Please bring Barry Loewer back for a one-on-one discussion. You 2 have great chemistry and synchronicity. I was a little worried about Barry on his last appearance. He seemed less than 100% physically although mentally he was 200% and sharp as a whip! Could have been a bad day. We've sadly lost David Dennett which is a tragic loss. Barry is going strong, so this is not a forecast of any kind. I simply think we need more Barry on RUclips and he just lights up when you are moderating the talks.
He's blind in terms of many things. I read his "Nonlocality", he doesn't understand not only the problem of consciousness but the internal logic of both GR and QM.
@@syzygyman7367 Wait, he argues consciousness will likely never be "solved". His typical example is that we have made zero progress on why a toothache feels as it does. The criticism against that position would require you showing why the hard problem of consciousness isn't hard, which I'd love to see why you think that.
@@Mesohornet11 I don't know why people differ in that, seeing or not seeing it. It's like animals being able or not to grasp that the reflection in the mirror are themselves. It doesn't correlate with IQ. Ben Shapiro sees it, Bret Weinstein doesn't. Elon Musk and Roger Penrose see that, Sapolsky and Dawkins don't. I don't know if you can, but just read what you wrote - "feels like it does". Feels by what, by whom? What is that entity that has the feeling? The problem of consciousness is not in what it perceives, but in the fact that it has the first person experience. It's the "will", not "free" in the free will question. Do you see, realize that current science and math, logic and coding simply have nothing that can have passive experience of looking at something?
@@Mesohornet11 I don't know why people differ in that, seeing or not seeing it. It's like animals being able or not to grasp that the reflection in the mirror are themselves. It doesn't correlate with IQ. Ben Shapiro sees it, Bret Weinstein doesn't. Elon Musk and Roger Penrose see that, Sapolsky and Dawkins don't. I don't know if you can, but just read what you wrote - "feels like it does". Feels by what, by whom? What is that entity that has the feeling? The problem of consciousness is not in what it perceives, but in the fact that it has the first person experience. It's the "will", not "free" in the free will question. Do you see, realize that current science and math, logic and coding simply have nothing that can have passive experience of looking at something?
Thank you very much, Robinson! This show as always was very very nice. I like to hear Tim Maudlin discussing scientific realism with Bas Van Fraassen. Do you think something like that is feasible? Wouldn't it be nice?
I find it amazing that we still reference Heisenberg, Dirac and Schrödinger when these issues are discussed, there seems to have been no real progress in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics for a hundred years.
I got the opposite impression. They mentioned the history (and Bell, who came much later), but they also said we've moved past those things and now have various fruitful avenues for the question of foundations.
Whenever we measure anything in everyday life the measurement has an implied starting point or boundry for the dimensions. What exactly are the boundaries for quantum measurement?
I can certainly not find much in von Neumann's book that would support the idea that he didn't understand quantum mechanics. I used to think that it was the formal character of his writing that caused a lot of the confusion and the "shut up and calculate" attitude, but then I read chapter 6 and he has some really healthy intuition in there. Wigner, however, seems to have been as confused as Schroedinger about the fundamentals. I would have to check his science writing, though, to see if the hearsay about him is correct. That Schroedinger was confused is fairly obvious from his own publications.
1:26:22 Given the thrice-inverted paradigm, one ends up with the Woo of the observer. Matter, not the wave-function, collapses between the low pressure Moments in the One Substance, and evolves fluidically as per wave-function. It reappears when the toriodal forces in the One Substance cavitate the strings/particles (pure void/vacuum) in the next low pressure moment. … but until the paradigmatic errors are corrected, the wignerian and von neumanian "observer" woo variations will be thought believable 😂
a comment got lost, but anyway, yeah, the problem boils down to just what the heck exists and evolves. the confusion is due to measurment beign a destinguished kind of physical process, but in truth a measurment is just and simply a process in which at the end we gain some insight into what happend, whether it is smelling rotten eggs and finding a gas leak, or analysing the data from photomultipliers, there processes as bell said in the quote, are essentially the same as those that happen everywhere all the time, except nobody gets a sheet of paper with results on it for the light that hits your wall. measurment is just a physical fact about a certain kind of process, and the way we use it it usually refers to the processes that work like our apparatuses where we print out whatever result was recorded, so it is a special kind of process, just because of the recording, not because of some fundamental difference at all, bell was spot on with that.
31:30 Nice summary of the assumptions and logical inconsistencies physicsts are schooled in. No wonder that it was the physicsts who's reading lists extended Eastward who made the most successful models.
exactly right mr einstein, the observables are only the parts of a theory that can be verified, but the ontology or the structure of the theory might shine light on extensions that relate to different observables than another theory with the same observables as the original. the observables proper place is not as ontology, the ultimate ontology is unknown, it is as points of reference for mapping a theory onto the world, and contrasting it with different theories, if you only talk about observables, then you dont get to see the different kinds fo structures that might produce such observables, it just becomes a circular thing that is never predictive of new effects at all, or extensions either.
