
You’re not thinking like a scientist there. God knowing everything about every elemental particle is only a problem if you commit a category error, and assume that a being couldn’t know such things because you couldn’t. No theologian would assume that, nor even the Bible writers. What do you think it means that God is “past our understanding?” If God was aware of all outcomes upon creation of the universe/the Big Bang, then both humans and God can be in different senses responsible for human actions. Allowing for free will while also knowing all outcomes at conception can reconcile the older theological issue of Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s fascinating stuff, if you aren’t just looking to dunk on churches as if you learned about science from Rick and Morty episodes.
Finally, a youtube video on this topic that is accurate and clear. Well done :) Can anyone speculate as to what Dr Hossenfelder means at the end when she says "...as measurement devices become smaller and smaller, physicists will eventually notice that the outcomes are more predictable than they ought to be"? What is the supposed correlation between measurement-device size and outcome predictability, and why does it exist?
A large classical thing interacting with a quantum system is described by the collapse of the wave function and the Born rule (an instantaneous very simple random collapse process). Very small things interacting with a quantum system are described by the Schrödinger equation. A deterministic process (not so simple process). So somewhere between "large classical" and "very small" these things must morph into each other. Abs the randomness must disappear more and more into determinism. Things like: 1. Objective collapse: It only partially collapsed and the collapse rate is determined by quantities like the strength of the gravitational field difference (Diósi-Penrose model) or the number or particles that are entangled (Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory). 2. Superdeterminism ...
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos thanks for the explanation. I see what she's alluding to now. For what it's worth, although I think the idea that there may be a gradual/incremental shift from QM to classical in the mesoscopic range is an interesting one (and of course I hope it produces new physics), I'm more inclined to imagine that, at least on the level of individual particles, the shift between the two regimes will not prove to be a gradual one.
We observe the universe in the present moment (wave function collapse) surrounded by the observable therefore, predictable past (general relativity) moving towards the unobserved therefore, probabilistic future (quantum mechanics).
@@binbots yes i agree. even if we came up with a set of equations to simulate our own universe, we'd have to run the simulation to find out, and we could never do so completely -- for many reasons, namely we'd forever lack the sufficient resources, and also because we'd have to simulate ourselves simulating ourselves, which would require the simulation to know how it will run before it finishes running, which it cannot do lol.
It is pretty obvious there is at least ONE variable we are not accounting for because we have not discovered it yet. That is what is causing the illusion of superposition.
@@gonavygonavy1193 Our perception of it is an illusion. I am not denying its reality as a concept. The same way gravity is an illusion. It is really just the curvature of space time, not an attractive force.
@@Dr.HowieFeltersnatchOur perception of it is real. It's the only thing about it that can be called real. There's nothing underlying superposition. It's not like touching an elephant blindfolded,which implies the existence of an objective elephant independent of our touch. There is no elephant. What you touch is what it is. .
non-local hidden variables violate locality, which is backed by special relativity. What scientific theory backs objective reality? Nothing. Only philosophical ones like marxist materialism
If in the double slit experiment we use a laser, we can block any fringe of the interference pattern we want by placing a very narrow object between the slits and the screen, that means that the photons have already chosen their path since they passed through the slits, which tells us that Bohm's interpretation is correct.
My opinion is that while fascinating to ponder, I suspect I'll be long gone before anything definitive is agreed. I also think that the idea of hidden local variables all over could do with a video going deeper into it. But maybe no one has delved deeper yet.
I think the problem stems from the fact that we’re 4D creatures, part of a 4D block universe, with a perception of 3D objects (with change and motion provided by the unseen 4th dimension), and we have evolved in a manner that allows only ‘seeing’ the past, not the future. So, the future seems mutable and the past immutable… and to us that’s true and real. But from a view outside our virtual 3D reality, looking at 4D space-time, all is not just deterministic, but determined. Could those hidden variables mentioned simply exist as the shape of space-time…as in general relativity’s explanation of gravity?
I was thinking about that! Time perception and free will could be illusions like colors or taste. These concepts might not exist outside of human brain
The question is, whether our universe is a determined shape within this 4D space you speak of, or not. To simplify it by looking at a 2D-creature with the shape of a point that can move and that experiences the z-axis as time: Does the creature look like one continuous line through 3D space, or would we see lines branching into multiple possible positions that could be reached by the creature and the manifestation of the "actual position" at z=currently is found by observing which branch it moves along, as we move up along the z-axis. In that case, the outside observer still wouldn't know what happens in "the future"(higher z-axis points), as the actual shape is "rendering" while we move along the z-axis. If a particle can go left or right, without it making a difference in the energy potential, why must we assume, that a hidden variable must make the decision for it? If it is possible for such a situation to arise, then two branches should be equally likely and only the rendering of the present moment can show, which branch our observation is on. I am not saying, that this is the truth, I am just saying, that it is not clear, that the description as a 4D space would force our experienced reality to be a determined object for an outside observer.
@@getziie So we're just characters playing a role and the jokes on us because we actually believe we can determine our fates. But to a true higher dimensional observer watching us on their TV it would be just as absurd as us thinking a prerecorded shows characters can suddenly to something differently. Man maybe Buddhists have it right, just accept everything that happens because it can't unhappen. Just try adapt as best we can with what we currently understand and know because that's all we can do.
@@JodattisLoeschblatt I see what you’re saying. I was imagining the outside observer as outside of time. As able to see the past, the present, and future as one 4D block (as one might hold a cube in one’s hand). To the observer the block would contain only 4D space. Nothing like time (i.e.: no change, no motion). And, in that way, the probability is entirely a perception (or conception) of the creature (us) from within that 4D block. So, yes, you’re right… it comes down to whether there exists a ‘View’ from the outside from which space and time are fixed and immutable. I suppose that’s really what determines the question of determinism.
I believed in super-determinism long before I knew there was a word for it. Without being able to create or destroy energy I couldn’t imagine any other way for movement to be possible.
@@Mrorlgloth We make choices but none of them are free. It is impossible to remove outside influence from any choice we are forced to make because being forced is applying an outside influence. We have agency but time forces all decisions eventually so we cannot have free will.
So...the coolest effect from this video is all the great comments from the masses. It seems humanity may still have a chance and critical thought still exists. Bravo everyone! Oh...and thanks to Arvin and Sabine...excellent video and commentaries.
Superderminism is real thing. And very simple to explain if you know about two things. Cellular automaton theory and computability. Simply put, in very simplified explanation, to be able to predict next state of the universe, thus of any particular part of the universe, you would need a machine with say "memory capacity" of size of number of all elements in the universe. Intentionaly using word elements rather than particles, as we currently don't know what are the building blocks or smaller elements are. But this is not in collision with what been said. Thus even every moment or future state of the universe is perfectly predetermined, it is not computable due obvious physical limitations. We simply cannot build a machine of the size of our universe within our universe. Righ?
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
Precisely, and this is where the "determinism doesn't allow for free will" argument breaks down. We feel as though we have free will because we can't predict our own actions, not because the universe isn't deterministic.
Superdeterminism (SD) is just another way of refuting true randomness. It is similar to information technology (IT), where computers cannot create true randomness with pure computer technologies spontaneously. You can make random generation complex, but it will always result in a pseudo-random procedure. SD is a real-world analogue of pseudo-randomness. If you make pseudo-random generation increasingly complex, it will become more difficult to distinguish from true randomness. However, with enough effort, you can always prove it to be fake. The real-world complexity of randomness makes it too difficult to prove as pseudo.
I like Many Worlds. It leads to great Science Fiction. Some people like theories with closed time like loops. Also great for Sci Fi, but I like the chaotic nuttiness of Many Worlds more. Also, it avoids the grandfather paradox and lets you kill Hitler at any age without rubbing yourself out of existence.
I remember the introduction to EPR & Bell's theorem in grad school, and my immediate thought was that all three relevant events: creation of entangled par, measurement A, and measurement B, have overlapping retro-light cones and thus have sufficient causal connection to explain the measurement correlations. In other words: super determinism. That said, I'm not a fan of superdeterminism, and prefer either nonlocal (i.e. global) hidden variables or, even better, _less_ local hidden variables, but which I mean some physical phenomenon not bound by special relativity -- FTL communication of some hidden variables. Better than any of the above is the possibility of non-intrinsic curvature of 3-space in higher dimensional space allowing any two points in our 3-manifold to be arbitrarily close, or touching, at any given moment. This is possible without affecting the apparent "flatness" of space. There's no reason an entangled particle pair may not remain in contact until a "measurement" causes them to decohere, snapping the connection. There is virtually unlimited potential warping of a 3-manifold in 6+ dimensions with zero or negligible intrinsic curvature.
