Well, if we assume determinism then of course dependent connections work both ways in time. So say in the future A is going to happen. Then it follows that if B were going to happen instead, the past prior to that would be different so that would be determined instead. The physicists are assuming we have free will, and usually not even realising it. It's very sad that they are not determined to see the obvious. I'm sure progress would be much quicker if the free will assumption was ditched.
i see your point, but no it wasn't a someone standing in my light. I just put my hand up to get the sun out of my eyes. It was a weak measurement because every time I moved my hand closer or farther away, my weak measurements did or didn't work to get the sun out of my eyes. New axiom; if you put your hand up to block the sun from your eyes there are many ways to do it. What does this say about causation, one way to block the sun is to put your hand (or least you think its your hand) between you and the sun light. There are many correct answers. Not just one.
results in the present, of this type are caused by events in the future once the those events in the future occur. However the causal arrow does not go both ways, so we can't gain information of future events. Downward causation is used to explain time-like events
To whose, who woul watch it in the future - this is the way I interpret it: you make a weak measurement of some stuff a few times you get weird irregularities and mistakes on the way you make a strong measurement of the same stuff with this you create the causation for those irregularities and mistakes from before
Causality in physics is usually a newtonian concept. In modern physics, interaction replaces causality. And you don't get backwards causality with physical time. Only with parametric time.
You construct the present backwards from the future - that´s a very cool thought. But a certain present condition doesn´t force a certain future condition so there is no causality in that direction but a certain future condition forces the necessary present condition. Looks like normal quantum mechanics as you only know the (present) condition of a system, after you measured it.
It seems like causation from the Newtonian perspective modified to fit Copenhagen Interpretation. Not sure if I'm convinced that is something truly profound. The act of observation is necessary to get information about a system. How does a system evolve over time in the situation where none of its events are observed? Since science is based on experiment and observation, how can we truly know the nature of the universe in an undisturbed state? We are back to old Parmenides again.
This reminds me of Sherlock Homes or other stories of great detectives. When the usual detectives can’t solve the case, the great one comes in and solves the crime with the identical data, they are just sampling it differently/using a different perspective. The data was always there, the observer did not create anything new. The observer just post processed it a different way and got a different result.
Sounds like transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is one that fascinates me. Coupled with block-universe / b-theory of time - the future is already there. We can only be uncertain about what it is due to entropy. Maybe "causality" is "any relationship between differentiations in a gradient" or something, and what it's like for some kind of "read only" information processor to process them (i.e. our brains, or some part of our brains 'reading' space-time as they "fall" down an entropy gradient, or something).
2:32 "Discoveries his group has made " ? Weak measurement : This process was described first by: Mensky;[9][10] Belavkin;[11][12] Barchielli, Lanz, Prosperi;[13] Barchielli;[14] Caves;[15][16] Caves and Milburn.[17] Later on Howard Carmichael[18] and Howard M. Wiseman[19] also made important contributions to the field
I don't know the mathematics but I understood it this way: Let's assume you say "tomorrow, I'll stand on the moon" then this is VERY unlikely (uncertainty). But in a course of events, somehow you make it happen and all that leads to it makes sense tomorrow. But today, you can't say for certain, that it would happen. It seems it's really nothing that special, he's talking about but I would really know more about this weak measurement.
Yes, I notice a growing dissatisfaction. Sometimes (in other discussions) he responses with a cynical comment instead. Especially when the counterpart isn't honest, dances around the question. Kuhn REALLY wants answers, but this many discussions with all the intellectuals doesn't seem to bring him closer to the truth.
I’m in no way an expert but this sounds like a pedantic rambling of (we retrospectively interpreted the original past measurement differently in the future due to this concept we call weak measurement.)