if you think about this problem, with this kind of destinction about physical processes we call measurments, or "processes that result on observables" or something like that, from the perspective of ccompletely general dynamical theory, what u get is that following this kind of pure logical empricism, is possible accountancy of observables ofc, just processes that end up printing out some paper that we could imagine reading, thats all, a better way to think is the way einstein suggested, taking first the treatment of all physical processes, and from that deriving the observables that are in principle possible, and from there trying to figure out what is practically possible, that is how physics has always been done, even when it comes to quantum mechancis, although with quantum mechanics, people have sometimes contradicted what they were doing by saying a bunch of nonsense about only being concerned with what is observable, but this would only really apply to theories that are spreadsheets of outcomes, with no mahinery being taken seriously at all as ontological, if one truely believed that, one would never talk about an electron as something real, or even atoms, or even chairs, you would discuss them as data you collect and record as forms appearing to you as you go along or soemthing like that, which is silly, nobody does that, it is just a description of what happens to turn up in front of your nose, but physical theories have always been, even quantum mechanics, some principles, shaped into mathematical formalism, that predict things, and that lend some picture to the people trying to understand it. and people are pretty liberal about thinking it is real in some sense that is deeper than just empirically experienced, its just a mess of contradictions in method and attitude in my opinion. might as well just do what einstein suggested, and think of the various theoretical constructs as proposed ontologies, and possible worlds, logically, following the kind of way for example sol kripke talks about possible worlds. and from there find observables, it makes no difference in the end, we have no claim to knowing the ultimate ontology based of some relatively young maths and wild interpeting, what we really care about is having clear theories, such that we can discover in what spesific way they fail, or what further structure they imply or suggest. without that aspiration, it is just useless to try to make progress.
How can a theory count as a "clear theory" if there's no agreement on the basic postulates? Without a claim about _what exists_ and _how those things behave,_ we do not have a "possible world" or a "clear theory" or anything of the sort. We have nothing.
Insightful podcast - and speaking of new philosophical and measurement paradigms, how about I present our i-TOE’s granular measurement approach measuring phases between up and down states of particles using the coordinates of the Riemann sphere? That said, how about I present an overview of our theory as well so that you can understand what I mean? Simply Put -- Our i-TOE is an integrated TOE, that has been developed by framing fine structure constant(FSC-α) as the Hidden variable/Maxwell daemon/AoC of Banach-Tarski & Russell's paradox, in such away, that our “Ads/CFT/holographic principle complaint” Hodge lattice loop/gauge quantum gravity naturally can emerge from it with a discrete set of causal latticed Dirac spinor events, using our FSC’s 2/3:1/3 rule based computational/conscious CPTiad - all by leveraging our reality generating/regulating series function called CPT(α,Φ) function (developed using our meta proof of RH solving all $5MM+ CI problems) and by resolving the #1 relationship problem between the perturbation series of QED and non perturbation lattice formulation of QCD (as the coupling constant is sent to zero), by modeling the quantum spectrum of our Universe as the Riemann sphere. This Riemann sphere then gets renormalized with the value of α (n-> α or 137), in such a way that the zeros of zeta function(including their moments) end up following the eigenvalue statistical gaps of gaussian/hermitian random matrices before branching into two independent Brownian motion paths with an exponential Gaussian distribution of FHK Conjecture and our FSC-Maxwells daemon logic (by converging with an universality/gaussian decay), before branching again like the Ramanujan graphs with knots of algebraic L-functions with hermitian distribution whose coefficients & roots, reflecting the periodicity of the GR-Eigen-valued actions of our TOE, using 10+ meta dualities (with E8 and Lie group geometrical unity) as explained below Turns out, our theory also happens to get realized using the very same CPT(α,Φ) function driven 5 step scaling/gauging steps using the following 5 scaling steps - which we call as 5 Shakespearean play-scaling steps”. Interestingly enough, these 5 steps, happen to align perfectly with 5 such scaling high-bars set by the experts of Institute of Advanced Study (IAS) as well(lnkd.in/geGA3gbq) - and so, how about I present them for your perusal to see if it will exceed your expectations as well -- and open some collaboration possibilities for us to team up in this integrated TOE/SOE/ESG program(lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf) +++++ Our i-TOE's 5 such Shakespearean play-scaling steps vis-a-vis 5 scaling steps of IAS IAS High-bar 1: For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have an observation or nature based scale-correlation function, capable of both generating and measuring observables with a certain precision, by resolving the so-called measurement/scaling problem of both periodic fluctuations & early inflations, by re-scaling it automatically. Our Shakespearean play-scaling Exposition 1: The wave function (aka Hartle-Hawking wave function in steroids) of our i-TOE has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used