I imagined the universe to be Superdeterministic ever since I was 7 years old. If a coin flip is deterministic, then everything else. It must be. The entire universe has an influence on me - the gravitational pull from the Andromeda Galaxy reaches out into us. But so to, the tiny gravitational pull from my body also influences Andromeda, even if only so slightly. Every single particle in the Universe influences every single other particles in the universe, and in return it is influenced by the entirety of the Universe. If the entirety of the gravity of every single particle distorts space time throughout the entire universe, even if so slightly, then everything is connected. It's like a tensed rope. Exerting pressure in any point of the rope will pull the entire rope, no matter the size of the rope, and no matter where that pressure is exerted. Even if the rope is infinite. Likewise, such is how the universe works. Imagine pulling in a black hole from another universe that didnt exist in ours previously. A massive black hole like no other, the size of a cluster of galaxies. Well, this hyper black hole would immediately start pulling the entire universe towards it, from one end to another (well, it would actually create a gravitational wave that would travel at light speed and what not, but you get what I mean). This hyper black hole would also be pulled by the combined gravity of the entire rest of the universe. The universe is like a blanket, everything is connected by gravity (and the other 3 fundamental forces, yes yes, but gravity here is the most important, since it appears to be the one that is stronger over longer distances, despite being weaker in closer proximity). This means that, changing one thing in one part of the universe will set a cascade effect in the entire universe. What's more: assuming the Big Bang (which may or may not be correct), there's no reason to assume that it was not a deterministic effect - but then in such case, everything that comes afterwards is also deterministic and even more, intrinsically connected. Like I said, I have always been sure of that ever since I was 7 years old. Everything in the Universe is intrinsically connected and absolutely Superdeterministic in nature.
The really big problem with superdeterministic theories is that they're based on a totally implausible conspiracy: Only a specific set ( of measure zero) of initial conditions is "allowed" for these theories to have a chance to mimic quantum mechanics. Such coincidences and conspiracies made them not only implausible, but also unscientific, imo...
Nonsense, it´s just an approach to solve the measurement problem. No mystic, no conspiracy in it. Is Sabine´s research worth to be funded? 100%, if one is not to biased and therefore likes to believe in magic non locality. A solution for the measurement problem can bring progress in science philosophy and technology. Mainstream QM has given up to solve it.
"universal conspyracy" - a lame battleterm against hidden variable approaches, that pseudophilosophical ´standard QM fans´ invented, including zero argument.
According to Ancient Indian philosophies like Samkhya: " The Effect exists in the Cause". Which sounds deterministic. The information of a seed to become a tree is already determined and is in the seed. We might think it's not determined because we give examples of isolated incidents of a seed failing to become a tree and makes a big fuzz about it. Actually all seeds are destined to become trees. This rule exists even if you find some seeds failing to become trees.
Not that I'm in any way educated enough to have my opinion valued but I find the idea of superdeterminism quite natural and organic... and somehow comforting. Thanks for the video and for Sabine! Always a pleasure to listen to both of you
Understanding the fundamental structure of the universe is essential to our ability to develop extrasolar space travel, long range communication, nanostructure materials, etc. It would also provide insight on gravity / quantum gravity. There should be high incentive to fund superdeterninism research. Maybe it’s not being explained from the right perspective in the grant application process.
"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." -- John Burden Sanderson Haldane (1892-1964) in "Possible worlds and other essays", Chatto and Windus, London, 1927. That said, it's very important that we keep trying!
In my opinion we have no free will, however we have the illusion of free will. That's the saving grace, that it seems as though we are making choices ourselves, although all be do can be directly traced back to the beginning of time at the big bang. Our "choices" were determined then.
Thanks to Opera for sponsoring this video. Click here to upgrade your browser for FREE: opr.as/Opera-browser-ArvinAsh
Let's explore this microscopic roundworm, which has been fully mapped to the neuron and simulated using consumer-grade computers. This is strong proof of simulation theory, in my opinion. The video is called "Does This Worm Prove We're In a Computer Simulation? 🤯" and it actually correlates to your point at 3:00 into your video. While correlation is not causation, It also warrants our contemplation in this case. Food for thought my friend. If we could map the universe as we HAVE THIS WORM TO A T (or as we will humans surely in the same way) Then you can extrapolate from here what that may imply in your video's scenario.
Hi Arvin ! Great Channel!!
I agree with you, Superdeterminism is not testable, however you are making the same assumptions about free will.
Just like science can't explain non-living from living matter, science can't explain free will and self-aware consciousness in the human mind.
A scientific investigation wouldn't be possible without "free will". Without "free will", our minds ("brains") wouldn't know how to separate true information or usable data from influenced information or false data. The results from all scientific investigations would be corrupted. Although computers can be programmed to separate data, a computer can only process data by following a human programmer's instructions. For example, a computer can't decide on it's own to choose another way to separate data, it wasn't programmed to recognize as true information or usable data, and influence information or false data. Human beings can have unlimited creativity, like a professional master artist painting on a blank canvas (computers are limited by it's program and circuits), because of our unlimited imaginations.
A human mind is more than chemical reactions reacting to the environment, or a product of the physical universe (God created us). We all have a mind ("self-aware consciousness") that is uniquely ours (including genetically identical twins). A human mind probably exist at the quantum energy level (quantum vacuum energy state of matter) that supersedes classical physics (the ordering of cause and effect of the observable physical universe). This superseding property is necessary to have free will. It allows human beings (with God's help) to overcome their emotions, biases, other preconceived ideas, and instantaneous temptations.
Time is also needed to evaluate all possible choices accurately and completely, before a decision is made. Dr. Ruth Kastner PhD.; philosopher at physics department at New York State University (who believes "free will" is real and obeys the laws of quantum physics.
The uncertain nature of people is not explained by randomness. Quantum phyics is not random. The positions of the subatomic particles only appear to be random, because exact measurements aren't possible (only probability measurements) with modern-day instruments.
The Quantum Eraser experiment shows that quantum entangled particles, like a photon, can influence each other instantaneously across great distances in a timeless and spaceless quantum vacuum energy state of matter- "Is what really defines reality in this space-time" -PBS Space Time.
Super deterministic ideas, in my humble opinion, will eventually be footnotes in scientific history.. In essence, NOT taken seriously and with a tinge of amusement.. I still like Sabine, though! Good stuff..
*SOMEBODY PEER REVIEW MY UNIFIED LAGRANGIAN*
@TuxedoMaskMusic The worm simulation you refer to is FAR from fully simulated despite suggestions it is.. It can't lay eggs with the ability to reproduce freely, right? At this point, it seems more like a mannequin or shell than a complete simulation..
I am so lucky to be alive today when great physicists can teach on UA-cam for free
Right? 😁
This is the true beauty and potential of the Internet.
if something is free, it means you are the product
🔭 and 🎸 : 📺 👌🏼
I usually use UA-cam to watch dog videos.
Thanks, Arvin, for this wonderful video!
What I think is missing - some analogues to criticism of superdeterminism in other interpretations. Like SD problem with hidden variables is mapped to wave function collapse problem in Copenhagen interpretation, etc.
Master Sabine! Much love from Brazil! 😍
😊
10:28 Nothing is independent here in the universe everything came from The Big Bang Singularity so of course nothing is independent of the setup! If that is the ultimate conclusion then of course super determinism is real!
Yes, this is a very wonderful video.
We need to have a vote to replace the phrase "It's not rocket science!" with "It's not quantum physics!"
Why not accept both? "It's not rocket science" is just another way of saying that something is not complicated or not too difficult to understand. In that case, replacing one phrase for the other makes no sense.
for god sake just use whatever you want.... its not brain surgery😂
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty.
Super determinism is dual to super non determinism.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy).
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality!
Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic!
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
@@hyperduality2838 eat your meds mate
@@TheNameOfJesus
How about it's not rocket surgery?
Reality splitting in many universes is more accepted than everything being deterministic?
They just need to believe they have free will...
The interesting thing is that the Many Worlds interpretation does not automatically mean free will either. There is no splitting of worlds simply because a person makes a decision. The splitting of worlds occurs only when there there a quantum interaction.
@@ArvinAshbut there is a branch where the interaction do happen AND another branch where it doesn't happen
I was presented with a 14-minute video of myself doing something completely different than my 30ish-hour contiguous memory spanning from the night prior through well past the recorded event, a full month after I had spent the full four weeks going through my recall of the whole day..
Something incredibly special happened in my recall.
While the expression on my other self's visage I have not seen in my mirror for 30ish years. Which was ate the exact point in time the me then had a similar episode of an incredibly valuable situation that changed my life in a context that is the common denominator between the two.
Not one mental I mean behavioral health psychiatrist allows me to speak or it.
Their loss😂
@gabrielbarrantes6946 and you need to believe you aren’t responsible for your choices.
