Is Reality an Illusion? | Gerard 't Hooft, Chiara Marletto, Christopher Timpson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 янв 2019
- According to quantum physics, the observer is critical to reality. Is a world independent of the observer an illusion? Or did Heisenberg and quantum physics get it wrong? Nobel Prize winning physicist Gerard ‘t Hooft, constructor theorist Chiara Marletto and Oxford quantum philosopher Christopher Timpson debate our role in reality.
Subscribe to the Institute of Art and Ideas / iaitv
Gerardus 't Hooft is a theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman "for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions".
Chiara Marletto is a quantum physicist working at the University of Oxford. She is currently focusing on developing Constructor Theory a recently proposed new fundamental theory of physics - applying it to address problems at the foundations of physics.
Christopher Timpson is a Professor in the Philosophy of Physics. His latest book Quantum Information Theory and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics provides the first full-length philosophical treatment of quantum information theory and the questions it raises for our understanding of the quantum world.
#physics #quantum #quantumphysics
DELVE DEEPER
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
For podcasts: iai.tv/iai-podcast
For more on this debate, watch Gerard 't Hooft's latest talk on what quantum mechanics tells us about reality ruclips.net/video/jvsTVlwek-g/видео.html
Surprisingly I am not satisfied with these doctors debate... I will try explain this in comment
Reality is... essentially spirit. But, of course, there are degrees of spirit.
In the history of Muslim thought the idea of degrees of Reality appears in the writings of Shihabuddin Suhrawardi. - Sir Dr. Iqbal
To the institute,
Get a better moderator, who not only wastes everyone's time making silly comments, but also comes across as a cringeworthy buffoon in his interactions with the lady scientist.
It would be shameful if the institute does not have a stern talk with this low grade moderator.
i dont mean to be so offtopic but does any of you know a tool to log back into an instagram account..?
I was dumb lost my login password. I love any help you can offer me!
@Sean Gunner instablaster :)
This discussion should have started with an agreed upon and rigorous definition of what these people mean when they use the word "reality".
Extremely interesting subject, but the participants are very poor at communicating their ideas to a non-expert audience, and the presenter isn't really helping.
Also, the way he tries to ridicule Marletto towards the end is cringeworthy. I expected better from something called "The Institute of Art and Ideas".
Ancient philosopher's already knew. Cycle of ignorance. No one will care and then care and so on and so on.
I think Timpson was very poor at explaining QBism - I have just spent an hour looking it up. Sigh, but its just another interpretation.
@@nosnibor800: Not only that. It's philosophy more than it's physics.
That moment when you feel the need to interrupt/hog the time of a Nobel laureate multiple times to demonstrate how smart you are.
At the end of the day, prizes mean far less than good arguments
I think the philosopher misunderstood what 'tHooft was saying about backward influence in time. He was not saying that there is any acausal backward influence. He is saying that Bell fundamentally used independent free will in his original argument and that free will already assumes that nothing determined the decision beforehand! The fact that Bell allowed Alice and Bob to "decide" at a given instant to make a measurement already implies that nothing from the past determined that decision. I.e. Bell tacitly eliminated pure determism from contention! However, 'tHooft claims it is not necessarily the case that A & B can "decide" anything. Clearly, our decisions at any moment could be completely determined by the events and experiences leading up to that moment and we would not perceive any difference. Bell's theorems do not eliminate true determinism since Bell simply assumed non-determinism in assuming free will. Essentially, 'tHooft is saying that the universe could be an infinitely complex cellular automaton and that free will is an illusion. That is hard for me to believe. But so is many worlds. I find it hard to believe that all possible results to all possible events occur in new universes that continually branch off from ours. That is crazy. Both are crazy. But one of them may be true! In fact you may not be as far from their ideas as you may think! Please consider: If you believe that we could be living as part of a giant computer simulation, then you are essentially agreeing with 'tHooft! A computer simulation is a deterministic universe with only the illusion of free will. For example, Wolframs rule 110 cellular automaton is a completely deterministic system but yet Turing complete and so it could be used to simulate any computer program, even a "matrix" world and a simulated "me" inside, thinking I actually "decided" to write this post. Ha!
arxiv.org/abs/0906.3248
Both matter and forces obey the laws of nature. The laws of nature dictate the evolution of any system from it's initial conditions out into the future. Our brains are made of matter and interacts with forces. Hence the system that is our brains must evolve into the future according to the laws of nature. Our will is the result of the state of our brains.
Hence our will also evolves according to the laws of nature, and in that sense is not free.
I think what we’re starting to realize is that we don’t know much of anything
We know science is never settled and it moves from one error to the next. It is even worse in Cosmology:
"In cosmology we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120. This is the largest mismatch
between theory, and experiment in the history of science."
Michio Kaku
We'll not know everything.
it's a humbling experience
For all we know we could be a product of a magical turtle swimming in an ocean and having vision in some bigger realty. That's how much we don't know so it's pretty funny yes.
@@yoooyoyooo We may be like some small lives in a small pond, .....that's our universe.
Gerard ‘t Hoofd, No BS King.
