Видео

This interview was a great success in that it allowed us access to the spirit of Tim's interests and approaches without just being some rhetoric win against other views while giving a clear flavor for Tim's bias and humor.

Yes, physicists like Einstein, wherever they went in physics, wanted to get to know and mix with the locals. But now the newer physicists, for whom the Bell tolled, know it to be just the opposite: get to know and mix with....the non-locals. Pretty (Niels) boring stuff.

See Lindzen's talking points utterly destroyed at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN. Then check out how 22 of his fellow MIT atmospheric scientists publicly rebuked him, at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES.

GOD.

Tim is mistaken on the Einstein bit: John Bell himself was not convinced in 1990 when he spoke about counter efficiency and detecting only the yes's. I'd like to think Einstein would have wanted to see the rough data before he accepted an extraordinary claim - an expectation the scientific community does not share.

I think that in the end the "right way of looking at things" will have to at least ACKNOWLEDGE, if not describe rigorously, the notion of mind. There is an appealing parallel with quantum ideas here. Consider some internal experience you have. The sensation of red, the love you feel for your child, or whatever. This is real - we have all had these internal experiences. They are undeniable. But you can't "share" such an experience, in its totality, with anyone else. It is private to you. You also can't REALLY "store" that full experience and re-live it again later. There's just too much to it. You can try to use words to describe it to someone, or write it down in your private journal to read later yourself, but at best this is just a "surface semblance" of the experience. I find this to be a strong analogy to a quantum state. Quantum states seem to have SOME kind of reality - if they didn't it's hard to see how quantum computing would work at all. But we can't "snapshot" them - we can't COPY them (no cloning theorem). We can extract some hard information from them, via measurement, and THAT we can write down or copy or communicate, but that's just a nuance of the full quantum state. This similarity is striking to me. Science as a discipline revolves around objective information that we can share and discuss and, most importantly, AGREE ON. The information inherently MUST be shared (copied an arbitrary number of times) in order for us to run our collaborative scientific method. So that method is innately constrained to these "collapsed representations" of what's really going on in the world. We simply can't do science with quantum states in full. We can dance around them and say a few things about them, but we can't truly "get at them" with our methods. I think that the reality has a "mental component" that we will never be able to access in full, and that the best we can do is build science around our (collapsed) objective PERCEPTIONS of this reality. Some particularly hard core materialists have tried to dodge this whole issue by simply DENYING the reality of these internal subjective experiences. That's just sheer madness in my eyes. Or arrogance - the desire to claim full victory in the scientific quests leads them to simply throw out the parts that we can't capture scientifically. It just doesn't feel like the right approach to me. I do think the fullness of these things is forever out of our scientific reach, but I think we can't get away with not at least acknowledging them. What our theories are really doing is trying to predict future collapsed representations - future perceptions. These perceptions, taken in aggregate, are like a movie playing out for us on some kind of a canvas. We can make models of that canvas and models of the underlying mechanisms of the perceptions to our heart's content. Maudlin likes Bohmian-style approaches. Fine - there's nothing wrong at all with adding local beables to your model of what's happening on the canvas. If the predictions come out right, that's groovy. But we just need to remember that we are not modeling all of reality - we are modeling the aspects of it we can see, copy, and talk about. The fullness of it is just beyond us.

I'd recommend to Dr. Maudlin that he take a look at casting his discrete theory using geometric algebra rather than the standard vector calculus. It's just far more graceful, particularly in higher dimensionality. Curl in particular is an issue - it only really properly exists in three dimensional manifolds, because in such manifolds you can make a one-to-one correspondence between bivectors (the things that REALLY describe certain things) and vectors (the things we represent with curl or other cross-product related quantities). The bivector formulation extends naturally and comfortably to any number of dimensions. It's the same stuff, really, just with an adjusted mathematical representation.

I eventually came to understand this, but the first times I heard Maudlin talk about "adding a foliation" I had no idea what he meant. It would probably be worth defining that when making the argument, just for people unfamiliar with the terminology. Just say out loud that a foliation is a set of slices in spacetime, stacked together, such that each slice is a "slice of simultaneity" - a "now" slice. Best I can tell that's all the term means. Lingo is an impediment to people building their knowledge. Mathematicians are particularly bad about this - they tend to develop their specialized terminology, and then write papers using only that terminology. Many a time this has kept me from grasping papers I'm trying to read. I'm dogged about it, though, and eventually I will find a paper written to TEACH rather than just to communicate with other mathematicians already in the club, and more often than not my reaction then is "Oh, now I see. Well, that's actually simple as it can be." So, if you define your less than completely common terms, you'll reach a wider audience.