@@calebbrunson7120that assumes determinists must be morally bankrupt to be able to object to free will. One can object to all sort of nebulous ideas without being accused with moral liability. In essence your argument is an appeal to authority whereas OP's is an observation. He does not stand to benefit from you being emotionally compromised in this debate. If you actually believe he is a determinist you have to concede the fact that he is not obligated to feel shame just because you accuse him of immorality. After all he is not responsible for his actions. Hope I was clear enough. Cheers.
17:03 There is no way to verify many worlds either, and it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exist, whereas SD only requires assuming that conservation laws are valid at all scales and we just cannot grasp all the virtual particle effects at such small scales.
Conservation law break at expansion of the universe
you say " it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exis" no, the many worlds is a poor name as it is only locally that superpositions exist, not globally.
@@varun7952Cosmologists break conservation laws all the time. They're hypothesing about the big bang so I guess anything goes when inflation is magically able to create matter out of nothing. Quantum mechanics is obviously very different. They can't expect you to believe in them when their theories clearly violate laws of thermodynamics in the here and now. Because unlike the big bang, their theories are expected to be experimentally reproducible.
@@georgerevell5643 no, the many world interpretation expands entanglement and superposition onto the entire universe, so whenever a wave collapses, the entire universe is split
@@HaeikeVraeik NO! If two quantum particles entangle on earth, the state of a particle on the other side of the universe does not instantly split into two versions, one for each of the versions of the particle on earth. That would be stupid if it split the whole universe as it would add non locality back which is half the point of MWI is to restore locality
Finally a new video explaining the concept of SUPERDETERMINISM!
This new paradigm, even if it may be counterintuitive, seems to me more simple and realistic than the other interpretations because it does not postulate new exotic elements.
It also has the advantage of being completely in line with the Einsteinian eternalist block universe!
That´s right.
This is what I call science. The continuous conversation between people with different interpretations of the evidences at hand! Bravo for be so amazing sir
Arvin and Sabine (along w Nick Lucid) are my favorites. Much respect to you, Arvin, for having a rebuttal in your own video. That sort of civility and debate is quite uncommon in today’s world. This is beyond the level of the students in my physics and chemistry classes but you often make great stuff for them too. You help make the world better.
Thanks so much. Glad you find these videos useful!
Nick Lucid is the man.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty.
Super determinism is dual to super non determinism.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy).
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality!
Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic!
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
Totally agree, I think it is a sign of true scientific integrity to include a rebuttal. And I really enjoyed how clearly both viewpoints were expressed.
@@hyperduality2838I've seen you post your crazyness on many physics videos but now you have Star Wars quotes in there pretty sure it's just trolling.
Thanks Arvin for your video!
It's difficult to find podcasts arguing for both sides, mostly you have only one bell ringing.. and you took it seriously to propperly explain your opposing view, its so refreshing..!
Exactly what I was aiming for! Thanks for watching.
The idea of bringing in Sabine was AMAZING, honestly, such a great thing to have happened.
Wanted more of her. Listening to her ideas and worldview is a treat for ears and mind ❤️
With all the dodgy "science" that vested interests are paying for, it's nice to see true science where ideas are strengthened not by investment, but by conversation.
Maybe Sabine can find the funding to formulate a worthwhile superdeterministic theory.....
If she was a man she would be considered a mediocre thinker.
But she still made a whole song and dance ( LITERALLY) whining and complaining about "patriarchy".
Virtuesignallist misandry isn't good science ...
No. Superdeterminism is hogwash. It is not sufficient to merely state that there are correlations. You have to explain, why and how they lead to uniform results that mimic the quantum theory.
Two of the best science sources on the interwebs. It was destined to happen
They have collaborated before this video.
collaborated in bed.
All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again...
@@JaguarBST yeah but then the joke doesn't work...
Just as it is inevitable that someone will confuse the internet with the World Wide Web and call it, erroneously, the interweb. 😂
In this video, two minds that have my attention.... Thanks from Brazil
Arvin just straight insults Dr.Sabine after her explanation 😂😭
Many things seem random until you find the pattern that connects them. In due time we will come to the understanding that the universe is superdeterministic.
Even if everything is predetermined, the system is so complex that our ability to reconize it as such is impossible at this point. For all practical purposes it is percieved as having choice.
But the social outcomes are important. If we accept we have no free will then we can talk about how to handle things like criminal justice. If the people doing crimes are not at fault, we can focus on restorative justice and behavior modification, not simply punitive punishments.
@@robsquared2You’re opening a whole other rabbit hole.!
@@robsquared2 I disagree. Even if our choices are predetermined, the consequences or lack thereof are still used to make our decisions, using your logic nobody can be blamed for anything. The possibility of punishment is pre-emptive behavior modification
now you have all the answers
@@robsquared2 Your whole argument assumes that people can "decide" to accept not to have free will. Which would only be possible if they have free will...
Wow, I didn't know about Superdeterminism until now. You both did a great job explaining it! So interesting
But yeah. I ranted a lot, wsnted to wait a bit before reacting to this one, but here we are, and i enjoyed the video, it was very good and clear, thank you ^^.
Well done, Mr. Irwin. A wonderful explanation that is easy to understand for non-physicists
I think that the real interpretation is a superposition of all possible interpretations
exactly
Reality is more than a few specific equations, and thus hard to calculate. But it is not within absolute impossibility if we can access all parameters in real time. Hidden variables from non-locality is just delayed in a continuum spectrum.
Thanks for this wonderful video! When I was a graduate student, long ago, I tried to solve the measurement problem, not knowing that the correct answer (decoherence) was being developed elsewhere. That led to the many worlds interpretation, in which all possible futures exist somewhere in some pattern of the wave function.
The common interpretation of that interpretation is that therefore the world is deterministic because if every pattern of waves in the wave function keeps on rolling on, and we are unaware of them solely because "our" wave pattern no longer interferes with the others, then there is a "them" equally unaware of "us" in their wave pattern. If every outcome happens "somewhere", then the only thing we can say about ourselves is that we are the version of "us" that just happens to be in this particular part of the wave function. Ergo, no free will.
I came to the conclusion that there is a mistake - not in the theory, but in the way of looking at it - that not only rescues free will but makes it, if anything, more likely than determinism, even if one accepts every assumption behind many worlds. It is a long story to explain, but I am close to completing two novels (yes, novels!) that explain why. Hopefully the first will be out before the end of the year, so if you are interested, look for "For Selenya" and its sequel, "For Katenya"
Now your excellent video has given us a neat summary by Sabine (clearer than her longer versions, imho) of superdeterminism. And it became clear that the same oversight is happening here. IOW, even if all the assumptions behind superdeterminism are correct, it still doesn't say anything about whether free will exists. I'll now have to bung that in somewhere! :-)
Very best wishes for your future research! Cheers Ron House.
"...it still doesn't say anything about whether free will exists." - exactly 💯! That's what all those half-intelligent philosophy-guys don't get, and it's what Sabine constantly explained a hundred times. U admire her patience.
From this exposition Superdeterminism sides with Einstein in his objection to Bohr's 'spooky action at a distance ', and supports his instinctual response that the glove was already right-handed before the box was opened. Very refreshing, I've always been partial to Einstein v Bohr on entanglement.
Brillian video.
Please make more collaborations with Sabine.
She´s marvolous.
Superdeterminism has been my cup of tea since the dawn of time. I just didn't know it until today.
Me too. That's how I always imagined the Universe to operate ever since I was at least 7 years old, simply because I understood that everything affects and is affected by everything else in the universe. Therefore, the universe MUST be Superdeterministic. I just didn't know that it would have this name.
This was so cool!! I'm still on the fence about this one. I will just have to keep listening to the arguments coming from both of you. But then... I'm used to doing that - I've been listening to the both of you for years now :)
Next, Arvin discusses the similarities between Calvinism and determinism. 😂
You can predict where that isolated particle will go with certainty, depending how you view it. That particle that gets isolated to fire through a slit is never outside of the field that carries it. Like isolating a drop of water in the ocean to look at. It's still in the ocean and will move in accordance with the motion of the waves. This is just energy we don't interact with till we isolate a particle to look at. A particle is a tiny tiny piece of wave, that never is outside of its carrier wave. You know when you fire it, it will appear with complete certainty in one of the normal wave impact zones on the other side of the slit.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty.
Super determinism is dual to super non determinism.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy).
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality!
Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic!
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
@@hyperduality2838You're gonna have to break that down for me again 🤔
@@aicguy Rational, analytic (a priori) is dual to empirical, synthetic (a posteriori) -- Immanuel Kant.
Before measurement (mathematics, a priori) is dual to after measurement (physics, a posteriori) -- knowledge is dual.
Deductive reasoning (mathematics) is dual to inductive reasoning (physics) -- Immanuel Kant.
Duality creates reality!
If you read some Immanuel Kant then this should become obvious but you will have to do some work.