I'll bet anyone here $1,000 that before their discussion, they don't even define "reality" or "illusion"
And everything they say, then, is moot.
ie - the question "Is reality necessary?"
Every thought in our mind is either reality or an illusion.
And the greatest challenge in life is to know the difference.
@@johnellis7614 Actually every thought an is opinion of your own. Only sometime your opinion is reality, sometimes it's not. Here, that is more accurate.
When people engage in this kind of philosophical discussion they don't seem to mention chaos theory, which shows that the behaviour of an object can be deterministic and practically unpredictable at the same time. Free will for example may be a chaotic phenomenon which is deterministic but is so sensitive to the minutest change in initial conditions that we might as well say it's unpredictable and basically free from (Newtonian) determinism. I wonder why. Is it seen as a low-hanging fruit?
Because chaos doesnt save free will. "Free will" is not refering to "unpredictable will" its refering to "free" will. The problem with "free" will is that it doesnt define what the will is, or what that will is free from. In my opinion, free will is not a physical problem, its a philosophical problem. Its a problem of unclear language. Don't even start at free will. Just define "will" and you will have a hard time just doing that.
@@Mawa991 Yes, it seems to me that it's a semantic problem before anything else especially bearing in mind the linguistic turn in philosophy but traditionally the discussion of free will has often been centred around its contradictory status against some form of determinism be it physical or Newtonian determinism, or God's omniscience at least outside the legal context. I partially agree that free will may not be exclusively unpredictable will but I also think it has to be a major part of the discussion of free will, following the tradition. After all predict is pre+dict, or before+say, and if your will can be "said before" in accordance with determinism, is it really free in the absolute sense? But here I see an opportunity for philosophising free will based on chaos theory because it could prevent humans from accessing the unlimited predictability but still keep us within the constraints of determinism on the metaphysical level at the same time. Ultimately this would just be a form of compatibilism but arguments for compatibilism I've seen haven't been that convincing for me so I was just wondering.
My take for what it's worth is this; can we be sure we're as intelligent as we credit ourselves with being, or is this question of existence simply a matter of not being able to see the forest for the trees? The forest we are all in of course. How intelligent is human intelligence? Do we flatter ourselves? Did our creator make us minus the capacity to comprehend beyond a certain point, a wall which we can't see past? Quantum measurement mocks our sense of logic, is it in fact a caution sign which tells us we've reached or nearing the top of our learning curve? Can we break through this invisible barrier and are we even ready to do so? Science alone, I fear is not the only answer to the biggest questions. Are we destined to discover more answers, in time perhaps so. Until that time I know many of us will keep searching.
My understanding of an “observer” is that it’s any energetic intervention, not a conscious being that initiates a sequence of actions that results in an "observation” by some instrument. A photon spit out from a star that collides with an atom some distance away: the ATOM is the observer. That atom which absorbs the photon changes state which may either lead to a chain reaction or is simply “cocked and ready” for a future “observation” either by another atom or field or photon… OR it spontaneously (randomly???) spits out the photon and causes another “observation” to take place elsewhere.
On another matter (relating to “free will”), my guess is that the universe (reality) is riddled with random, spontaneous events. It;s something so fundamental that the very existence of the universe depends on it (otherwise it would be perfectly uniform and without time or space or form).
I think that the secret lies in the property of discreetness (quantisation) somehow. The universe is fundamentally “granular” (imperfect, rough, not smooth, not uniform, not continuous) and therefore not deterministic. This “gap” is perhaps what makes the universe behave spontaneously and randomly at the fundamental (Planck) level. Causal effects “jump” across these gaps in a non-causal way. (The closest analogy I can think of is something like requesting something to be done by expressing a wish, which someone else within earshot may or may not decide to grant: “it would be nice if the window were opened…” and the rest is a numbers game. if a sufficient number of people express the same wish then there may be a “tipping point” where someone eventually gets up and opens the window… and at that point it becomes a “deterministic” event. Something along those lines, anyway!)
That is correct. The photon only "exists" because an irreversible transfer of that energy takes place between the electromagnetic field and an external system (e.g. an atom). This is all contained in the Copenhagen interpretation, already, we simply don't teach this trivial fact. The isolated quantum system does not have quanta, its evolution is perfectly "smooth" as described by e.g. the Schroedinger equation (or a similar relativistic field equation) and the "quantization by irreversible process" is taken care of by the Born rule.
What an absolutely fantastic time it will be when our ability to engineer experimental testing mechanisms improve!!!
This was interesting debate, in spite of those who were making rather disparaging comments below. In fact, the three panel members in my view represented three different cultures of human endavour: the theologian/philosopher (Timpson), the creative artist/dreamer (Marletto) and the pure scientist ('t Hooft), even though all three of them thought of themselves as scientists. This distinction in itself is somewhat remarkable, since -- in spite 't Hooft's appearance as a bank clerk/accountant -- he has proven himself actually as one of the most creative and imaginative theoretical scientists ever.
To me Timpson did what many philosophers do: play a game with words and syntax, turn the words around and around and create new sounding terms, and without really adding any real new understanding, give the impression as if magically some understanding emerges from stirring the word-soup many times over. Furthermore, his drive to salvage 'free will' is nothing other than a new version of the old ecclesiastic anthropocentric world order, where God created Man with a free will. His position is really theological.