nature's one such inbuilt “symmetry generating scaling function called CPT(α,Φ) function" to model both fluctuations & inflations. More specifically, it has been developed by leveraging our UNIVERSALITY META-SCALING-PROOF of Riemann Hypothesis(including all $5MM+ unsolved problems of Clay Institute), in such a way to scale/rescale the periodicity of both fluctuations and inflations(aka fluctuations in steroids) by expositioning/birthing their equivalent symmetrical dipoles(manifesting as Higgs + 68 particle+ 68 anti-particle symmetrical particle pairs, as modeled further by 2 spinors of Dirac eqn). For example, this idea of modeling these symmetries using 2 spinors in the complex plane is what gives rise to symplectic hodge geometry lattices in 3 and 4 dimensional classical hyperbolic cylinders of the projected plane. IAS High-bar 2: For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must be able to discretize spacetime by renormalizing the RG flow with an action formula for all particles (especially asymmetrical/anti commuting fermions) with a time-like holographic interpretation. Our Shakespearean play-scaling Rising Action 2. Again, our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same CPT(α,Φ) function as the “symmetry breaking CPT(α,Φ) function scaler”, by limiting the ∞-raised pole of Riemann sphere to a compact P-region, while simultaneously renormalizing the ∞ values of e with α, so that its position can be rotated as e^i137nπ Spin-Frequency (S-F) matched cycles unitarily. In other words, this S-F matching phenomena is what breaks the symmetry by shifting the center of mass of each particle by their respective “radius scaled α” so that their symmetry can be broken to create both classical mass and motion for every 1 out of 137(n) cycles in time dimension (and yet by preserving the conservation of CPT theorem). IAS High-bar 3: For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have a scaling/rescaling/limiting parameter for periodic action for lattice geometry, using a Fourier transformed action for both dS and AdS spaces with the opposite signs [I-ds(g) = - I-Ads(g)]. Our Shakespearean play-scaling Climax 3. Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high- bar as well, as we've used the very same Fourier transformed CPT(α,Φ) function scaler, to sustain the action with an “α fine-tuned e and π driven action”(thanks to our additional framing of α as HV/Maxwell daemon/AoC), so that the coefficients & roots of their equivalent algebraic modular forming L-functions can model the periodicity of their GR-Eigen-valued actions via 10+ meta dualities. (Note : If I may highlight a parallel, your theory’s E(5,13) walker function, in a way is equivalent to our GR-Eigen-valued fibinocci function F(5,13) wherein, the walker is deemed to be at 5, when the13th event indexed by the corresponding Eigen value index of the elliptic (including 10+ dualities of projected plane) IAS High-bar 4: For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have measurement algorithms by modeling the curvature of spacetime in proportion to both fluctuations & inflations i.e. ψ ~ e^- δN with an exponent of 10^120 or 10^10) in such a way that gravity can emerge from it Our Shakespearean play-scaling Falling Action 4. Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high-bar using its “Dice-rolling CPT(α,Φ) function scaler”, by slicing/squeezing the infinite slices (ψ ~ e^- δN) of quantum sphere in the form of one or four ellipsoid slices (as per the Descartes kissing circle geometry and α=r/R logic) into an exact radiused symplectic/asymmetric taurusized hodge geometry lattices of classical hyperbolic cylinder of the projected plane(aka Hilbert’s countable infinity hotel as per Banach-Tarski & Russell's paradox) so that they can orbit smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion with a curvature proportional to both fluctuations & inflations. This is where we have also additionally hypothesized/predicted that this gravitational motion can be modeled both by semi classical Einstein field equations and/or by our Hodge conjecture meta proof logic. (Note : For example, a pragmatic implication of our Riemann hypothesis universality meta proof of Hodge conjecture is that the 3+ spherical body problem can be solved as 1 equiv. spherical body as follows : Inertia of r= αR gaped eccentric foci Riemann-Poincare Sphere(s=1) = Σ inertia of Riemann zeroed hodge algebraic cycles (S=1/2+ti). IAS High-bar 5: For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have an inbuilt statistical QM measurement system (for various scales) whose Hilbert space dimension must be able to model geometric dualities as per the static patch holographic principle, so that we can extrapolate/interpolate/interpret the measures accordingly. Our Shakespearean play-scaling Resolution 5 : Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE again has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same “classical reality generating CPT(α,Φ) function scaler”, to resolve the dualities of the static patch holographic principle by projecting the Riemannian sphere as a Lie-grouped classical sphere with 10+ meta dualities as visually depicted in the attached exhibit. +++++ That said, this precisely is why, we have also scaled 5 AITGE origins of our TOE (i.e. RH sourced the Action generator of the Lie group as Action, Inertia, Time. Gravity and Entropy) with these 5 ingredients of CPT(α,Φ) function scaler in such a way to answer the top 3 paradigm shifting questions you had alluded (plus few more as well) That said, let us start with these 3 questions with a hope they will also answer all the other paradigm shifting unsolved problems like the Riemann hypothesis (including 5+ Clay institute problems), as our TOE’s new paradigm is anchored on our CPT meta proof of Riemann hypothesis including $5+MM CI problems) only!