There is a discussion in law theory that we don’t need prisons or other kinds of criminal justice because of super determinism. Some argue that it’s not someone’s fault to be a criminal because the universe had already decided how the person would act.
But with SD, it is also determined, that the person HAS TO GO to prison.
Yeah that's pure academic stupidity used to justify a particular political view. The bottom line is that even with super determinism at play, you _still_ need to isolate them from society to prevent them from harming others in the future. It's just that now you're destined to do it or not rather than making a choice about it.
It is still their fault, even if they can't control it. The same way you lock up a lion that you know will eat you. The lion eats other animals by its nature. So by locking up a thief, they brain of the thief will remember what it is like to serve time and not commit more crimes. In other words there is a built in behavior that has to be modified , that behavior is what we call the fault. It is a fault because most people think it is very undesirable in society.
Justice is a concept for maintaining order.
so when it comes to sending a convicted criminal to prison... SORRY we don't have a choice! 😂
Couldn't ask for a better collaboration! Of course, it was always determined to be 😉
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty.
Super determinism is dual to super non determinism.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy).
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality!
Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic!
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
I think you may have meant to say "super determined". 😂
Great talk, and the following may help Sabina without having to spend a lot of money on a new experiment but rather of implementing two other experiments…for a better understanding of physics in general. Something no one else has thought of…
I call it the “Sourlis Implementation”…
Combining the double-slit experiment with the photoelectric effect: Normally these are considered separate experimental setups, but merging them by using a metal plate instead of a standard detection screen is an innovative approach.
The indirect observation of interference: Rather than directly observing the interference pattern on a screen, you are inferring it from the spatial distribution of the emitted photoelectrons/secondary electrons. This adds an extra layer of complexity.
The delicate balance between wave and particle behavior: The ability to switch between observing interference (wave-like behavior) and obtaining "which-slit" information (particle-like behavior) by simply adding the detectors is a quintessential demonstration of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics.
The potential for new insights: This modified setup may provide additional insights into the fundamental principles governing the behavior of quantum particles and the measurement process. Exploring the interplay between interference, detection, and electron emission could lead to a deeper understanding into the:
a) Wavefunction, as with no detectors in place behind the slits because of the wavefunction intensity will lead to higher emissions and thus provide insights or interpretation of the wavefunction by this intentional manipulation.
b) It will reinforce superdeterminism and bohemian mechanics.
c) The multiverse theory will have to be redefined.
d) Potential Insights into Quantum
Computing and Information:
Understanding the relationship between wavefunction manipulation and quantum phenomena could have implications for the development of quantum technologies, such as quantum computing and quantum communication.
And more
And this is based on if the observed results match the standard quantum mechanical model, the very fact that we can intentionally control the wavefunction intensity to produce the anticipated outcomes could be seen as evidence supporting the principles of superdeterminism.
The 3 scenarios of results are
1. Wavefunction Intensity play a role as this would be according to the standard Quantum Mechanical theory.
2. Wavefunction Intensity did not have an effect on results which would indicate something a miss with special relativity and that quantum mechanics would have to be redefined without its constraints place on it by special relativity.
3. No emission from plate with detectors in behind the slits would indicate a misunderstanding by mainstream physics, and if this was the case i would suggest the next step would be to remove the slits with leaving the detectors and the full implementation of the rest of the dual experiments intact, and if further no emissions my theory which I have would be of some use, and which lead me to suggesting this implementation being looked into. (Note the two fundamental concepts that the speed of light being constant and that of entanglement being a byproduct would remain yet the Doppler effect would have to be revised).
Overall, the integration of these two foundational quantum experiments has the potential to provide a more comprehensive picture of the wavefunction and its behavior, as well as shed light on the ongoing debate between deterministic and probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the concept of superdeterminism.
The Sourlis Implementation
Of the double-slit and photoelectric effect experiments:
Apparatus:
1. Monochromatic light source (e.g., LED or low-power laser) with a photon energy just above the work function of the metal plate
2. Double slit apparatus
3. Metal plate (e.g., thin aluminum or copper foil) chosen to have a work function matched to the photon energy
4. Photoelectron detectors (e.g., microchannel plate detectors) placed behind each slit
5. Voltage source to apply a potential difference across the metal plate
6. Ammeter or picoammeter to measure the photoelectric current
7. Collimating optics (e.g., lenses, apertures) to control the beam shape and angle of incidence
8. Mounting hardware to securely hold the components in place
9. Case 2: Using electrons as the source
10. Apparatus:
11. Electron source (e.g., thermionic electron gun) with an energy just above the work function of the metal plate
12. Double slit apparatus
13. Metal plate (e.g., thin aluminum or copper foil) chosen to have a work function matched to the electron energy
14. Electron detectors (e.g., microchannel plate detectors) placed behind each slit
15. Voltage source to apply a potential difference across the metal plate
16. Ammeter or picoammeter to measure the secondary electron current
17. Collimating and focusing optics (e.g., electrostatic or magnetic lenses) to control the electron beam
18. Vacuum chamber to maintain a high-vacuum environment
19. Mounting hardware to securely hold the components in place
The key updates are:
* Using a monochromatic light source or a low-energy electron source, just above the work function of the metal plate
* Choosing the metal plate material to have a work function matched to the photon/electron energy
* This ensures the photoelectric effect or secondary electron emission is induced, but without excessive energy that could complicate the experimental observations.
Regarding the multiverse or many worlds interpretation…the standard MWI predicts that the wavefunction should maintain its interference pattern and higher overall intensity, even with the presence of the slit detectors, since the wavefunction does not collapse according to this interpretation. However, the experimental findings show a lower wavefunction intensity when the detectors are in place, which appears to contradict the MWI's predictions.
Overall, I believe the MWi can be further developed and combined with other quantum interpretations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the combined double slit and photoelectric effect experiment. By exploring the selective amplification or "biasing" of wavefunction branches, as well as the role of decoherence and measurement interactions, the MWI may be able to be reconciled with the experimental observations.
But a case could be made for the MWI whereas the other interpretations could not, and, that would be if no difference is made from the wavefunction intensity (meaning no change in emissions)… explained…
Experiment result #2…
The experiment shows no reduction in wavefunction intensity, even with the presence of detectors.
* This would be a surprising result, as it would contradict the established experimental evidence.
* If verified, it would lend strong support to the standard MWI and its prediction of the preservation of the full wavefunction and interference pattern.
* It could undermine the current understanding of the role of measurement and decoherence in quantum mechanics.
* This outcome would likely require a significant rethinking of how we model the interactions between quantum systems, measurement devices, and the environment.
• It could lead to a major shift in the theoretical foundations of quantum mechanics, potentially favoring the MWI over other interpretations.
I can't help but believe it.
I've been an OPERA user for years! Haven't found anything better yet.
I agree. It's darn good.
The idea that the universe is unfolding as it was always destined to is a very comforting thought.
Until you get mugged.
Not if you talk to a Calvinist.
@@racookster Indeed. The distinction between determinism and predestination or fatalism is too subtle for many.
The one thing that makes me think twice about this is that I am self aware. I am concious. And as such, most other people are probably also self aware.
Now I cannot reconcile that with it being predetermined what I am going to do tomorrow.
I cannot see how self awareness can exist in a predertimined world.
And I do not think self awareness can be an illusion.
Sure you may not know what you’ll do tomorrow but that doesn’t mean that you’d be aware of deterministic forces in your brain that will be responsible for your actions. So one can do things without the awareness of all the chemical and electrical interactions that lead to those actions. There was a paper written about this a couple of years ago.
Interesting ... I can't help but wonder if consciousness is an epiphenomenon? If my sense of now is a product of all the processes that are on going in the brain, then it seems that my "now" is actually in the past. Even for top athletes their "now" is a few tens of milliseconds in the past.
Also is superdeterminism easier to reconcile with relativity? Block universe and all that?
There is ZERO reason to think self-awareness is inconsistent with superdeterminism. Your actions are determined by YOU, though you are also determined by what came before. Your relative "awareness" of things is irrelevant to the fact that all events have causes.
quantum physics say there is no superdeterminism, but superposition and randomness only
Me: "How common or rare is a belief in super-determinism (or strict determinism) among those with PhDs in physics?"
Belief in strict determinism is uncommon among physicists with PhDs, and super-determinism is even less frequent. Here's why:
Strict Determinism: Most physicists accept that the universe operates under physical laws, but randomness plays a role at the quantum level. Strict determinism suggests everything is predetermined, which clashes with quantum mechanics.
Super-determinism: This is a loophole in Bell's theorem, a famous physics concept. It proposes hidden variables pre-determine everything, including the choices scientists make during experiments. While a technical possibility, it's seen as unlikely due to:
Lack of explanatory power: It doesn't explain much beyond the correlations observed in Bell's theorem.