The many-world's interpretation that Marletto supports, to me is the classic cop-out of the lazy theoretician: if you can't explain what is going on, invent some magical "infinite hotel" where there is room not only for every possible event, but for every possible theory. It is the non-explanation of things in which "everything goes". (The same penchant for adding on extra stuff to a theory appeared in string theory where for every obstruction of the theory encountered, one invented some new dimensions as escape routes.) It really amounts to a non-theory. I don't buy it: in a finite universe you cannot have an uncountably uncountable set of worlds -- it doesn't make sense.
So, the only coherent picture, I am reluctant to agree with, is 't Hooft's, it is the only really scientific one. It also opens up a concrete path of investigation: if there are hidden variables, where are they, and how do they function? That doesn't mean that this position is the true one on a deeper level of 'truth', because maybe science is only one way to look at the world and make it appetisable or employable to human beings. Nonetheless, among the three positions, 't Hooft's is the most coherent option to pursue in the matter of creating a satisfactory quantum theory.
Higher dimensions isn't an escape hatch. It's going to be an equivalent paradigm shift to the realization that Earth isn't the center of the cosmos. Having higher dimensions doesn't necessarily mean an infinite number of universes in a Multiverse. It might mean that quantum unsharpness dissapears in higher dimensions.
PS I also tend to land in T Hoofs camp
kyaume21
thank you so much for this well formulated desciption. It breaks down the three perspectives on science in this discussion in a very accurate way.
paxwallacejazz
Higher dimensions are the result of extracting the nature of reality out of pure mathematics. String Theory and Supersymmetry try to explain the weakness of gravitation compared to the other 3 forces by introducing extra dimensions that fail to appear in any deterministic experiment anywhere. The multiverse ideas exit scientific realms even further. All these mathematical approaches violate the essence of science by the absence of falsify-bility: they don't contribute to science, but to religion. We learned that physics can be described by mathematics. But not every mathematical thought can be translated to physical reality. And this is where a vast number of modern ideas fail. Just multiply stuff by -1 and time will move backwards. Just add extra dimensions and equations will work fine. Where are these dimensions? Simple! Just put them ALL into Planck's scale, where they can never be found. This is not science. This is just limitless guessing.
Everett's "Many Worlds" is actually a proper formulation that is taken seriously by physicists. The brief popular explanation might sound like crazy hand-waving, but the real theory is a logical and mathematical consequence of "the wave never collapses". Also, who says the universe is finite?
@@JohnDlugosz You're wrong. The Many World Theory is not science, but religion. You just CAN'T translate all mathematical possibilities into our cosmos. The reason behind wave behavior is tremendously accurate solved by QFT. All that 'mysterious' double slit experminents become quite normal if you start to calculate using QCD fundamentals. Don't just repeat the nonsense of that Many World priests, they're just trying to sell their String Theory that is highly undeterministic. Even the LHC didn't detect ANY evidence. It's a big difference to deviate the universe from observation or to deviate the universe from pure mathematical ideas. Mathematical possibilities are endless, but the universe's possibilities are NOT.
I really wish that the people doing the recording would pay attention to setting proper volume on every wireless mic input. It would make the videos much more viewable... They must have had the four mics going through a mixer, so, how difficult can it be to check the volume at the start of the conversation and adjust it correctly?
: I am kinda struck that as humans, including physicists and philosophers, exclude ourselves from the reality and notions of reality while at the same time reading what we would rather the explanations be than may be helpful. For example, "we can't not have free will" (i.e. no predetermination allowed) keeps us focused on theories that will allow us to remain "free" because that perceived freedom is the base of our faith in ourselves.
Epic..make a debate on the quantum gravity aspects of black hole and entropy, information and complexity etc
The observer is critical to *defining* reality, not creating it.
ruclips.net/video/3LZpMr-XvE0/видео.html
Your comment didn't exist until I saw it.
It would be nice if the framework for the discussion had been set in advance.
At the beginning the host did not ask the first speaker if reality is necessary, he asked if reality was there at all.
Gerard't you're uncle was spot on mate!
The unpredictability of probabilistic phenomena are not due to flaws in our theories, they are fundamental features of chaotic systems. With perfect information and precise, valid theories of mechanics, we will still be stuck with probabilistic predictive capabilities. Nature herself doesn't know where she is headed, or in what state she will arrive there.
To be honest, why aren’t the majority -or all- the panel represented by philosophers?
Even the philosopher gave an answer which would seem to me a scientist’s answer.
The question as originally posed, is a philosophical one.
I would say the question may be supposing an unnecessary dichotomy between ‘real’ and ‘not real’. But if I were forced to answer it, I’d say real. I think the real question which is hidden is ‘is reality/life a good thing or not’, because choosing to think it’s not real is a negative, whereas choosing to call it real is a positive.
The debate happened even though I was not observing it at the time, it still isn't a universe minus observation.
Sentient beings capable of observation are not excluded from the universe as they observe, but then my innerer voice is telling me I'm being too obvious ... damn!
What is with the music in the background..
Consider a simplified model of all that is being discussed.