1. How does classical reality emerge from quantum reality? First, under our TOE’s paradigm , the whole classical universe is its own observer, where all galaxies collapse gravitationally moment by moment at a particle level using our CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism of our TOE In other words, our CPT(α,Φ) function of TOE collapses it by auto-collapsing/landing/toggling each particle from CFT into the next lattice of dS space. This simultaneous toggle/shift is what gives us the feeling to human observers that these CFT/dS dualities are orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion. More specifically, under our theory - the quantum spectrum of our Universe (modeled by Riemann zeta function by imagining it as the Riemann sphere) gets renormalized with the value of α (n-> α or 137), in such a way that the zeros of zeta function(including their moments) end up following the eigenvalue statistical gaps of gaussian/hermitian random matrices. This eigen-valued gaussian path is what ends up branching into two independent Brownian motion paths with an exponential Gaussian distribution of FHK Conjecture (by converging with an universality/gaussian decay), before branching again like the Ramanujan graphs with knots of algebraic L-functions whose coefficients & roots, reflecting the periodicity of the GR-Eigen-valued actions of our TOE, using 10+ meta dualities as explained below And one of the best ways to understand this insight is by understanding our UNIVERSALITY META-PROOF strategy of Riemann Hypothesis - which brings us to our firm’s “Gödel completed constructive meta-proof strategy of Riemann hypothesis (in pre print) that not only solves Riemann hypothesis but also all $5MM+ Clay institute unsolved problems, including our TOE. Simply put - Our UNIVERSALITY META-PROOF strategy has been developed by “ Gödel completing” Sir Michael Atiyah Riemann hypothesis proof with a new physical insight driven CPT(α,Φ) function proof, by additionally framing FSC(α) as an Omniscient AoC chooser of Banach-Tarski and Russell paradox/Hidden Variable/Maxwell daemon of our TOE, with a symbiotic symmetrical fractal causality to 10+C-old unsolved problems of TOE including Clay Institute problems as explained in this post f(lnkd.in/drGQ44Mt) and (lnkd.in/geUGrFuB). (Note : While Poincaré conjecture is already solved using Ricci flow approach, our meta proof also solves it in a complementary way using our Maxwell daemon logic, as explained below) What do I mean by that? Let us start from our Riemann hypothesis proof as it is one of the foundations not only to answer this question but also for our TOE as well For example We imagine our Universe as the Riemann Zeta function governed LMFDB universe (that is a motivic/metamorphic/Galois representation based SU 2/SU3/SU4 symmetrical engine. In other words, Z(1) is the fundamental frequency of this Universe’s TOE engine that is QVF/ZPE sourced, FSC(α)-Einstein-Bohr-HV-Maxwell Daemon governed frequency of Riemann's zeta function Ζ(S) with a singularity of S=1+0i, that is made up of his harmonic oscillating zeros(S=1/2+it stacked on his 1/2 critical line, before being transformed as a 137 frequency-spin momentum matched dipole, using our FSC(α)-GR-PLA+5 AITGE origin formulas(see exhibit) In other words, our TOE/SOE engine is the one that is transforming the Riemann's zeros into an artistic unit charge SU2 dipole(see visual), by contracting/expanding its electric flux as the center of mass (as r = αR), before rotating its magnetic flux by 90 in such a way that it can be extended into the left plane as a paired unit charge, using the "only possible analytical continuation of Zeta". Sure enough, this engine function is nothing but universe's wave function only, transforming itself from position/time space into frequency/momentum space, using the Fourier transform operator ( kind of equivalent to Feynman’s path integral with propagator ) ψ(k) = ∫ ψ(t) e^-iwt dt - This brings us to our next point about CPT function This "one & only allowed analytically continued/functional equation allowed symmetrical dipole" is what limits/constrains the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to a value of 137 cycles( per Laurent/Cauchy residue including the α=r/R,=fe/fp=we/wp logic of our CP function as explained in my post and attached one page exhibit for details lim t→ ∞ CPT(1/2 + ti) = 1/α cycles of dipole In other words, this CPT function proof(lnkd.in/drGQ44Mt) for Riemann hypothesis is a polynomial in the convex region of the Riemann Sphere only (thanks to the "one and only allowed analytical continuation logic of dipole & its 137 cycle ratio logic"), limiting/constraining the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to the convex region, as explained in this article(www.linkedin.com/pulse/summary-our-firms-10yrs-toe-work-wa-request-world-form-prabakar-k25sc/?trackingId=3oeFnfoaRT61kGCCQ7VNNQ%3D%3D) In other words, our TOE is a CPT(α,Φ) function operated cosmic dance, where α ends up splitting the frequencies of QVF as 137 dipoles ( aka elementary particles including electrons quarks etc) using Riemann Zeta function(including its corresponding Fourier/Mobius transformations), in such a way that the electric field of each dipole gets rotated as nπ cycles (using Euler’s identity eiπ ) before getting rotated by their magnetic field (by 90 degrees) so that their combined least action (A) can be twisted to flow along the eigen-valued nodes of Ramanujan graph, using the 2/3:1/3 rule of α (ratioed by its flip sided golden ratio Φ)! Stated otherwise, this idea of embedding CPT function within our TOE with 10+ META DUALITIES of the Langsland/Banach-Tarski/Russell paradox of our SOE/TOE engine is what differentiates our approach with this new paradigm!
2. How do we solve the so-called measurement problem of QM? As alluded earlier, our TOE measures/predicts Quantum continuum steps using the coordinates of Riemann sphere and Classical lattice steps(including outcomes) using both Hodge conjecture(which is unique to ours) and semi classical Einstein field equations