So is he claiming determinism at the Quantum level because when you do your post evaluation, there's only 1 way things could have manifested. Because of this, this is true for the next post evaluation experiment and so on. So in this chain, there's only 1 possible chain. Someone help me with a mistake if I've made one
Is the future happening in quantum wave function that effects classic reality now? Could the quantum wave function pull classic reality into the present?
so I make a weak measurement. "thats a foot long". then I make 20 weak measurements. Then time passses and we are in the future. I make a strong measurement with a ruler. "that is a foot long according to this ruler". Now the 21 weak measurements suddenly line up to what? Is it, the 21 measurements are now: true, correct, without error. Is this the new world order? The true measurement of a foot is at least 21 different answers. Or did you just use and eraser. I will not hire you to build my new house.
so you do many measurements and while doing them what you measure does not make sense each single time. But finally - when you do that ''post-selection" (whatever that means) you come to a point where suddenly all those senseless measurements do make sense. at least that's me trying to figure out what he says.
Everything is made of particles, so in principle, entire universe could turn into chaos and reconstruct again to contemporary state. Maybe we should think of causality as branching of some particles, binnded into some form, while nearby particles follow flow of causal effects. When system is disturbed, bonds are broken and form is disintegrated into chaos, but some particles still flow in their path, creating an illusion of causality that is no longer there.
I think the quantum mechanics probabilistic view about an object(particle) is wrong. The random number could be part of the information contain within the object(particle). That will explain quantum entanglement also. My opinion is that the appearance of random behavior is generated at the source of the object. For example when you generate photons you generate them with random properties. Quantum entanglement is a way to correlate the properties of 2 objects. This guy describes as weak measurement a way to somehow detect that hidden (until measurement) property.
@@Armando7654 My view of the Universe is materialistic. However, because I see the Universe as information that evolves according to a quantum algorithm (probabilistic) the idea of a Designer(Creator) is always in my mind.
It is orthodox to say that quantum mechanics demonstrates a subtle violation of causality. That just shows that they don't understand quantum mechanics. The interest in this topic is rubbish.
_The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following:_ The test of all knowledge is experiment. _Experiment is the_ sole judge _of scientific “truth.”_ -Richard Feynman, _The Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP), the New Millennium Edition, 1 Atoms in Motion, 1-1 Introduction,_ p 1 _Everything is made of atoms._ That is the key hypothesis. The most important hypothesis in all of biology, for example, is that _everything that animals do, atoms do._ In other words, _there is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made of atoms acting according to the laws of physics._ -Richard Feynman, _The Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP), the New Millennium Edition, 1 Atoms in Motion, 1-4 Chemical reactions,_ paragraph 11 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
What these wise men don't get is that time is just an illusion. consciousness creates the illusion of time.IE a experience. Ergo, there is no causality paradox.
![Gucci Mane & Sexyy Red - You Don't Love Me [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j7IBqyFKT4c/mqdefault.jpg)
This is exactly how I would explain something at the exam, that I didn't learn and that don't have the slightest idea how it actually works.
Now that clearly passes over my head.
Who else with me ?
Sadly, me too.
Well, if we assume determinism then of course dependent connections work both ways in time. So say in the future A is going to happen. Then it follows that if B were going to happen instead, the past prior to that would be different so that would be determined instead.
The physicists are assuming we have free will, and usually not even realising it.
It's very sad that they are not determined to see the obvious. I'm sure progress would be much quicker if the free will assumption was ditched.
I can feel something gone over right over my head..
Yer, i heard it too. Whoosh. Most of the time i understand enough but not today.
Diogenes, perhaps someone was standing in your light.
i see your point, but no it wasn't a someone standing in my light. I just put my hand up to get the sun out of my eyes. It was a weak measurement because every time I moved my hand closer or farther away, my weak measurements did or didn't work to get the sun out of my eyes. New axiom; if you put your hand up to block the sun from your eyes there are many ways to do it. What does this say about causation, one way to block the sun is to put your hand (or least you think its your hand) between you and the sun light. There are many correct answers. Not just one.
results in the present, of this type are caused by events in the future once the those events in the future occur. However the causal arrow does not go both ways, so we can't gain information of future events. Downward causation is used to explain time-like events
@@danieleniccoli3871 that's the best explanation of the video.... Thanks
can someone send me to a video which explains this fascinating concept more thoroughly
Ok i just understood it jeeeeez
Don't try to watch his presentation though. This video explains it 10x better.