Miller Larry Martin Elizabeth Anderson Brenda

Hernandez Elizabeth Moore Brian Rodriguez Kimberly

Smith Jennifer Perez Mary Perez Gary

If you're an American just say Einstein like an American ffs

I love that professor Lyndon actually wrote reports not in accord with “dangerous” climate change, and the video features a “FACT CHECK” saying that climate change IS REAL!

There is at least one issue with the 'pilot wave' theory. According to this theory both the 'wave' and the particle 'trajectory' are physical entities (or, physically 'real'). But, only the wave acts on the trajectory (e.g. 'guides' it) but the trajectory does n o t act on the wave! Why is this asymmetry? This is unlike any two physical entities that, if they interact at all, they 'inter-act' on each other mutually.

Dont think anyone can say with any certainty either way. I do know with certainty it is all about money in the end.

WRONG

I am on my third listen to the Practicing Stoic in this past month. Ward Farnsworth has changed my life with this book.

Why do the Ultra Rich want a return to feudalism? It seems to date back to the Middle Ages when a middle class appeared out of the impoverished surf class which resulted because of an over abundance of products which the new middle class could sell. This diminished the control by the kings and princess over their subjects.... This was unsettling to the upper classes who have fought to bring back a dependent, ignorant lower class population....

Thank you

An excellent interview!

The global south are not going to play the western game so l imagine it will all end at some point. Net zero by 2050 but with continuous growth, yeah right!

Seems it isn't true temperature led CO2, other than right at the end of an ice-age. On that your guest seems to be wrong. This, from New Scientist: -------- Rising together It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, **temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years**. What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor - most probably orbital changes - caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming. --------

Dr. Lindzen is a titan of climate.

Bell's proof doesn't rule out locality. It only rules out locality if you (1) believe there are hidden variables, or (2) think the wave function represents a literal entity which collapses when observed. The PBR theorem only rules out psi-epistemic models under non-relational frameworks. It doesn't address relational quantum mechanics. There's also superdeterminism it doesn't address, although that approach has its own problems.

Earth’s atmosphere is Nitrogen (N2) - 78.084% ,Oxygen (O2) - 20.9476%, Argon (Ar) - 0.934%, Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0314%. 75% of the 0.0314% is from natural causes. That means 0.007825% is man made. That is less than 8/1000 of 1 percent. The sky is falling………………

how can one, with all humility, write book about your phd ? You are still a student! Maybe it's an expansion on the data, but still . . .

I think the idea that taboos come from religion is mistaken. Taboos come from inherent human / animal behaviour. Religions just codify those inherent beliefs.

Mark of the Beast. If you dont have this mark, you won't be able to buy or sell. It scares me how many people are blindly allowing this to happen

A thought that's been on my mind lately: I wonder if, in attempting to unite QM & GR, that we are pursuing an impossibility? Maybe we can't find the link because there simply isn't one - why couldn't two separate "entities" come together to make the Universe work without there being any direct connection between them? What exactly convinces Physicists that they must be connected, other than pure human want? Because both act within or upon Space-Time? That doesn't appear to be sufficient enough for me. I've never heard this be argued by anyone before... and would really like to know what those more involved in the Philosophy side of things think of this inquiry... Or... are we "not supposed to ask such questions"? Edit: Typos and some slight changes.

Thank you Sir Philip 🙏🏾

Ive always had this mindset since I was 4

I wonder what Tim Maudlin thinks about the map-territory relation.

As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.16 In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.17

His argument is self-defeating, because he first says that the average educated american cannot understand in simple terms the physics of the climate, and then proceeds in simple terms to explain why the consensus around climate change is wrong - you can't have it both ways. The issue isn't whether the average educated american can understand the science, it's whether they are educated enough to evaluate why consensus claims should be taken very seriously and then act on such consensus through public policy.

The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: Socrates was a forerunner of Jesus Christ (who has been totally misinterpreted and misrepresented by orthodox Christianity). As Socrates knew, evil is nothing more than ignorance. And here is the key: FEAR (insecurity) keeps people from thinking for themselves and keeps them ignorant, which is why "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But you can't overcome fear by the power of will; only by the power of DESIRE. Fear causes people to desire Truth to be what they desire Truth to be, which is the OPPOSITE of desiring Truth. And this temporal world of limitation is designed to pull each soul away from fear, lifetime after lifetime, until each and every soul DESIRES TRUTH. "And in your desire lies its accomplishment," sayeth the LORD.

Heave you read the book? The examples he gives for "2+2" not equalling 4 are quite interesting. Speaking as an Astrophysics grad and Maths teacher.