Similarly, when it comes to both radius and mass of elementary particles (electron, muon Tau, quarks including proton) - We have predicted that there are maximum of 137 distinct particles( 68 particles + 68 anti particles + Higgs) as represented by 137 Riemann zeroed dipoles (1/2+it) - and they come in as both quadruples and octuples forms following the Descartes kissing circle geometry. For example, when we carefully study the Descartes quadruples, there exist a smaller circle whose radius is minuscule This is where, we have also predicted (pending additional research) that we might also be able to discover a fourth generation lepton particle in alignment with our quadruple model, which not only can explain this electron/muon ratio with certainty but also the mismatch of muon mass value between Dirac equation and its observation! Likewise, our theory also explains the origin of election/muon ratio including the “mass gaps” existing in the Yang-Mills equations - all using our "r=αR dipole logic guided 2/3:1/3 rule driven CP-Yang-Mills-Koide-Descartes-Kocik formulas" of n+2 spherical dipoles in 'n' dim-spaces (lnkd.in/dxnNs_Xf). For example, the radii & mass formula for 3 lepton dipoles of quadrupole equals k=2/3, when p=2 1. Radii configuration b1^2 + b2^2 + b3^2 + b(n+2)^2 = p/(n+1)p-1 (b1+ b2 + bn+2)^2, where bn=1/rn, p=1/(n+1) -(1/k), k=2/3, p=2/2n-1 2. Mass configuration m1+ m2+m3 + ….mn = k (m1+ m2+m3 + ….mn)^2 For example, now that the Koide formula has been proven to be true for many permutations and combinations of masses, we feel very confident about our theory legitimizing every one of those permutations and combinations as well. For example, the mere fact of “dividing the sum of any 3 or 4 masses by the square of the sum of each of their square roots, resulting in a number between 1/3 and 1 is yet another validation of our 5 AITGE origin least action formula logic (2/3 KE - 1/3PE = 1/3A) Similarly we have hypothesized a 4 quark model for proton using our quadruple model driven CP-Yang-Mills-Koide-Descartes-Kocik formulas". The implication is there might be an undiscovered fourth quark in the current 3 quark proton neutron model (pending additional research). Similarly, we have extended this idea with a new measurement approach with implications to quantum computing as well! For example, we foresee a possibility of measuring multiple phase states using one electron wave function itself In other words, we can go granular in between spin-up or spin-down values by navigating the coordinates of the complex plane. Stated otherwise, theoretically we can go up to 10 or even 100 states (aka 2 to the power 10 or 100 possibilities). We are currently in the process of testing if experimentally - and so, I welcome suggestions as well
3. How do we solve 3+ body problem of GR using a new field centric theory including a few more unanswered questions including hidden variable/maxwells daemon related questions? To answer this question, first we may need to understand our META PROOF strategy to solve all Clay Institute problems (especially hodge conjecture) . For example, the first pragmatic implication of our hodge conjecture is that the 3+ spherical body problem can be solved as 1 equiv. spherical body as follows Inertia of r= αR gaped eccentric foci Riemann-Poincare Sphere(s=1) = Σ inertia of Riemann zeroed hodge algebraic cycles (S=1/2+ti). Similarly see below the summary of other proofs 1. BSD Conjecture Acid Test : Can the rank of an elliptic cube proved to be finite & rational? Summary Proof : Yes, our generalized-RH CPT(α,Φ) function proof (w/its analytic cont. & functional eq logic) limits the rank of an elliptic curve to be finite & rational, in such a way that the coefficient of "Euler products of modulo of each prime" (indexed by each point) is an Eigen valued multiple of GR Φ)! In other words, this Eigenvalue logic of CPT function is what limits the rank of an elliptic curve to be finite & rational, 2. Hodge conjecture Acid Test : Can complex mathematical models/shapes be built from simpler ones, like how legos are built? Summary Proof: Yes, our CPT function proves that every differential form on a Riemannian manifold (S=1) is the sum of dipole harmonic geometrical forms (S=1/2+ti) both as exact/co-exact forms.A pragmatic implication here is that the 3+ spherical body problem can be solved as 1 equiv. spherical body: Inertia of r= αR gaped eccentric foci Riemann-Poincare Sphere(s=1) = Σ inertia of Riemann zeroed hodge algebraic cycles (S=1/2+ti). 3. Navier-Stokes eqn. Acid Test: Per Tao, have you discovered a new globally controlled nature's coercive/critical variable/method that can explain the fluid smoothness of this eqn? Summary Proof : Yes, we have discovered one such 2/3:1/3 rule based FSC variable incl. a QVF fluid sourced info-medium of Maxwell daemon engine (e.g. "Stoddart-Leigh's light sourced mech-interlocked rotaxane ring-lnkd.in/g6re2Nx6), very similar to Tao's engine(without our FSC part)! 4. Yang-Mills mass gap Acid Test: Can you "explain/legitimize/Gödel complete" the “mass gap” existing in the Yang-Mills equations? Summary Proof : Yes, our "r=αR dipole logic guided 2/3:1/3 rule driven CP-Yang-Mills-Koide-Descartes-Kocik formulas" of n+2 spherical dipoles in 'n' dim-spaces can do so(lnkd.in/dxnNs_Xf). 5. P vs NP Acid Test : When Riemann Hypothesis proof is a Polynomial, can it simultaneously also become a proof for P=NP? Summary Proof : Yes, our CPT function proof for Riemann hypothesis is one such polynomial in the convex region of the Riemann Sphere only (thanks to the "one and only allowed analytical continuation logic of dipole & its 137 cycle ratio logic"), limiting/constraining the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to the convex region(per Laurent/Cauchy residue incl. α=r/R,=fe/fp=we/wp logic) -- which brings us to our TOE below Turns out, this is what also makes our TOE as the best candidate (compared to all other TOEs), as we visibly see the signatures of FSC and golden ratio throughout nature (link) Simply put - Ours is the only TOE that is anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism! In other words, for any TOE path to become a final TOE, it must be anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism end to end (in one form or the other)! Similarly, how about I expand its scope to the productivity challenge