Occam's razor: Simpler explanations (like randomness in quantum mechanics) are preferred.
However, there are a few physicists who advocate for super-determinism, like Sabine Hossenfelder. But it's a minority view.
Love Sabine. But she's such a borderline crank on this issue, Gemini ends up mentioning her (and her alone) by name.
Sounds about right!
"borderline crank" - something like that might have told Albert Einstein too, when he first time came up with special relativity. Trust in Gemini? Well there are some others out there on the field: Tim Palmer, Sandro Donadi, Emely Adlam, Gerard T´Hooft (Noble winner), Gilles Brassard...
@@Thomas-gk42 Even Einstein knew Einstein got pwnt by N. Bohr on the "God does not play dice" stuff.
Determinism is fringe kookiness nowadays, sorry.
@@mpetrison3799 i don´t see an argument.
@@Thomas-gk42 Other than Einstein himself knowing he was being a dumbass?
Look, nothing is ever proven or disproven in philosophy, including metaphysics. But determinism is about as dead as Last Thursdayism.
Have a nice day, crackpot!
Sabine's rebuttal is shockingly bad. She desperately needs to read some Karl Popper if this is her take on falsifiability.
The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory *that we have tried to falsify, but failed!* - this crucial distinction is the entire crux of the scientific enterprise. It's a process afterall, not some deductive property. What makes falsifiability valuable is precisely the power that lies in carrying out the falsification attempt. Because once we try to falsify a theory, and fail, then we're closer to being correct than we were before, by definition.
Sabine brings up the example of coming up with 20 falsifiable theories, and falsifying them immediately, and concluding falsifiability is overrated, well, duh. Of course when your example is structured that way, it's the conclusion you reach. Look, I can do the same thing with repeatability. "I have come up with 20 different theories to test, and all of them are repeatable - they all fail the tests every time! Look how overrated repeatability is, it's practically worthless!" - is what Sabine would say. Disappointed.
But good video from Arvin overall. I never had a clear picture of local hidden variables prior to this video. Though I do feel like there's some explaining to do when it comes to bohmian mechanics, we have countless QM experiments of conditions changing after we've made a measurement, and the particle somehow taking a different path that should be impossible given our prior measurement.
Did you even listen to her or did you just want to make a self presentation? She´s a leading mathematician and thinker and you are megalomaniac enough to explain her Popper, that´s ridiculous.
"The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory that we have tried to falsify, but failed!" I think you should watch her statement again, because she is essentially saying the very same @18:28 : Having a "falsifiable theory" is not enough, because it is easy to come up with one. It is difficult, however, to come up with "good falsifiable theory" (i.e. one we can and have tried to falsify but failed).
@@Thomas-gk42 How is it ridiculous? Most mathematicians are platonists, they've never read a lick of philosophy. I don't expect Sabine to have read much either. Course I expect her to have heard of Popper, but her presentation made it clear she doesn't understand the value of falsifiability properly.
@@alexanderkohler6439 You're retrofitting her "good falsifiable theory" statement into what I said because it's convenient, but the likelihood that is what she means, given what she said the few sentences prior to it, is negligble. "good falsifiable theory" can mean anything in the world. Just like "good politics" or "good philosophy" or "good science" is a vague term. But nice try.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter I am not retrofitting, because it is convenient, but because it is a fact based on what she started her argument with @18:00 : She argues that the criticism most often comes from physicists which don't keep in mind that falsifiability alone is NOT enough. You need to have some additional properties in order to get a "good falisifiable theory". Yes, she doesn't go into further details by explicitly stating what those additional properties precisely would have to be in order to get the quality mark "good". Instead, she gives an indirect indication by pointing to a ton of "bad falsifiable theories" in particle physics as counterexamples. I think, that is fair enough for a short appearance in someone else's video.
I honestly kind of wonder if superdeterminism will escape disprovability by simply being subject to Gödel's Incompleteness. Hidden variables might exist outside of the system they have an effect in (i.e. outside the universe as we can perceive it) and therefore only be subject to formal proof if we could escape our own universe. We might just be forced to accept their existence as an axiomatic fact once all other alternatives have been exhausted and leave it at that.
10:33 Prior to the Copenhagen interpretation the idea that the observer is exactly correlated to the observation would be the accepted view given the classical view that all particles have fully determined propagation via laws of physics. Only after the wave function/probability theory was introduced was there now a way to escape from the fully determined Universe.
This is what the excellent show “Devs” was about, which was written and directed by Alex Garland (Civil War, Ex Machina, etc.)
It posed the central question that if we live in a deterministic universe and had the tech to measure and compute the universe forwards and backwards in time, could we act in a way contrary to what such a system would predict? Highly recommend watching. Still available on Hulu.
Given the relative simplicity of Superdeterminism (compared to QM) I'd accept it more than I do the Copenhagen Interpretation. I'm also not bothered with the thought of giving up free will, so it's easier for me to accept Superdeterminism.
Plus, the free will discussion doesn't even have much to do with superdeterminism.
Regular determinism already is incompatible with the existance of free will, depending on how one defines the prefix "free" in free will.
Copenhagen's interpretation is basically witchcraft. Instead of the "God of the gaps", it's the "QM of the gaps". And add some Jedi mind bending reality nonsense to the mix. That's not science, that's superstition.
@@user-je3sk8cj6g "Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors." Wow, so superstitious.
Superdeterminism is absolutely my cup of tea. But I also add in an epistemological argument against the Copenhagen-etc.-interpretations, and their perpetuation of the status quo of Western Metaphysics. That's all they serve to do. Instead of taking an epistemically agnostic position, so many physicists rush to defend the last hope for 'free will,' while sacrificing all those who suffer by it to their undeserved fates. Is that fair?
@@anywallsocket maybe for idiots
I think you make a good point. Scientists in general do potentially sacrifice good ideas in an effort to save Free Will...because after all, without Free Will, I'm not sure any scientific endeavor has meaning.
@@ArvinAsh you should not get meaning from a weird idea of freedom or lack there of, how you act is who you are.
@@ArvinAsh I just think the existential dread of some scientists and religious people is a really bad reason to sacrifice the rest of humanity. Your fear conecessitates with all manner of contemporary politics (all wrong), along with the sort of interreligious and international conflict (all in vain) that will result in nuclear annihilation anyway. Why not take a revolutionary stance against what amounts to an anti-episteme?
There is no free will , but there are different wills that should be equally respected ... Or not , doesn't really matter ;)
In all debates about hidden variables (super deterministic or not) I’ve seen so far, it’s always about local vs non-local.
After studying Bell’s theorem, my conclusion is that hidden variable theories (other than super determinism) would need non-local variables, but that doesn’t rule out local hidden variables. A theory with both local AND non-local hidden variables is not ruled out.
Great video! More than one perspective in Super D same discussion was super informative.
If there was an inflatron field that condensed while decaying, the rapid oscillation that created all of the subatomic particles would have correlated all particles before the reheating of the universe.
It makes no sense to reject "super determinism" when we observe determinism.
Right away I'll say that I prefer Sabine's approach to SD. On that note, I also think it is "better" than Copenhagen and many worlds. In Copenhagen the measurement is equivalent to the "and then a miracle happens" of those science jokes. It's completely mysterious and taken on faith. Similarly, many worlds depends on "just trust me, there are other universes but we can't ever prove it" because the math somehow allows it. Why would any of these two alternatives be better than simply allowing for all causes and correlations to have been fixed since the beginning? The alternative is some kind of acausal motion, not even probabilistic, but without any reference to the past.
It's why the argument that superdeterminism is unfalsifiable doesn't hold up, since it applies just as much to wave function collapse. If there's no mechanism behind it, how can you prove that's what's happening in the first place? How do you undergrid your interpretation without a mechanism that proves your interpretation correct? Of course, if we did know the mechanism of wave function collapse, then it would cease to be probabilistic in the first place and would render the theory deterministic. It seems paradoxical.
People prefer these because they allow for free will in some way. Superdeterminism strips that away and exposes the illusion of free will (although we still tend to act as if we have it, because it is a great psychological tool to survive without a complete existential crisis).
Where is all this heap of hidden parameters stored? Outside the physical universe on a computer that simulates Elon Musk?
The massive leap in logic to “you don’t have free will!” from an unfalsifiable model involving quantum interactions is just another example of how so much of science is driven by competing politics and worldview. We don’t even know how the brain makes a thought. We do know that decisions are made based on external information and that we experience and exercise free will by any reasonable definition; including the ability to alter our choices on a whim just to demonstrate that we have free will. Rather than free will being preserved by people “afraid” that nothing matters, there seem to be too many nihilists terrified that everything matters.