To whose, who woul watch it in the future - this is the way I interpret it:
you make a weak measurement of some stuff a few times
you get weird irregularities and mistakes on the way
you make a strong measurement of the same stuff
with this you create the causation for those irregularities and mistakes from before
Causality in physics is usually a newtonian concept. In modern physics, interaction replaces causality.
And you don't get backwards causality with physical time. Only with parametric time.
Causality is well-defined in relativity.
Isn't the quantum eraser an example of backwards causality?
Interaction is a type of causality. How can it replace it?
What is parametric time? And what is the difference to physical time?
You construct the present backwards from the future - that´s a very cool thought. But a certain present condition doesn´t force a certain future condition so there is no causality in that direction but a certain future condition forces the necessary present condition. Looks like normal quantum mechanics as you only know the (present) condition of a system, after you measured it.
Peter Tse would be interesting to talk to about his ideas on causality
It seems like causation from the Newtonian perspective modified to fit Copenhagen Interpretation. Not sure if I'm convinced that is something truly profound. The act of observation is necessary to get information about a system. How does a system evolve over time in the situation where none of its events are observed? Since science is based on experiment and observation, how can we truly know the nature of the universe in an undisturbed state? We are back to old Parmenides again.
This reminds me of Sherlock Homes or other stories of great detectives. When the usual detectives can’t solve the case, the great one comes in and solves the crime with the identical data, they are just sampling it differently/using a different perspective. The data was always there, the observer did not create anything new. The observer just post processed it a different way and got a different result.
Who did this research? Is there a clearer explanation?
Sounds like transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is one that fascinates me.
Coupled with block-universe / b-theory of time - the future is already there. We can only be uncertain about what it is due to entropy.
Maybe "causality" is "any relationship between differentiations in a gradient" or something, and what it's like for some kind of "read only" information processor to process them (i.e. our brains, or some part of our brains 'reading' space-time as they "fall" down an entropy gradient, or something).
Causation is the way possibility itself is organized.
I didn't understand
2:32 "Discoveries his group has made " ?
Weak measurement : This process was described first by: Mensky;[9][10] Belavkin;[11][12] Barchielli, Lanz, Prosperi;[13] Barchielli;[14] Caves;[15][16] Caves and Milburn.[17] Later on Howard Carmichael[18] and Howard M. Wiseman[19] also made important contributions to the field
Does backward causality allow anticipation of future (post prepare?), and from anticipation of future to act or plan in the present?
I see his point but I still think we know too little to get the entire picture.
I am not sure I understood how you go from there is -1 particule to hence the backward causation
I don't know the mathematics but I understood it this way: Let's assume you say "tomorrow, I'll stand on the moon" then this is VERY unlikely (uncertainty). But in a course of events, somehow you make it happen and all that leads to it makes sense tomorrow. But today, you can't say for certain, that it would happen.
It seems it's really nothing that special, he's talking about but I would really know more about this weak measurement.
gravity contracts classic reality from past to present? could dark energy expand quantum reality from future to present (backward causation)?
in classic reality, when throw something up in air, comes back down to earth? maybe in quantum reality, when throw something down it pops back up?
Kuhn decides nodding is best response.
Yes, I notice a growing dissatisfaction. Sometimes (in other discussions) he responses with a cynical comment instead. Especially when the counterpart isn't honest, dances around the question. Kuhn REALLY wants answers, but this many discussions with all the intellectuals doesn't seem to bring him closer to the truth.
Is what he is implying is the past, present, and future exists at the same instant, and affect each other simultaneously.
Is this new material or recycled?
There is no "backwards causality". PERIOD.
I’m in no way an expert but this sounds like a pedantic rambling of (we retrospectively interpreted the original past measurement differently in the future due to this concept we call weak measurement.)
A lot of quantum mechanical stuff sounds that way.
So is he claiming determinism at the Quantum level because when you do your post evaluation, there's only 1 way things could have manifested. Because of this, this is true for the next post evaluation experiment and so on. So in this chain, there's only 1 possible chain. Someone help me with a mistake if I've made one
Is the future happening in quantum wave function that effects classic reality now? Could the quantum wave function pull classic reality into the present?