in the business dimension that has been developed by the very same TOE principles(& synthesized as 1 sentence below and in exhibit) -- Every Maslow’s holacracial(1) economic need is a direct/indirect manifestation of QE caused Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model problem(2) only -- that is solved using the Principle of least action & its new insight(3) driven Fine-structure-constant(FSC) caused Attention factor (4) driven FSC/GT/Nash Equilibrium(5) based reality accurate S-economics model(6) caused Friedman’s Attention-Pluck(7) -- that is followed by an Solow’s TFP-expansion( 8 ), before it being executed by “sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion(9)” motto, driven Next-Gen capitalism called Sovereign/Conscious Sustainalism(10). as explainer in this summary (www.linkedin.com/pulse/summary-our-firms-10yrs-toe-work-wa-request-world-form-prabakar-k25sc/?trackingId=3oeFnfoaRT61kGCCQ7VNNQ%3D%3D) Similarly, I had that poetized these steps using Keats' Endymion genre in 5 parts((titled, "A thing of alphic (α) beauty is a joy forever", below & exhibit), 1. The Genesis A thing of alphic (α) beauty is a joy forever! Its loveliness increases; it will never, Pass into nothingness; but still will fluctuate As a quantum quiet for us, and will simul-caste Fully ready to be birthed as a formless void By hovering over its harmless poid Filled with e-fields, sliced as 137 dipoles of zeta Right angled with m-fields, rotated as e^inπ cycles of quanta Outputted as least action, fluxed as eigen-valued-golden ratioed(ϕ) Ramajujan graphical dualities of geo-mata All by the "let there be light" operator of CPT(α,ϕ)-TOE-mata 2. The Blueprint Therefore, on every morrow, we wreathe, A flowery zeta being bloomed again and again Despite its wavered collapse, we breathe, All wavery humans, being born again & again Of all the unhealthy and o'er-darkened ways With noble natures of the glorious gain Birthed from our search: yes, in spite of all bays Zeta’s beauty cleansing away the pave With His Spirit of cosmic costume hovering over the panoramic plume. 3. The Roadmap As CPT(α,ϕ) starts rolling its (Solomonic) dices Humans old and young, following their aces Like the lilies of the valleys, Lock-stepped with their Saronic roses That for themselves overtly unaware 'Gainst their deprived realities ; their mid forest fires, And such too is their (quantum) entangled depravities The nature’s design for the mortally deprived, Ten such (depraved) dualities that we have heard or read: And yet an endless fountain of gracious gravity awaits to save Pouring unto us from His mountainous wave! 4. The Solution Nor do we could gaze His Grace As there existed a chasm to cleave Like the veil of the holy of holies Where the logos resided as glory of glories Chasing us till we become His own Unto His souls, as His own crown Heralding us from the wilderness: With a helmet of salvation, simul-ed with justus Thro' a greenery path, that we can chisel Easily onward, through its thorns and thistles 5 The Great Commission with three missions Therefore, w'ill proclaim it all as Endymion's 3 great commissioning factors of activity First, save people’s depravity with productivity By alpha-fying Solow's TFP as an attention TFP Resulting in with a quantum leap of productivity; Second, save planet’s depravity with sustainability By kingdomizing next-gen capitalism as a purpose scored-ism Resulting in with a quantum accuracy of sustainability; Third, reform both people and planet with an integrated reformationism By alpha-fying Luther's one such Simul Justus Realism Resulting in with a TOE-tinged golden next-Genism In closing, I welcome constructive feedback/advice (including a potential collaboration possibility), similar to how we collaborated with Prof Clay Christensen of Harvard and NT Wright of Oxford (lnkd.in/gRakUNVg).
Maybe it's better to call it QM "theories" instead of "Interpretations" as every such "theory" provides their own ontology or epistemology. But with the same end results of course.
Maudlin should just admit he's a dualist. You cannot hold the position "the mind-body problem is insoluble" and not be a dualist, as that's like the definition of dualism. I've seen him in various lectures repeatedly argue that there is a fundamental insoluble disconnect between mind and body, yet he shies away from the term "dualism" despite arguing the literal position of dualism repeatedly.
that is kind of my point here :P, both attitudes are right, observables are the only thing we can really measure to be in agreement with whateever theory we come up with, but the details of any theory that is not in the form of an observable, can be made to become an observable, or to depend on new observables in a way that differentiates realistic theories, such that one can make progress. there is no way to be a true instrumentalist with no aspiration of inventing theories of what is going on so to speak, without already have a list of all possible theories and associated observables to check of on by doing experiements, both projects go hand in hand, instrumentalism is just about checking whether a theory and its observables match with nature, independently of the other details of representation, but those other details of representation are never on equal footing when varied when extending to a larger set of observables to consider experimentally or theoretically as having observable consequences. that is why some version of a realist aspiration is important even to an instrumentalist. you have to be in some sense and instrumentalist about all theories, never just one theory, for the concept to work at all you see, and that is the issue, we do not know about all representations of what exists, and therefore we have to do the realists work first.
1:13:28 The Epicyclists, likewise, gave up on the "realism" of their times, and proposed their Crystal Spheres as a solution. Maybe a little history should be part of the schooling of physicsts. It is pretty clear too, that the standard mystery school exercises in examining one's assumptions is not part of academic philosophy schooling. Either of those would have made ubderstanding quantum phenomena and the mechanism quite trivial.