Whatever the answer, I doubt we will solve the measurement problem until we find out how quantum mechanics interacts with gravity. Some of the most beautiful proposals solve both the measurement problem and quantum gravity with the same idea (e.g., Penose's objective collapse, ER = EPR, Oppenheim's postquantum theory).
Beauty is not a criterion. Theory has to predict experiment, it has no obligations to be beautiful.
@@183lucrido_ase I didn't say it has to be beautiful. I said these ideas were beautiful imo, for several reasons. They also happen to be all be motivated extremely well.
At least they are thinking outside the box and not slaves to orthodoxy. But things seem to be moving slowly or not at all.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty.
Super determinism is dual to super non determinism.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy).
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality!
Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic!
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
This channel has grown in my attention more and more until the subscription point today❤
In this episode you seemed the more scientist in the room.
Sabine is so theatrical, and seems to blame the lack of superdeterministic theories on the lack of funding for the subject.
I admit I’m more of a multiverse explanation enthusiast, following Sean Carroll, but I would happily listen to your personal opinion on the matter.
Would you take on the challenge to oversee all the existing QM interpretations from your own point of view ?
Which is YOUR personal favorite ?
Thanks! I've interviewed Sean on this channel, and asked him questions about Many Worlds. I'll stick with the Copenhagen interpretation until there is a more complete explanation. Bohmian mechanics has too many problems, and the Many Worlds idea creates more questions than it answers, imo. There is no way to test the theory either.
Science is not about being enthusiastic, it´s based on hypothesis and data. MW and CH have given up to solve an inconsistency in the data. Bad science, to say we don´t see the inconsistency by just not watching it.
The wonderful thing about videos like this is that I'm more confused after watching them than I was before because I better understand what we don't understand.
Indeed! I knew I didn't understand the questions and I still don't, but I know I feel that I have a few neurons worth of understanding my lack of understanding
I don't like superdeterminism, but like a lot your comparison with Sabine's ideas in a video, because I like you both.
Super-duper-determinism made you read and upvote this comment.
Super-duper-determinism will also cause my 2nd comment, the next one directly after this one, to mysteriously "disappear."
About 15 years ago, I came up with the idea that a totally deterministic universe is compatible with, and, in a sense, necessary for free will - the opposite of what you would expect. Model/Analogy #1: the steering wheel of an automobile would be useless unless there was a deterministic affect on the automobile's wheels when turning the steering wheel. Model/Analogy #2: Conway's "Game of Life" has totally deterministic rules. But, I can determine (steer) the outcome of the game by changing the boundary conditions -- I can add or remove "particles" at any time during the simulation. (Remember, the boundary conditions are not part of the deterministic rules, as they say in PDE class.) Analogously, of course, that means that free will is not part of the universe, but interacts with the universe via a suitable "servo" mechanism, analogous to the power steering assist in an automobile, such as a brain. I suppose it also means that there is something akin to another dimension of time outside of the simulation (universe), that is not the same as the dimension of time inside of the simulation (universe). (I could be wrong, but doesn't LQG also need another dimension of time that is not the same as the time "created" within LQG.)
You got me
@@sabbathguy1No no no, you got the OP...
Super-duper-determinism meant that he *had* to write that post *because* you were going to write your reply.
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty.
Super determinism is dual to super non determinism.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy).
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality!
Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic!
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
Glad to hear that two of my fave physicists are friends. Well I have a good feeling about super-determinism and am excited about developments. I have reason to believe there is no such thing as free will. But I'm open to the unfolding science.
2 Distinguished science communicators in one video. What a day🎉
If superdeteminism is real, couldn't emergence save free will?
If everything was determined, though, what implications would it have on philosophical matters like free will or ethical questions? That's what interests me the most.
If everything is determined and there's no free will in the universe, there's no will at all, no "knowledge" or discovery, no justification behind science or the scientific method, no justification for epistemology since your starting point defeats the possibility of you "obtaining" "knowledge". Things would just be, and there would be no oughts, everything would be a mechanistic soup of molecules... which makes it silly to even entertain, how is a soup of meaningless molecules ever gonna know or justify that claim logically. People need to start looking into philosophy of science and leaving physics where needs to be.
weak emergence means the dynamics of a system of a given level become decoupled with the dynamics of the system at a lower level -- you can imagine it as simply when the higher level dynamics are functions of the *average* of the lower dynamics. strong determinism therefore doesn't lose its consistency, rather it loses its relevance, and indeed, while the universe itself may be taken to 'compute' every nuance and detail of its dynamics, each hierarchical layer distinguishing subsystems needs only 'compute' itself.
The free will discussion is not connected with QM. How does the copenhagen interpretation allow you t have free will?
Yes, free will is a feeling like love, an emergent property of our brain so far.
"Free will"--in the only meaningful sense--is consistent with superdeterminism. Random behavior is neither rational nor moral.
With no scientific basis, I have a strong desire for all things to be deterministic.
imagine when banks dont give u loan when u r determined to be homeless in future.
It's not your desire. You were predetermined to feel that way. 😁
Same here. I think of the old dying dude in the hospital with Tony Soprano. Everything is everything and free will is an illusion.
It's a good heuristic, has worked well so far
Almost like the two go hand in hand
I'm with Sabine on this one, I believe as measurements get more refined, predicable outcomes will increase revealing an underlying super-determinism of the universe. Either way, super exciting stuff.
Wow, that was really great, since I like both channels so mutch. Wonderful and unbiased explanation and summary on the topic. Thank you both for being here and educating us stupid folks. Sabine is one of the bravest, smartest, most soulful, most honest and trustworhy scientists and thinkers, humanity can count on currently.
Super cool to have you two on one video! I enjoyed.
Thank you both, what an starry appearance 🌌👁️🙌✨👏🏽👏🏼👏🏼
Nice
Thank you for the great video. It was a pleasant surprise to see Sabine commenting here.
SD sounds like a discussion of, if there is a God with the entire knowledge of the universe, is he able to predict everything or is he subject to the same probabilistic universe? That's pretty much a philosophical discussion, rather than a scientific one.
I believe the most important part of the discussion is, in your own words, "You can make any non-deterministic theory a deterministic one by introducing hidden variables." I think SD will just be a philosophical interpretation seeking the comfort of getting rid of the "spooky action at a distance" and in my opinion, this search for comfort is indeed a side effect of our fear of a non-deterministic universe.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but some argue that weather events are also non-deterministic and inherently unpredictable. Similarly, one could counter-argue that there is actually superdeterminism at play, governed by hidden variables that no one is aware of yet. That doesn’t change anything except for providing the comfort and belief that we are not completely helpless in explaining and predicting the weather.
Besides, not only the quantum events but any ordinary life event, such as whether I will be the first person on Jupiter, is quite unpredictable. I can still argue that the universe was aligned at the Big Bang in such a way that will make me the first one landing on Jupiter . It is unfalsifiable, yet such a discussion would just be a waste of time until I come up with some of those variables
While I agree with you on your objection of treating superdeterminism as a scientific theory vs. a philosophical one, there is a big error in the argument on weather events. Weather events are governed by nonlinear dynamics that is characterized by chaos, which is fully deterministic but not predictable.
i think it makes more sense than conpenhagem interpretation
Certainly ASSUMES much less . . . Occam's razor.
I like superdeterminism. I think people don't like it because its uncomfortable.
The issue of measurement is overlooked too readily, probably because its a very difficult one to reason about. I think it's a hangover from classical physics, but is an assumption which cannot be made at quantum levels.
The issue is, fundamentals of physics research is not seen as needed when the calculations work so well, you can just 'shut up and calculate'.
Exactly!
fundamentals of physics are non-classical and non-deterministic
@@gonavygonavy1193 And fairies ride on unicorns...
@@gonavygonavy1193 they are non-classical I agree, but I don't see anything that says they're necessarily non-deterministic.
Super-determinism is as valid an interpretation as Copenhagen, or many worlds at this point. I prefer it, but as with all the others, we have no way to show which is the best model.
Not easy to fully understand but well done and super interesting. Thanks
A colab between Arvin and Sabine!!! YES!!!!!
Most interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to be fantasies. Copenhagen, many worlds, many histories, super determinism, ghost branches, etc., etc. Pilot waves seem to make the most sense, but they have all kinds of problems too.
Yep. I don't think Bohmian mechanics makes much sense. The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of a "guiding wave" that somehow pushes a particle around without itself being affected, and how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle.
@@ArvinAsh
A great video!
It seems that Bohemian Pilot-Wave Theory as is usually portrayed in videos that compare it to other interpretations is rather problematic and dated. I wish that “someone” would do a video on more modern variants on this “theme” that have a historical connection to Bohemian Mechanics but are inspired by more modern “Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs” that are talked about at the “International Conference on Advances in PilotWave Theory & HQA” and other places. Love the Yves Couder and John Bush research for inspiration.