That is the question :can you locate the exact position of a point made with an ordinary pencil on paper or any point you can create?
The answer is no,there is no exact position because it cannot be located exactly.
So the point is an assumption or dream in consciousness.
It is useful because it leads to geometry and engineering.
On the tiniest of levels of rational processes and logic there is no finite exact location of a point but rather angles of energy densities in their associations.
The fundamental model of this is the equilateral triangle with its vertices on a circle and that the vertices and the circle center are also of that geometric angular association at whatever level existing or could exist.
There cannot be a resolution of these questions just as there is no exact discoverable location of a point.
please put subtitles for debates.
How many realities there are? Consider the Schrödinger's cat experiment with two observers: one inside the box with the cat and on one outside. They both would observe different realities. The one inside the box would see the cat passing away at the moment it happens and the one outside will "assume" that the cat is in an intermediate state neither dead nor alive until he opens the box i.e. makes the measurement. Please note that the guy in in the box also has made the measurement or even better to say a series of measurements as he has observed the cat all the time. So which of these two realities is more "real" :). To me it seems that the reality of the outside-the-box guy is rather constructed as it is only made possible by his decision not to observe the cat continuously but rather at some latter time. And the idea that he makes the cat to choose it state at the moment of his observation is "crazy" to me. Why his observation/measurement and not the guy's in the box should describe the cat's state. Further, I personally think that the Schrödinger's cat experiment is very poor way to represent the quantum world. The problem is that the cat does not jump back into a fuzzy state after the measurement. Allowing this makes all the difference. Consider that you have a constrained electron with some particular probability distribution of its position. The main idea is that the fuzzy position of the electrons is his continuous state i.e. it is the reality. Now, each time you make a measurement you will find the electron at a different places but there is no contradiction in that, because at the subatomic level you cannot make two measurements at a single time. Please note that as a macroscopic observer you see which means you receive billions of rebounded photons which actually each represents a single measurement in the subatomic world. Furthermore, in the macroscopic world many independent observers at the same time are allowed as the are billions of photons reflected by a macroscopic object: enough for milliards of observers to observe the object at the same time. In conclusion, a measurement in the macroscopic world and one in the subatomic world are two different "species". In other words the reality we perceive by sight is made out of billions of subatomic measurements which constrain "our" reality to that what it appears from the information obtained of those billions of measurements. Similar also applies to our other senses. In addition, further physics kicks in as objects obtain more mass the uncertainty of their positions becomes ridiculously small. Thus we don't see a table dancing around in the kitchen.
When the cat is dead, the cat is dead whether you look inside the box or not. Schrodinger put forth that thought experiment specifically to illustrate the absurdity of the notion that it would be otherwise.
If you really need to debate the possibility that "Reality" is an Illusion, then you obviously don't know the Definition of "Reality" or of "Illusion".
No debate is necessary to establish the Fact that most individual's Perceptions are Faulty, at best, as are our Personal Interpretations of what little we actually Perceive. This suggests that there is an Objective and Subjective Reality that are often different.
Personally, I prefer to rely on Objective Realty, (what I can perceive of it that is), and question my Subjective Reality, (as Objective Reality is in a constant state of Flux while my Subjective 'Reality', in the form of a Concept, is relatively Static).
The difference(s) between the two can change very quickly and when my Subjective reality is no longer an accurate reflection of the objective reality, then problems can occur and the biggest problems I had, were almost always . . . self-made.
Therrs a difference between this being organic in nature or a simulation or experiment.tgat should be important to most regardless of perception or awareness
You might enjoy reading Donald Hoffman. He contends that our senses have evolved as tools to help us survive - not as tools to show us the truth. Our senses show us a filtered, processed version of the world optimized for our survival.
I get the point of the "tiger" exercise in the beginning, but it still doesn't detract from whether or not the tiger is real, whatever we take "real" to be. Just because we interpret certain phenomena around us as containing varying degrees of difficulty, doesn't mean that those phenomena perceived as more difficult are given more of what may be considered "real" than any other phenomena.
I think this discussion got a little out of hand towards the end. The host or coordinator (or better term) seemed to want to focus on the outlandishness (non-intuitive) nature of Many Worlds and how one could believe. Dr. Hooft (yes, I liked him too) laid into the whole thing with an analogy to 'one truth and many lies' which while thought-worthy, put perhaps an unfair context on where Dr. Marletto was coming from and was trying to impart. Thinking a theory has, for the moment at least, the best fit, doesn't in any way mean the same kind of commitment we have for example, our political views. It's not how it works...
I rather agree with commenter James Dolan that a framework set up for this might have done much good.
do illusion and reality live side by side and are interdependent?
T tooft rocks..... 🤘
He's a true legend
But Chiara has quantum mechanical hair.
However, many worlds? No. I don't buy that.Not in any real sense.
@@thrunsguinneabottle3066 yes.. Many worlds is just wishful thinking
Did Gerard t'Hooft thé philosopher in the groin, figuratively of course.
@@thrunsguinneabottle3066 Good thing your purchase of it has nothing to do with it being true or not. Imagine if we decided what was true based on the opinion of a single uninformed person.