12:28 The baddest word of all is "theory", when it is used to describe a mathematical model. That misuse leads to mistaking a mathematical model for a description/understanding of mechanism. Hence, few notice their paradigm problem and continue to make the Epicyclists' mistake. And what passes for Philosophy in academia falls for it too 😂
Regarding completeness of theories and Bohr's answer and Maudlin's opinion that Bohr's should just have answered "we were never looking for the theory to be complete". I think that misrepresents the discussion between Einstein and Bohr. Bohr certainly thought that quantum mechanics is a complete theory. it is rather, he did not agree with Einstein's and Maudlin's point of view that a complete physics theory must account for what is going on in the sense of realism. In my understanding no physics theory prior to quantum mechanics has needed to offer a picture of what is going in detail for it to be complete. One example I can think of, which I do not know if Bohr had in mind, is Newtons theory of gravitation. Newton knew painfully well that his theory did not tell us what gravity is, or what causes it. He disliked the "action at a distance" in his theory, and found it unreal, quote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.". Still, the fact that the cause of gravity (or mass for that sake) are not accounted for in the theory did not make Newtons theory of gravitation an incomplete physics theory. And indeed, you can say the same of all field theories as they also lack causal bridges. Essentially, (as Maudlin himself has pointed out here on youtube) vector fields are just numbers with a direction assigned to an imagined coordinate system around a particle. But nothing links the number to the acceleration another particle experiences in the field. All field theories lack causal bridges . In general relativity, for example, there is no explanation to how energy deforms spacetime. It is unaccounted for, and just happens by miracle/definition, so to speak. But historically, this lack of causal bridges in physics theories did not render them incomplete. And I think following that logic, Bohr's point of view is not unreasonable. Physics has never told us what makes things happen, not even how they happen, physics theories are mathematical constructs that can predict what will happen and when it happens (what we will be able to observe). So, the way I understand it, Bohr is simply saying that the measurement problem is irrelevant to the discussion of whether quantum mechanics is a complete theory. Complete physics theories are not about realism, but about predicting what will happen in experiments.
@LisaBlooper Thanks. I didn't mean to say that spacetime is some material. Of course GR is an abstract description. The numbers and symbols in the equations are not reality. The world is not a coordinate system, I get it. The point, i was trying to make, is that there is no causal description in the theory. There is nothing that links energy to deformation of spacetime. It just happens by definition in the theory.
@LisaBlooper Thanks again. I appreciate your comments. Einstein was an absolutely brilliant physicist, probably the greatest there ever was. His numerous ground braking contributions to quantum mechanics and his two theories of relativity clearly illustrates that. The work on the general theory of relativity was a successful attempt to unify gravity and inertia from the weak and strong principles of equivalence. He did not find the idea of a four dimensional space-time productive, by the way, so I suppose he was not concerned about why energy would curve spacetime. I don't know, but doubt however, whether he critically investigated the ontology of physics. Rather, I suppose he was very much content with the intuitive concepts of classical physics describing the behavior of objects in space and time. His call for realism with quantum mechanics and his concern about the nature of said theory can maybe be taken as evidence of that. Please note that I am not criticizing physics here. Modern physics theories are wonderful and very accurate. All I am saying is that I do not believe they are informative about reality as they lack causal bridges and actually also because they use concepts such as mass, time and space which are not well defined, nor well understood, and likely emergent. And because of this lack of a link to reality (reality being Das Ding an sich, as Kant called it, that, which everything emerges from, I think we would say today) I do not find Bohr's objections to Einstein's claim that a theory must apply to realism (as defined in the EPR-paper) problematic. And I think that maybe Bohr was thinking along those lines also, that physics theories are not about what reality is, but rather about how the concepts we use to make sense of reality behave. The theories are about how the world as we perceive it behaves, not about what the world is.
@LisaBlooper at the bare minimum there is an "articulating what constitutes a measurement" problem to define what it is that triggers that whole pesky non-local wave function collapse thing
How I sometimes explain the 'reality problem' to the person on the street is like this. Quantum mechanics is like a fast car. And you know that if you put gas in it it goes. But then you pop the hood to look at the engine and... it doesn't make any sense. So what do you do?
Susskind following Everett thinks the various paths providing the eigen state is the 'observer' that observes/measures the quantum state, which is the reality. Philosophers can at best do is to choose the eigen state from among the different paths, as defining the measurement problem. I doubt if these philosophers come any close to quantum reality, in which the different paths observe and measures the quantum state.
1:47:43 It is indeed a scientific problem. Deeper than the schooling of physicsts can address, though. Until the unconsciously accepted paradigm is addressed, the obviously elegantly simple mechanism from which all the complexity of phenomena arise … will remain as unknown as were orbital dynamics pre-Copernicus. And philosophers who descend from Aristotle can be no help, given that it is his inverted misunderstandings of Advaita which are the root trouble. To fix this in the West, one has to go back to Thales.
Ending now. I always hope for some sign of the Copernican Penny dropping. Nothing here, sadly. 1:59:16 Dear Robinson If you ever get bored with hearing the same story retold repeatedly, ending in the same hand-waving and imponderables, over and over again … I'll be happy to explain Aristotle's errors, and intuitively explain Strings, QM and GR in simple woo-free language. Privately, or on your show.
The almost unanimous acceptance that Bohr's thinking that the QM is beyond fundamental understanding and is, in principle, impossible to understand and therefore we should "shutup and calculate" only, is wrong and should be rejected - knowingly or unknowingly, David Chalmers is playing the same role with the "Hard problem of consciousness " in the area of understanding of consciousness and learning from our previous mistake, should be strongly rejected. And because we are doing the same mistake of blindly accepting the dogma of "Hard problem of consciousness," we should reject it in ever stronger terms. BTW David Chalmers as it was mentioned by Robinson, still sites Eugene Wigner and his idea about the role of consciousness in the collapse of the QM wave function tells 8us that David is cherry picking. Eugene Wigner later decanter that viewpoint which is mentioned in the wikipedia rticle. Someone should tell David.