Tho it seems that the “pilot-wave” is going to require some sort of “new field” that will be a huge departure in thinking.
@@ArvinAsh "The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of ... how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle." Your problem goes away by choosing the labels for the hidden variables appropriately. If you choose the initial positions of the particles as hidden variables, the hidden variables would essentially be a part of the defining inital conditions. Initial conditions don't change and hence don't communicate. They are just inital conditions and thus fixed.
Apart from that: I really liked your video. It gave a very good explanation of the subtle differences between determinism and superdeterminism that made it easy to follow for me. Thanks.
@@ArvinAshExactly put. Approved. 😊
I would like to see discussions around a pilot wave model where the non-locality between entangled particles is minimized to their last localized interaction so as to preserve the property of locality as much as possible, but still have the non-local behavior we observe between locally prepared entangled particles we see in experiments. Maybe there is something wrong with this approach, but I think it is the simplest and keeps with the intuition that the universe is for all practical purposes local.
My opinion is, Superdeterminism is the grandchild of the "all-knowing god" in theology. It rejects randomness and describes time as a predetermined emergent block of incidents. While there is still no method that offers a universal, closed-form solution applicable to all scenarios to even three-body problems, considering the whole universe to be strictly emergent without any non-predictable randomness and throwing probability out of the window might be excessively pretentious.
Scientific arguments deserve better than to just be called "might be pretentious". Fundamentally, superdeterminism is about rejecting arguments based on measurement independence and seeing if it can lead you to new predictions. The implications about randomness are secondary and frankly not very interesting.
As it happens, the concept of sin is based on the idea of free will, determinism precludes the concept of free will, which would be a very critical theological problem. "All knowing god" would have to know the starting position, direction of travel, speed, charge, and spin, of every single elemental particle as it condensed from energy early in the expansion of the universe. That could maybe get you to Deism, the universe is god, but that is not what the churches are selling.
The most generous description of "free will" is a cone of potential, looks a bit like a gravity well, it expresses the available freedom of motion (change) for a given object or person. The likelyhood that you will significantly change relative velocity or location much in the next 5 milliseconds is pretty low, where you could be any number of locations a year from now. This is greatly constrained by where you were born, who you were born to, and the circumstances that led up to it. Statistically these factors have an overwhelming impact on wealth and wellbeing, yet it isn't an iron clad indicator for any given individual, the uncertainty principle still applies. (hidden variables)
What makes us truly unique is our experiences, which are by nature biased, the lack of free will isn't the same as a lack of agency, but you aren't likely to radically change your outlook on the world without some cause for that change. This dialog is far shorter than the internal dialog that created it, so just in the first step of communication there is significant data loss, we don't think and reason in a vacuum, our world view colors how we see information, and that colored information shapes our world.
You’re not thinking like a scientist there. God knowing everything about every elemental particle is only a problem if you commit a category error, and assume that a being couldn’t know such things because you couldn’t. No theologian would assume that, nor even the Bible writers. What do you think it means that God is “past our understanding?”
If God was aware of all outcomes upon creation of the universe/the Big Bang, then both humans and God can be in different senses responsible for human actions. Allowing for free will while also knowing all outcomes at conception can reconcile the older theological issue of Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s fascinating stuff, if you aren’t just looking to dunk on churches as if you learned about science from Rick and Morty episodes.
Finally, a youtube video on this topic that is accurate and clear. Well done :)
Can anyone speculate as to what Dr Hossenfelder means at the end when she says "...as measurement devices become smaller and smaller, physicists will eventually notice that the outcomes are more predictable than they ought to be"?
What is the supposed correlation between measurement-device size and outcome predictability, and why does it exist?
A large classical thing interacting with a quantum system is described by the collapse of the wave function and the Born rule (an instantaneous very simple random collapse process).
Very small things interacting with a quantum system are described by the Schrödinger equation. A deterministic process (not so simple process).
So somewhere between "large classical" and "very small" these things must morph into each other. Abs the randomness must disappear more and more into determinism.
Things like:
1. Objective collapse: It only partially collapsed and the collapse rate is determined by quantities like the strength of the gravitational field difference (Diósi-Penrose model) or the number or particles that are entangled (Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory).
2. Superdeterminism
...
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos thanks for the explanation. I see what she's alluding to now.
For what it's worth, although I think the idea that there may be a gradual/incremental shift from QM to classical in the mesoscopic range is an interesting one (and of course I hope it produces new physics), I'm more inclined to imagine that, at least on the level of individual particles, the shift between the two regimes will not prove to be a gradual one.
Definitely makes more sense than many worlds though
No, in fact, it doesn't. Super-Determinism leads to a DEAD UNIVERSE with no novelty explorable. That is NOT how God operates.
Adding hidden, unknown variables is like saying "I don't know". This is fine, as we know much less than we don't know.
We don't know and may never know, but we may still have a theory as to why this is so.
We observe the universe in the present moment (wave function collapse) surrounded by the observable therefore, predictable past (general relativity) moving towards the unobserved therefore, probabilistic future (quantum mechanics).
lmao so super determinism or no ?
@@anywallsocket lol. In an infinite universe it’s fundamentally unknowable.
@@anywallsocket also unknowable because we are inside the universe. A system is only knowable if one is outside of it.
@@binbots yes i agree. even if we came up with a set of equations to simulate our own universe, we'd have to run the simulation to find out, and we could never do so completely -- for many reasons, namely we'd forever lack the sufficient resources, and also because we'd have to simulate ourselves simulating ourselves, which would require the simulation to know how it will run before it finishes running, which it cannot do lol.
@@binbots note that is true even in a finite universe *
It is pretty obvious there is at least ONE variable we are not accounting for because we have not discovered it yet. That is what is causing the illusion of superposition.
Superposition is not an illusion. It is the way things fundamentally are.
@@gonavygonavy1193
Our perception of it is an illusion. I am not denying its reality as a concept.
The same way gravity is an illusion. It is really just the curvature of space time, not an attractive force.
@@Dr.HowieFeltersnatchOur perception of it is real. It's the only thing about it that can be called real. There's nothing underlying superposition.
It's not like touching an elephant blindfolded,which implies the existence of an objective elephant independent of our touch. There is no elephant. What you touch is what it is.
.
non-local hidden variables violate locality, which is backed by special relativity. What scientific theory backs objective reality? Nothing. Only philosophical ones like marxist materialism
If in the double slit experiment we use a laser, we can block any fringe of the interference pattern we want by placing a very narrow object between the slits and the screen, that means that the photons have already chosen their path since they passed through the slits, which tells us that Bohm's interpretation is correct.
My opinion is that while fascinating to ponder, I suspect I'll be long gone before anything definitive is agreed. I also think that the idea of hidden local variables all over could do with a video going deeper into it. But maybe no one has delved deeper yet.
I disagree with Sabine and dislike her double standard.
I think the problem stems from the fact that we’re 4D creatures, part of a 4D block universe, with a perception of 3D objects (with change and motion provided by the unseen 4th dimension), and we have evolved in a manner that allows only ‘seeing’ the past, not the future. So, the future seems mutable and the past immutable… and to us that’s true and real. But from a view outside our virtual 3D reality, looking at 4D space-time, all is not just deterministic, but determined. Could those hidden variables mentioned simply exist as the shape of space-time…as in general relativity’s explanation of gravity?
I was thinking about that! Time perception and free will could be illusions like colors or taste. These concepts might not exist outside of human brain
The question is, whether our universe is a determined shape within this 4D space you speak of, or not.
To simplify it by looking at a 2D-creature with the shape of a point that can move and that experiences the z-axis as time:
Does the creature look like one continuous line through 3D space, or would we see lines branching into multiple possible positions that could be reached by the creature and the manifestation of the "actual position" at z=currently is found by observing which branch it moves along, as we move up along the z-axis.
In that case, the outside observer still wouldn't know what happens in "the future"(higher z-axis points), as the actual shape is "rendering" while we move along the z-axis.
If a particle can go left or right, without it making a difference in the energy potential, why must we assume, that a hidden variable must make the decision for it? If it is possible for such a situation to arise, then two branches should be equally likely and only the rendering of the present moment can show, which branch our observation is on.
I am not saying, that this is the truth, I am just saying, that it is not clear, that the description as a 4D space would force our experienced reality to be a determined object for an outside observer.
@@getziie So we're just characters playing a role and the jokes on us because we actually believe we can determine our fates. But to a true higher dimensional observer watching us on their TV it would be just as absurd as us thinking a prerecorded shows characters can suddenly to something differently. Man maybe Buddhists have it right, just accept everything that happens because it can't unhappen. Just try adapt as best we can with what we currently understand and know because that's all we can do.
Without accepting multidimensionality in all of the objects, any theory is dormant.