Because we are made of atoms we have an emergent future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This might be in the form of the energy we put into forming a work of art or the energy we use in a particle accelerator. However the future unfolds there is the continuous exchange of photon energy with the movement of positive and negative charge. Whenever objects touch it is charge that makes contact and we have the organization of charge relative to the membrane of each living cell within us. At higher temperatures we have a phase change in matter with charge in the form of plasma being able to cover a large area of interstellar space therefore this can be a universal process
Question for the gentleman with the beard and glasses; if I assume/believe that I am a three fold being physical, spiritual and unutterable which of your three observer types would I be?
I don't know what you mean by observer type but judging by the irrelevance of your question I think I can safely assume that you're of the suppository type.
Isnt it more of a philosphical rather than quantum physical topic?
It is common sense that this world would not be the way it is without our mind
My common sense says the exact opposite
Whether or not there is a fundamental reality, and whether or not it is knowable to us in its native form, are two distinctly different questions. The question of whether or not consciousness plays a role in "creation" or "existence" of reality, would not arise if not for a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "observation" or "measurement." It means interaction, not with human perception or knowledge, or even with human-designed measurement apparatus, but with anything whatsoever in nature. The simple answer for rational beings is, yes, the tree makes a sound in our absence. We are _still_ not the center of the universe, far less its creators.
"Life is an illusion, but one that must be taken seriously." --William S. Burroughs
subtitle please!!
What qualifies as an observation of a quantum experiment (which influences the outcome)? Is is simply looking at it? What if someone is just present? What if a blind person goes through the motions to pretend observation? Is it connected only to the sense of sight? Why?
We are bottom dwellers in a higher dimensional cosmos this gives us all kinds of wrong incomplete notions. Oh well. Including the spookyness of Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum mechanics actually isn't spooky. It has a feature we call entanglement that doesn't mesh perfectly with our intuitive notions of spacetime - that is all. It doesn't help that the popular media inevitably presents quantum theory with the deliberate intent of maximizing its "mystique." They will, without fail, eventually say that "the quantum system can be in more than one state at a time." That is 100% wrong - they're conflating the "state" with the possible results of measurements. Quantum systems always have exactly one state. It may happen that when it's in a given state and we decide to measure something, more than one outcome is possible and which one will occur is utterly unpredictable. But once we make that measurement we get one answer. You can't even talk about a system having a value for a measurement unless you MAKE the measurement. Prior to the measurement the observable doesn't HAVE a value. So, rather than saying "the system is in multiple states at once," they should say "the system is in a state that HAS NO value for the observable, until we measure it." Then the system is in one state and does have a value for the observable.
In other words, the cat is never alive and dead at the same time. Rather, until you look the very question of whether the cat is alive or dead is irrelevant and meaningless. But that whole thought experiment is misrepresented - it's typically presented as the way Schrödinger explained how mysterious quantum theory is. But what it actually was was Schrödinger giving us an example of how stupid quantum theory can be if you try to over-interpret it. The proper explanation for that situation is "There is a cat in that box and WE DON'T KNOW whether it's alive or dead." Then, when we LOOK IN THE BOX, we DO know. Simple as that.
@@KipIngram the observable still exists, the value we measure refers to an observable, it isn't the observable itself. And we know the observable exists in more than one state at any time, it just isn't single values like it becomes when we measure it
So for instance in the schrodingee thought experiment it can be that in half the universes the cat is alive and in half it is dead. When we open the box half the versions of you sees a dead cat, and the other half see an alive cat.
Despite her "lazy theoretician's" (kyaume21) many worlds adherence, Marletto does make an interesting remark which might easily go unnoticed: "I don't regard an 'observer' as an entity which is that different from an electron which interacts with some other system" (19:28). Marletto probably hints purely at the physics, but by the same token one can argue that 'the observer' in principle is fundamentally the same for all - whether an atom, a hedgehog or a human. The better, or at least, other question to ask then is not whether the idea of reality independent of the observer is illusory (13:20) , but whether the idea of 'the observer' itself is illusory? In other words, Is there really 'an' observer, or is 'perception' nothing but an a-causal or voluntary 'auto-homeomorphism' (forgive abuse of the term) in and of the quantum field itself, as in fact implied by Marletto's point, without actually changing the field at all? Sure is, whether or not the postulated 'observer' is ontologically at all distinct and independent from the 'observed' was never put into question with regard to the Copenhagen interpretation. In a 'no- (classical) observer universe', quantum states quite literally must make sense in order to be realistic, proving Einstein right afterall..
If you think reality is an illusion, then that conclusion is also an illusion....our grasp of reality may be imprecise, but that is all we got at the moment, and over time leaps have been made to get our approximation more aligned with what appears to be true and empirically validated.
You would expect, perhaps thinking too "classically" that huge objects of many connected particles, like we, should in fact have less degree of freedom (none !) compared to a single elementary particles.
A liar uses an illusion of good to hide an intent to be enriched upon our misery.
Such is reality, as illusions do exist in effect and in actuality.
The question is: does the liar to see reality or an illusion? After all sometimes a liar mistakenly promotes the common good.