Hey, I’m pretty new to all this, it’s all fascinating. One question I have is- what do we even mean when we say that something is “weird” or “spooky” or “strange”, with regards to discoveries about the fundamental processes that give rise to the universe? Strange in relation to what? How are we defining “strange” here? We have no other universes that we can observe that are behaving in a way that’s “normal”, for us to call this one “strange”? Is it simply that people are just feeling that its “strange”, with relation to our macro physics and classical models? That it’s counter intuitive and not entirely compatible with how we perceive reality from a first person perspective? Because if so, that’s… oddly unscientific? We can’t reject things like non-locality and branching wave forms, simply because they don’t conform to intuitions formed by our tree climbing, apple eating ape brains, about how these things “should” be? It feels intuitive to me that we should expect the ultimate nature of reality, to be far stranger than we can possibly imagine.

I've listened to the CD's of 3 of his books, which are heavily annotated with quotes across the entire literary spectrum, and they are terrific!! I'm waiting for his new book, and hopefully also in CD format, to come out this April (2024).

"Does Tim Maudlin...?"

That theory, that fundamental understanding is already here. By accepting that the REALITY is highly real causal, by not skipping absolutely any real causal step, and by understanding correctly the real collective dynamic of as many real causal steps as you can, in any way possible, through any method possible, a full thorough and complete understanding of how the true real natural dynamic of the Universe truly works is very possible. The true real natural dynamic of the Universe has only one natural flow, one real natural direction, one universal dynamic which repeats itself by itself with itself through itself continuously ad infinitum. If you don't accept into your mind that the Universe is really unbounded at any scale, in any dimension, micro and macro, so that is in REALITY infinite, then you'll never understand correctly its true natural universal dynamic. This is the point from which you should start everything in Physics anew: the true REAL natural dynamic of the Universe at any scale = ( Kmnp/r^3 ) This represents the correct PHENOMENOLOGICAL description of the true real natural and universal dynamic of the Universe. By understanding it correctly, you'll understand everything fundamentally as 'what and why', meaning the whole foundation of the Universe. Do with it what you may, use your brain capacities the best you can. Good luck.

"you got the cutest li'l BABY FACE" !!!... sing it Stuart

Tim and Philip, what's at the bottom of reality and at the middle and top of it, is the complete understanding of the true nature of the Universe. The key is Quantum Gravity. Gravity has been successfully quantized and unified with Quantum Mechanic's Standard Model of Particle Physics which led to the completeness of Standard Model of Particle Physics and the realization of the Theory of Everything in Physics by the empirical and scientifically proven true theory - THE REAL TRUE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY. This scientific discovery/invention of mine will debunk and invalidate String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, M Theory, General Theory of Relativity and all failed and wrong theories of gravity: THE GOD EQUATION - THE TRINITY Equations, Laws and Codes For QUANTUM GRAVITATION , QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL ENTANGLE MENT and GRAVITATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTATION that pave the way for Theory of Everything in Physics: - THE 3-in-1 HOLY GRAILS of Physics: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/0 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α 2. Quantum Gravity/Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/1 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α 3. Quantum Neutral Gravity/Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement/01 and/or 10 Rhu Bit or R Bit: QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α We now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical Laws, Cosmic/Universal Computation and physical/mathematical Trinity God Equations that are predictive, precise and does no collapse even in high energies of Big Bang and singularity of Black Hole. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Computational Gravitation- the biggest and most powerful Computer Software Program and Hardware in the Universe and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State. More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE. Alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA to arrive at the published paper on Quantum Gravity. Most recently, additional two well respected scientific journals namely NATURE and the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY APS Physical Review Journals have officially invited this author to submit manuscripts on his Research on Quantum Gravity for publication for PRX QUANTUM in preparation for a celebration for International Year of Quantum IYQ 2025 to showcase the best papers of the year. Quantum Gravitation is governed by and follow the Trinity Laws, Mathematics and Physics of Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement. We now have a new Laws of Physics and two newly discovered Fundamental Forces of Nature - The Quantum Neutral Gravity and Quantum Anti-Gravity which completed the heart of the Quantum Theory of Gravity published in London. Paris and Zurich last December 2022 as follows: 1. First Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Gravitation: “The greater mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational Field causes a downward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” - Roel Real Rovira Equation for Quantum Gravity, and Spin Down Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QG = ∆QGOρ > ∆QGFρ = ↓α Where: QG is Quantum Gravity in Rovira (value of downward acceleration force due to quantum gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in greater mass density of Quantum Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↓α is the Resultant Downward Acceleration of Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. 2. Second Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Universal Law of Quantum Anti-Gravity. “The lesser mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects than the Quantum Gravitational Field causes an upward acceleration of the Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” -Roel Real Rovira Equation for Quantum Anti-Gravity/Spin Up Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QAG = ∆QGOρ < ∆QGFρ = ↑α Where: QAG is Quantum Anti-Gravity in Rovira (value of upward acceleration force due to quantum anti-gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in lesser mass density of Quantum Anti-Gravitating Objects than the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↑α is the Resultant Upward Acceleration of Anti-Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. 3. Third Law of Quantum Gravitation: Rovira’s Law of Quantum Neutral Gravitation. “The equal mass density of gravitating Quantum Objects and the Quantum Gravitational Field causes a zero acceleration or floating or hoovering of the gravitating Quantum Objects in a Quantum Gravitational Field, instantaneously mediated by Graviton.” - Roel real Rovira Equation for Quantum Neutral Gravity and Superposition Quantum Gravitational Entanglement: QNG = ∆QGOρ = ∆QGFρ = ↑↓α Where: QNG is Quantum Neutral Gravity in Rovira (value of zero acceleration force due to quantum neutral gravity) in kg. ∆QGOρ is Differential Change in equal mass density of Quantum Neutral Gravitating Objects to the mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ∆QGFρ is Differential Change in mass density of Quantum Gravitational Field in kg/m2 or g/cm3. ↑↓0α is the Resultant zero acceleration or non-acceleration of Neutral Gravitating Quantum Objects in mtr/sec. For more detailed information on these 3-in-1 Trinity Laws and Equations for Quantum Gravitation, Gravitational Quantum Computation, and Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - The Real True Nature of Quantum Gravitation, look it up at the two scientific journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA. Copyright 2022 ROEL REAL ROVIRA. All Rights Reserved.