@@JodattisLoeschblatt I see what you’re saying. I was imagining the outside observer as outside of time. As able to see the past, the present, and future as one 4D block (as one might hold a cube in one’s hand). To the observer the block would contain only 4D space. Nothing like time (i.e.: no change, no motion). And, in that way, the probability is entirely a perception (or conception) of the creature (us) from within that 4D block. So, yes, you’re right… it comes down to whether there exists a ‘View’ from the outside from which space and time are fixed and immutable. I suppose that’s really what determines the question of determinism.
I believed in super-determinism long before I knew there was a word for it. Without being able to create or destroy energy I couldn’t imagine any other way for movement to be possible.
Free will doesn't exist ??
@@Mrorlgloth We make choices but none of them are free. It is impossible to remove outside influence from any choice we are forced to make because being forced is applying an outside influence. We have agency but time forces all decisions eventually so we cannot have free will.
BRAVO!!!!!!! I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!!!!❤️🙏🏻❤️🙏🏻❤️🙏🏻❤️
Wow I think this was the clearest explanation I've ever seen.
Thanks so much! Glad you found it helpful.
When i tell fitness folks that what you put in your mouth is not your choice then they get upset at me.
😂
As a fitness person this makes me laugh
That's what she said
Does it upset you when people get unhappy with their weight and successfully change their diet?
@@AbsentMinded619 I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly.
So...the coolest effect from this video is all the great comments from the masses. It seems humanity may still have a chance and critical thought still exists. Bravo everyone! Oh...and thanks to Arvin and Sabine...excellent video and commentaries.
Great video.
We are living in a simulation where the random number generator results in quantum randomness.
Even a random number generator is predictable in theory
@@ArvinAsh The ones we use are...
Superderminism is real thing. And very simple to explain if you know about two things. Cellular automaton theory and computability.
Simply put, in very simplified explanation, to be able to predict next state of the universe, thus of any particular part of the universe, you would need a machine with say "memory capacity" of size of number of all elements in the universe. Intentionaly using word elements rather than particles, as we currently don't know what are the building blocks or smaller elements are. But this is not in collision with what been said.
Thus even every moment or future state of the universe is perfectly predetermined, it is not computable due obvious physical limitations. We simply cannot build a machine of the size of our universe within our universe. Righ?
Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty.
Super determinism is dual to super non determinism.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual.
Information is dual.
Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy).
Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality!
Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic!
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty.
"Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi.
Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.
Precisely, and this is where the "determinism doesn't allow for free will" argument breaks down. We feel as though we have free will because we can't predict our own actions, not because the universe isn't deterministic.
Super-determinism is absolute BS. I am so surprised that so many people believe in it, even the PhD ones.
Beyond that meaningless statement, any arguments?
An unfrofound opinion does not help at all. There are no better arguments for the Copenhagen interpretation.
@@maritaschweizer1117yes there is. occam's razor
Superdeterminism (SD) is just another way of refuting true randomness. It is similar to information technology (IT), where computers cannot create true randomness with pure computer technologies spontaneously. You can make random generation complex, but it will always result in a pseudo-random procedure.
SD is a real-world analogue of pseudo-randomness. If you make pseudo-random generation increasingly complex, it will become more difficult to distinguish from true randomness. However, with enough effort, you can always prove it to be fake.
The real-world complexity of randomness makes it too difficult to prove as pseudo.
@@gonavygonavy1193 Occam´s razor supports standard QM and the magic about it? That sounds ridiculous.
I like Many Worlds. It leads to great Science Fiction.
Some people like theories with closed time like loops. Also great for Sci Fi, but I like the chaotic nuttiness of Many Worlds more. Also, it avoids the grandfather paradox and lets you kill Hitler at any age without rubbing yourself out of existence.
Haha, yes, it does lead to some great Hollywood stories! Wouldn't it be something if we picked the best theories based on their story potential?
I remember the introduction to EPR & Bell's theorem in grad school, and my immediate thought was that all three relevant events: creation of entangled par, measurement A, and measurement B, have overlapping retro-light cones and thus have sufficient causal connection to explain the measurement correlations. In other words: super determinism. That said, I'm not a fan of superdeterminism, and prefer either nonlocal (i.e. global) hidden variables or, even better, _less_ local hidden variables, but which I mean some physical phenomenon not bound by special relativity -- FTL communication of some hidden variables.
Better than any of the above is the possibility of non-intrinsic curvature of 3-space in higher dimensional space allowing any two points in our 3-manifold to be arbitrarily close, or touching, at any given moment. This is possible without affecting the apparent "flatness" of space. There's no reason an entangled particle pair may not remain in contact until a "measurement" causes them to decohere, snapping the connection. There is virtually unlimited potential warping of a 3-manifold in 6+ dimensions with zero or negligible intrinsic curvature.
I imagined the universe to be Superdeterministic ever since I was 7 years old. If a coin flip is deterministic, then everything else. It must be. The entire universe has an influence on me - the gravitational pull from the Andromeda Galaxy reaches out into us. But so to, the tiny gravitational pull from my body also influences Andromeda, even if only so slightly. Every single particle in the Universe influences every single other particles in the universe, and in return it is influenced by the entirety of the Universe. If the entirety of the gravity of every single particle distorts space time throughout the entire universe, even if so slightly, then everything is connected.
It's like a tensed rope. Exerting pressure in any point of the rope will pull the entire rope, no matter the size of the rope, and no matter where that pressure is exerted. Even if the rope is infinite. Likewise, such is how the universe works. Imagine pulling in a black hole from another universe that didnt exist in ours previously. A massive black hole like no other, the size of a cluster of galaxies. Well, this hyper black hole would immediately start pulling the entire universe towards it, from one end to another (well, it would actually create a gravitational wave that would travel at light speed and what not, but you get what I mean).
This hyper black hole would also be pulled by the combined gravity of the entire rest of the universe.
The universe is like a blanket, everything is connected by gravity (and the other 3 fundamental forces, yes yes, but gravity here is the most important, since it appears to be the one that is stronger over longer distances, despite being weaker in closer proximity). This means that, changing one thing in one part of the universe will set a cascade effect in the entire universe.
What's more: assuming the Big Bang (which may or may not be correct), there's no reason to assume that it was not a deterministic effect - but then in such case, everything that comes afterwards is also deterministic and even more, intrinsically connected.
Like I said, I have always been sure of that ever since I was 7 years old. Everything in the Universe is intrinsically connected and absolutely Superdeterministic in nature.
Wow I love Sabina and you. I am a member for her. So glad you can do a video. You guys are my favorite
The really big problem with superdeterministic theories is that they're based on a totally implausible conspiracy:
Only a specific set ( of measure zero) of initial conditions is "allowed" for these theories to have a chance to mimic quantum mechanics.
Such coincidences and conspiracies made them not only implausible, but also unscientific, imo...
Yes. Exactly.
Nonsense, it´s just an approach to solve the measurement problem. No mystic, no conspiracy in it. Is Sabine´s research worth to be funded? 100%, if one is not to biased and therefore likes to believe in magic non locality. A solution for the measurement problem can bring progress in science philosophy and technology. Mainstream QM has given up to solve it.
The universe has only one specific set of initial conditions. It doesn't care whether you like it or not.
"universal conspyracy" - a lame battleterm against hidden variable approaches, that pseudophilosophical ´standard QM fans´ invented, including zero argument.
Every decision I make and everything i do might, in principle, be predictable, but they are still _my_ decisions and actions.
According to Ancient Indian philosophies like Samkhya: " The Effect exists in the Cause". Which sounds deterministic. The information of a seed to become a tree is already determined and is in the seed. We might think it's not determined because we give examples of isolated incidents of a seed failing to become a tree and makes a big fuzz about it. Actually all seeds are destined to become trees. This rule exists even if you find some seeds failing to become trees.
Greatest crossover I never knew I needed
Not that I'm in any way educated enough to have my opinion valued but I find the idea of superdeterminism quite natural and organic... and somehow comforting. Thanks for the video and for Sabine! Always a pleasure to listen to both of you
Understanding the fundamental structure of the universe is essential to our ability to develop extrasolar space travel, long range communication, nanostructure materials, etc. It would also provide insight on gravity / quantum gravity. There should be high incentive to fund superdeterninism research. Maybe it’s not being explained from the right perspective in the grant application process.
fantastic topic! Loved Sabine's participation! Cheers
Arvin best Theoretical physicist today!!🎉
"Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we
suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." -- John Burden Sanderson Haldane (1892-1964) in "Possible worlds and other essays", Chatto and Windus, London, 1927.
That said, it's very important that we keep trying!
In my opinion we have no free will, however we have the illusion of free will. That's the saving grace, that it seems as though we are making choices ourselves, although all be do can be directly traced back to the beginning of time at the big bang. Our "choices" were determined then.
super-determinism is classic/newtonian physics on the smallest scale