Wtf? Stay on topic
Can the answers to all perspectives in a subatomic world be interpreted mathematically? What depends on scientific theories, many calculations, and experiments, allows conclusions to be drawn. So finally (and hopefully) obeying the laws and regulating them as a postulate. Does it make sure that we can forget the analyzes and measurements in our daily lives?
"Is reality an illusion?" The answer is NO, but YES. In fact, we live with many illusory ideas in every single human head.
The problem is that it is often possible to convince others of certain illusions, and some of the illusory ideas are eventually applied. In reality, however, 50% errors may occur due to quantum possibilities.
Yes, observers intervene with a 50% chance of success in the future.
That's why it's so important to analyze all sorts of mistakes before illusions become reality.
"There is a simple law°. Every intervention we make in nature causes side effects, even if we have the best intention (by the way, we all agree that nature is the unique reality around us, is not it?). In this case, the success of the observers can, unfortunately, be even lower.
The big bang happened, stars and galaxies formed, all in accordance to the laws of physics, all without the help of observers to collapse the wave functions.
If I have been aware of this since the age of six
What does that make me ???
I dare to say that rather to talk about reality. Everybody must believe in reality. Reality is regardless how we conceive it or even see it. All that said .that if you cannot change reality then our postulates are just that
Might as well have just titled this 'Is Reality Really Real?' Inane.
What did Chiara say at 28:14?
"Well it's been ruled out ...(likely attempting to discuss recent loop hole free tests)..anyway."
@@eenkjet n. U hnyhy. H my h!. H n u hnyhy, hnynynh. Yn. Nyny,., N n, hjn. Yh, y!!!!!..!
it was in Klingon
The real question surely is, "Is illusion reality?" We all experience "reality" ipso facto it must be real.
We all experience a different, subjective reality though. Mine is the real one. Lol.
@Gribbo9999 - This is a little too quick. Merely because you have an experience doesn't make it an experience of reality; for example, you could be dreaming, hallucinating, or otherwise misrepresenting the way the world really is. Also, your comment fails to appreciate the possibilty of a shared illusion: perhaps, when we both face a table and have a visual experience of a table, the experience is a result of the way our brains are structured and is merely a mental event.
"Object permanence describes a child's ability to know that objects continue to exist even though they can no longer be seen or heard. If you have ever played a game of "peek-a-boo" with a very young child, then you probably understand how this works.
When an object is hidden from sight, such as by covering it with a blanket or another object for example, infants under a certain age often become upset that the item has vanished. This is because they are too young to understand that the object continues to exist even though it cannot be seen." - Jean Piaget was wrong! 😄
i only experience one "reality"
"my immediate (perceptual) sensory experience"
all the rest is stories...about my sensory experiences
(these people have some stories about theirs alright)
That is so. Not only you percive senses you also percive those stories and you percive your reactions to those stories and other senses. All the perceptions could be false but some are not for sure. The seeing it self is there no doubth about that. What you see is already subject to interpretstion. Why people complicate stuff so much is beyond me.
Is there free will if we are in an illusion?
Just as long as I can refrain from going there and s avoid getting a hoof in the tooth.
Out of boredom, I just wanted to hear some alternative perspectives.
What we know is a drop. What we don't know is an ocean.
We don't understand time
I feel like modern physics has a huge problem that can't be resolved with logic alone - many people think that free will is incompatible with determinism. I personally don't think it is, but let's dig at why there are two camps to begin with. I think both camps stem basically from emotion (our feelings on the topic).
People root for "free will" because 1) everybody thinks that their actions matter, but for the actions to truly be said to be "theirs" they have an emotional need to be the causal source of those actions independent of the universe (-I- did x because I wanted to, not because something else pushed me) and 2) most legal systems are setup under the pretense of "punishment for freely chosen evil actions", which falls apart if the criminal is not 100% alone to blame for their crime.
People root for "determinism" because 1) the idea that things happen for reasons, and those reasons can be understood, predicted and controlled is the foundation under the entirety of our technological civilization and quality of life. If we give up on that idea, we will reach a ceiling of what we can achieve through science and technology. So it's almost a religious drive where we -should- think that everything can be predicted and controlled (and that's guaranteed through determinism) regardless of whether it truly is.
When you grind it down, neither position is logically defendable, and we are doomed to argue about it forever.
I think that reality is an emotion similar to an infinite page where we draw inferences similar to a child drawing Postman Pat with a crayon
What some people can confuse, is that they are separate from the whole. The table doesn't exist interdependently of you, it was created by consciousness and you a a part of that consciousness.
No the table was created by a carpenter and it existed before you entered the world. If it did not what did the carpenter create?
@@betafoofoo270 the carpenter created a thought. He used his brain to 'see' the wood, his brain to move his arms, his brain to hear the hammer knocking on nails. All that happened in the carpenters mind, through electrical signals, thought. The eyes aren't lenses shining light into the brain. The brains only access to the outside word is through electrical signals, thought.
If the table falls and lands on your head, what is it you 'feel", 'see' and 'hear'? It certainly isn't a table you see, feel and hear, its electrical sinusoidal waves in the mind that you are sensing.
If there is an experiment that can be done to prove that table is material and 'real' I would love to hear it, but there isn't one that can ever be done. In fact when we look at the table we find it is a collection of wave functions, waves.