I'd say every classical American linage, every artist, most precision machinist and technicians probably gets upset when they hear someone claim that the smallest scales are not intuitive. On the contrary we straddle this scale ,2 known standards we can be precise enough but its never perfect. Someone living in a class or a few replicating test doesn't witness our equations stressed to the limits. For sake of efficiency they to invoke hidden variables scrap it and write down some super positions musical chairs to document the answer they want. Because sending equations back to 1900s higher ed will not accept or try to fix it.lol . Our 5 senses absolutely correlates With low energy state of a cool red apple . And once a consensus is built no magician can come along and trick into thinking purple high entropic state hot apples are really red .. Smell ,touch, taste ,hearing is very active when it comes to this. Denying it as if we all live in 3 degrees of motion on classical scale is silly. We are now able to use inferred and enhanced cameras to share exactly what intuitiveness many all encompassing intelligent minds have always had in common . 1900s structuralism demands for recruitment of Euclidean abstract minds with good memorization skills who also tend to be more passive appropriately lacks such intuitive skill sets.

My guess is that the morphic fields are structured vacuum energy! And that it's just that the fields are on a much smaller scale than what can be measured today with scientific instruments. Also protein folding inside cells is done with such fields I think, and that dark matter is something similar on a much larger scale yet still subatomic structures.

See Lindzen's talking points utterly destroyed at CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: RICHARD LINDZEN. Then check out how 22 of his fellow MIT atmospheric scientists publicly rebuked him, at CLIMATE CONTRARIAN GETS FACT-CHECKED BY MIT COLLEAGUES.

At the bottom of reality is the wave function, and that is all. Any integration of the wave function needs to make a random choice between a timelike and a spacelike integration. Any computer simulation of reality therefore needs to make use of a random number generator.

Great interview! 👏🏻

Was gonna watch but read the enwiki Tim Maudlin article instead. DIdn find any stinkers, e.g. countenancing religion but also didn have any interest in opinings on the shit show that is modern physics if there wasn gonna be some payback for the time which I assessed there wouldn.

As one surfs quantum and wave investigation videos, now and then something stands out as having more potential than the usual dead-ends. ruclips.net/video/ExhSqq1jysg/видео.html&pp=ygUSVGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYSB3YXZl One of these I saw was an effort to study how a classical standing wave pattern shifts into another by introducing a phase shift from outside the boundary where the original standing wave is contained. It turns out that during the relatively short transition time between “states”, there exists a mixture of both frequencies, and the beat frequency is present also. Would that be akin to emitting or absorbing a photon? Sounds like a nice philosophical starting point to get at the question of transitions between energy states of the electron, then if this can be extended perhaps have more to say about the quantum wave function.

Powerful interview, big thank you, both. Donald Hoffman is definitely working towards finding out what lies beneath/beyond our current, obviously limited, understanding of reality. He's done some very thought provoking interviews available here on YT. Maybe you could use your easy-to-listen-to and most effective interview style to coax some more out of him. Thanks again for your great shows.