Is backward causality only in quantum fields?
so I make a weak measurement. "thats a foot long". then I make 20 weak measurements. Then time passses and we are in the future. I make a strong measurement with a ruler. "that is a foot long according to this ruler". Now the 21 weak measurements suddenly line up to what? Is it, the 21 measurements are now: true, correct, without error. Is this the new world order? The true measurement of a foot is at least 21 different answers. Or did you just use and eraser. I will not hire you to build my new house.
Society on youtube: watches society on youtube
me: this video
so you do many measurements and while doing them what you measure does not make sense each single time. But finally - when you do that ''post-selection" (whatever that means) you come to a point where suddenly all those senseless measurements do make sense.
at least that's me trying to figure out what he says.
Oh dear.... Is this like the delayed choice experiment?
If you measure the sound of a tree falling in a forest, then it fell in the past.
Everything is made of particles, so in principle, entire universe could turn into chaos and reconstruct again to contemporary state. Maybe we should think of causality as branching of some particles, binnded into some form, while nearby particles follow flow of causal effects. When system is disturbed, bonds are broken and form is disintegrated into chaos, but some particles still flow in their path, creating an illusion of causality that is no longer there.
Everything is made of waves.
@@myothersoul1953 What is waving in what?
@@xspotbox4400 Values are changing in a field.
ruclips.net/video/MO0r930Sn_8/видео.html
Someone needs to explain this better
He's theory is question begging. It also depends on what theory of time you subscribe to.
*His *Ascribe ...Idiot.
@@KH4444444444N No need to insult...
@@urthoperator3126 No need to butcher the English Language, either.
I am lost at sea here... My brain hurts.
Temporal entanglement, damn... I think I see how space time itself is more emergent and how particle entanglement in related to gravity
how does temporal entanglement lead to an emergent space time?
Didn't follow.
Not a great explanation. Specific examples, or the use of metaphors, would have helped
I think the quantum mechanics probabilistic view about an object(particle) is wrong. The random number could be part of the information contain within the object(particle). That will explain quantum entanglement also. My opinion is that the appearance of random behavior is generated at the source of the object. For example when you generate photons you generate them with random properties. Quantum entanglement is a way to correlate the properties of 2 objects. This guy describes as weak measurement a way to somehow detect that hidden (until measurement) property.
@@Armando7654 My view of the Universe is materialistic. However, because I see the Universe as information that evolves according to a quantum algorithm (probabilistic) the idea of a Designer(Creator) is always in my mind.
Nice phoney!
Clear as mud!
He surely likes hearing himself talk. I also know words!
Didn’t seem like he said anything.
You still set the measurement device up in the past in other words. Maybe particles do have consciousness 😳
It is orthodox to say that quantum mechanics demonstrates a subtle violation of causality. That just shows that they don't understand quantum mechanics. The interest in this topic is rubbish.
_The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following:_ The test of all knowledge is experiment. _Experiment is the_ sole judge _of scientific “truth.”_ -Richard Feynman, _The Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP), the New Millennium Edition, 1 Atoms in Motion, 1-1 Introduction,_ p 1
_Everything is made of atoms._ That is the key hypothesis. The most important hypothesis in all of biology, for example, is that _everything that animals do, atoms do._ In other words, _there is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made of atoms acting according to the laws of physics._ -Richard Feynman, _The Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP), the New Millennium Edition, 1 Atoms in Motion, 1-4 Chemical reactions,_ paragraph 11
💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
That’s not a very good hypothesis though, there a several things we do that atoms don’t do, atoms in so far as we know, don’t have intellect.
Cause Fu
God designed and manufactured the world very carefully.
Yet within a few days it got broken by a woman.
Big mistake.
If you killed your grandfather and succeeded, the, it will follow that he is "become" not your biological grandfather.
the most irritating speaker i have heard in a while- perhaps ever. lots of words no substance.
Anything is possible when you talk stupidities and justify stupidities with stupidities.
Nope. Not buying it.
lol wut where's pbs when you need 'em....
What these wise men don't get is that time is just an illusion. consciousness creates the illusion of time.IE a experience. Ergo, there is no causality paradox.
It was all nonsense.
First like and comment yes!
Bollocks!
Liars.
GOBBLEDYGOOK!