That sinusoidal electrical signal is not sinusoidal it's a longitudinal wave for a start. Moreover it carries a pattern - it has been modulated - a very distinct pattern which conveys information to the brain about what created it - the table. The information carried to the brain allows the brain to interpret that information to arrive at the conclusion " I have been hit on the head by a table". Quite distinct from the information conveyed when hit on the head by a tennis ball or a fish. So all are real , all exist in reality , the table, the tennis ball, the head , brain and the fish. Reality is very real indeed.
REALITY
Everything in life that is real. Including a lie, as a lie is an illusion of good hiding an evil intent, all of which truly do exist in reality. Yes the thoughts generated by a liar's pretense of good are not real, but a lie is most painful and real, it being the dangerous aspect of life.
It might be a simulated reality, in which case it becomes not really real. It becomes simulated real, which is not real.
@@shefchenko111 So where is the simulation? Surely it must exist somewhere real, therefore it is real in a sense, so something is real somewhere. Its the similar question as "If god created the universe, what created god?".
@@StaticYonder Exactly. That's why I always say there cannot be a first thing. Because what created it? What created the creator of the first thing? What possibly CAN be the first thing ever to exist? There can't be a first thing, therefore nothing is really real. :D I know it sounds stupid at first, but it really makes sense(at least in my mind).
@@shefchenko111 it really doesn't just stop there buddy
Chiara Marletto is smart. I preferred her in T-Rex but she's a better physicist.
She's got the universe reclining in her hair.
I should like to know in what universe are there people who are given the surname of either 't Hooft or Hooft.
Hooft is old Dutch spelling for 'hoofd' which means 'head' . ''t Hooft is an abbreviation for 'het hoofd'=the head, 'het' being just the particle (in a linguistic sense).
Simplistic proposition. Easily refuted.
All is mind, if you did not have it, nothing would be here in the world the way it is
Every particle that interacts with another is technically an observer. It doesn't mean the moon disappears. Sheesh.
Yeah... I don’t think that’s correct.
Observing requires consciousness in QBism, not in Copenhagen.
The split experiment says otherwise
The photons or electrons you use for "observing" other electrons interact with them and can change their behavior.
It's like... suppose you could only "observe" a table with a sledgehammer. Is it a broken table or is it not? It's in superposition. After the hammer hits it or misses it the table wave function collapses and you know what it was.
Problem is you can't SEE elementary particles without disturbing them.
@Simone De Filippo No, that's just a misunderstanding of what "observation" means. When you observe something, what "collapses the wave function"(this isn't a real thing) is the photons emitted by what you are observing becoming entangled with the object you're using to make the measurement. Observation is meant as simply the act of making a measurement, consciousness comes into play after the entanglement happens.
If thoughts were deterministic only, and only the product of physical laws, the one thought would follow another without being able to be influenced by anything other than the chemicals present in your brain. Thought a would be followed by thought b and then c and nothing could stop this. We do not experience our thoughts like this. For example, a cubist or q-bist was just an abstract artist in my mind, but something outside my physical brain (an idea shared from someone else) affected my thoughts. Determinism is therefore disproven.
Quantum theory seems to allow for a randomness, but thoughts are not simply random either. Neither strict determinism, nor q-bist randomness can explain thoughts like “if a=b and b=c, then a=c”. Logic is neither determined by thoughts that we cannot help having nor by thoughts that come randomly. They follow a pattern of reason, which is a concept appears innate, much as Chomsky has shown is true of language.
Read the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland” from Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, and science will make much more sense.
is corona real for the old on the panel?
I lean towards Gerard Hooft and I like his Uncles comment: there is only one truth, but many lies (I shall remember this one). One lie of course is the lunatic "Many Worlds" interpretation. There is something wrong with time, but Carlo Rovelli's assertion that it does not exist is a "lie". On the large scale time is quantised (speed of light has a limit) but on the small scale time is not quantised - so we can have instantaneous events - Bells reality, none local. A time paradox. Whenever there is a paradox, then there is something wrong. Perhaps in this case, we have EPR paradox and time paradox, mixed together.
Rovelli is simply overthinking and so are you. Time is the physical quantity which the clocks show. Once you understand what a clock is, you know what time is.
@@schmetterling4477 A clock is a counter, but it does not explain the paradox or resolve it.
@@nosnibor800 You are overthinking, just like Rovelli. And, no, a physical clock is not a counter. Far from it.
Physical reality has mathematical objective science, humanity is part of; also larger existence which human brain / mind is only virtual reality of?
Did the guy who contested reality really say all that ;)
Quantum mechanics produces objective physical reality, which objective physical reality can use quantum mechanics subjectively?
This is a lesson in the fact that the guy in the room who talks the most and presents as being the most intelligent, is actually completely lost to the point of being reduced to incoherent babble.
And I thought politicians were out of their minds...
There will always be missing gaps to human knowlege. That's why there's art.
If all is this is just an illusion and nothing exists what is the point in living... the truth is always extremely depressing. Or maybe it is just my old friend depression.
What is our task with in the Universe
And is live a growing force in the Universe 🌠👍 ?
this is a fantastic talk
Physicists are not supposed to discuss philosophical matters. Their job is to use scientific instruments on measurable phenomena to mathematically describe the properties of the physical world so that engineers can use that data to create technologies. To "understand" reality is more in the realm of philosophy.
The world is built with experience and our mind
Its really not. If that were true there would be so many measureable inconsistencies
If you can't tell the difference between reality and a illusion, does it matter?
Get these pontificating philosophers & obnoxious hosts out, and let the brilliance of. 't Hooft and Marletto express their incredible intellects!
Do we play an active roll in constructing reality?
The question needs an answer
SO yes
One electron
There may be questions about physical measurements to do with relevance and accuracy, but questions of any sort are philosophical, inherently, and defined elements of meaning are derived from physics and testing for relevant defined meaning.
Philosophically, the question is an hypothetical answer, which when tested, is feedback to the question, cause-effectively, the Totality is a current Observation.
"Many Worlds" is an interpretational variation on unique multi-phase states of coherence within a unique ultimate, "branching" connection.
-----
Gerard t'Hooft has identified the appropriate visualisation for continuous creation cause-effect connection as if the Universe conforms in Quantum-fields to that of Hydrogen, Electron-photon-phonon-Proton Neutronic coherence-cohesion objectives in temporal superposition Singularity-point positioning Conception.
This is a discussion re. comparative belief systems 😁 (Dot)
no, gerards view is not to do with backward propagation, it simple means the past exactly corresponds to the future in such a way that changing the present would only be possible by changing the initial condition, and therefor the entire past.
i agree with Jinesh. I am not satisfied with the person conducting the interview. a question should be answered and not constantly rephrased and manipulated. These folk can never quite answer a question.
By definition "Reality" cannot be an illusion but
we cannot know "Reality" because we live in a world of thought.
I'm not saying the world is thought.
I am saying thoughts are all we know.
The correspondence between our thoughts and their cause is what confounds us.
The universe may be a solid and
we and everything in it mere vibrations rippling through it.
(despite "solid" being an incomprehensible concept in
a way analogous to the unthinkability of absolute nothing and the infinite).
Oxymoron need an observer
Silent thunder ............When you think of silence the thunder is quelled or vice versa
When unobserved it is in both positions at the same time , light does not collapse it
The problem has always been it is not a full fledged theory you are looking for
It is a meta theory,, and everything balances
The many worlds is describing the future of an observer
The philosophy guy has the most to say, the least value to offer. A good book describing the arguments is "What is Real"
Maybe all of the interpretations of quantum mechanics can be combined somehow into theory?
Modern quantum mechanics doesn't even need interpretations. If you are looking for the "correct" interpretation, then Copenhagen is all you will ever need. It cleanly separates between the smooth evolution of isolated quantum systems and the effect of irreversible energy transfers (emission, absorption) via the Born rule that create what we call "reality".
Brian mays looked after himself
34:30 There isn't any underlying set of rules .... you have "causal power".... That sounds like spiritualism wrapped up in a Cubic package with a nice bow.
A world without an underlying set of rules isn't a world anyone should want. In such a world anything at all could happen, it isn't a world were you could have any control or you could survive or one that would support the evolutionary processes of which you are a result.
There are reports of worlds or planes of consciousness, where each spirit can change it.
If you follow the path that consciousness/conscious agents effect/create reality, The "wisdom of crowds" phinomina ,where you ask enough random agents the same question. Does that not imply that consciousness is also somehow linked. Almost that consciousness is a single thing & our agent experience say on a personal level are just a tiny % of the over all single consciousness. Like an Ant colony over all decision making, where each single agent in the colony have pretty limited inputs. But added together make complex decisions.
The human body itself, being made up of many cells/agents each with its limited amount of inputs/senses. But as a whole give rise to we think of as self.
Current free will testing results make it seem free will is determined before what we think of as self is informed. The almost democracy of the smaller more limited agents , add up to the over all equation.
Move out from that, a group of people work together towards a task.
The "Laws of Nature" are Observer-created, and Observer used.
In his insistence on a "common sense" theory hidden behind of QM, Gerard 't Hooft reminds me Max Abraham, who rejected Einstein's theory of relativity because it defied his common sense. As Einstein once said: "common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen."
Let me be clear, I do not advocate any particular interpretation here, though I find some interpretations more intuitively appealing than others. Ultimately, all mainstream interpretations give same predictions, so we can't choose among them experimentally. As to intuitive appeal, I think it is a matter of personal preferences. The only thing that I find objectionable is insistence on a hidden "common sense" theory when there is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Bergson, who was Einstein's friend, proposed a vital force, although sadly, he did not win the general public's acclaim after his own death.
New generation of physicists are quite in the line of the Pythagoras school, or platonic school putting ideas and mathematics before the reality. I am a geologist not a physicist but I think that some proposals imaginary parallel universes loo more like the myths that Greece philosophers as Democritus and 18th century thinkers had have already removed from the rational interpretation of the world. Roger Penrose and Christopher Timpson seem to me more objectives. Anyway is impossible that we already have the final answer to the fundamental questions.
Is the illusion real?