@@aidanhall6679 Yes. One of the clues I pay attention to is this - we can be aware of our conscious experience only when our brain is working in normal state. Brain injury, drug effect or general anesthesia removes parts, or full state of consciousness. Heck, with drugs like DMT and Ayahuasca, one can get extremely different conscious experiences of splintered selves or no selves etc. which are physical substances that affect brains's electrochemistry. With phenomenon like Havana Syndrome it may not even have to be a physical substance that affects the brain directly, but could be microwave radiation etc. This tells me that the systems in the brain that detect, classify and register the conscious state have to be in a "normally" working state. In other words, taking an example of subsystems in the brain that process the visual signals (let us call this S1) and the part (let us call it subsystem S2) that detects the state of S1 and register it as an experience have to be working. There many brain related affects where it is clear that there is separation between these two. And the locus of what we call consciousness is going to be found in subsystems like S2. Of course this partly an extrapolation of what we know. Let me give an example: - In the past we use to think that infectious deceases were caused by curses and spell (stage 1) - Later, we understood with the advent of germ theory that such deceases care caused by microbes (bacteria and viruses (COVID 19)) This is the biological stage of understanding. (stage 2) - And in modern times we now understand how the mRNA protein spikes of COVID 19 virus actually work at the level of bio chemistry, which more or less precisely tells use what happens to the chemical processes inside the cells that cause the symptoms of the decease, and not only that we can thus come up with precise vaccines. I call this bio-chemistry or molecular biology or simply organic chemistry stage of understanding (stage 3) I think in terms of understanding of consciousness, we are at stage 2. We know for sure that subsystems like what I called S2 cause the conscious experience to occur. We need to reach the stage 3 understanding. The project or research on this is not finished and the work is being done by people like - Anil Seth, Michael Levin, Nick Lane, Manolis Kellis, Michael Graziano, and work of philosophers like Dan Dennett, Ned Block, Lisa Barrett. Therefore I stand by my call of rejecting the dogma of Hard problem of consciousness and adapt the Real problem of consciousness as Anil Seth calls it. It may also turn out that we may have to shift our perspective on consciousness, similar to what happened to ideas like Élan vital. We had to shift the perspective on what life is i.e. it is not some kind of life force.
@@aidanhall6679 Yes. One of the clues I pay attention to is this - we can be aware of our conscious experience only when our brain is working in normal state. Brain injury, drug effect or general anesthesia removes parts, or full state of consciousness. Heck, with drugs like DMT and Ayahuasca, one can get extremely different conscious experiences of splintered selves or no selves etc. which are physical substances that affect brains's electrochemistry. With phenomenon like Havana Syndrome it may not even have to be a physical substance that affects the brain directly, but could be microwave radiation etc. This tells me that the systems in the brain that detect, classify and register the conscious state have to be in a "normally" working state. In other words, taking an example of subsystems in the brain that process the visual signals (let us call this S1) and the part (let us call it subsystem S2) that detects the state of S1 and register it as an experience have to be working. There many brain related affects where it is clear that there is separation between these two. And the locus of what we call consciousness is going to be found in subsystems like S2. Of course this partly an extrapolation of what we know. Let me give an example: - In the past we use to think that infectious deceases were caused by curses and spell (stage 1) - Later, we understood with the advent of germ theory that such deceases care caused by microbes (bacteria and viruses (COVID 19)) This is the biological stage of understanding. (stage 2) - And in modern times we now understand how the mRNA protein spikes of COVID 19 virus actually work at the level of bio chemistry, which more or less precisely tells use what happens to the chemical processes inside the cells that cause the symptoms of the decease, and not only that we can thus come up with precise vaccines. I call this bio-chemistry or molecular biology or simply organic chemistry stage of understanding (stage 3) I think in terms of understanding of consciousness, we are at stage 2. We know for sure that subsystems like what I called S2 cause the conscious experience to occur. We need to reach the stage 3 understanding. The project or research on this is not finished and the work is being done by people like - Anil Seth, Michael Levin, Nick Lane, Manolis Kellis, Michael Graziano, and work of philosophers like Dan Dennett, Ned Block, Lisa Barrett. Therefore I stand by my call of rejecting the dogma of Hard problem of consciousness and adapt the Real problem of consciousness as Anil Seth calls it. It may also turn out that we may have to shift our perspective on consciousness, similar to what happened to ideas like Élan vital. We had to shift the perspective on what life is i.e. it is not some kind of life force
For a mathematician it's the correct definition, for a physicist it's not. This is no different from the case of dice. A physicist will notice that rolling dice imparts kinetic energy to them and that a dice roll isn't finished until all of that kinetic energy has been used up by the friction with the table. To a mathematician a dice role is a mechanism that selects an element from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. The exact same thing is true for quantum mechanics. A single measurement to a physicist is an irreversible energy transfer. The quantum of energy that deposits energy, momentum and angular momentum in the detector gives us the necessary indices into the states of the theory. To a mathematician the exact nature of that energy transfer is irrelevant. (S)He merely expects to be told which Eigenvalue/state was measured. That energy and momentum had to change from one system to another is irrelevant.
is it possible that this podcast will conclude before mentioning bohm? kind of stunned at the blind spots many scientists have. they moved straight into an idealist interpretation of this debate-“it’s all personality, who knows!” there was a lot at stake politically in the background here and there were major divisions between western and soviet scientists. they missed so much of the history.
ok, there it is. he’s not curious about how the world works, in his own words. therefore why bother taking a materialist approach to the structure of the debate over measurement. just handwave and call it personality. seems like he’s an idealist outside the domain of science.
🤯Funny that the host is the only one who prounounces the name SCHRÖDINGER correctly as shrodinGGer whereby G is hard as g in the word garden. ✅And then under the influence of the guests he goes to the wrong pronunciation‼️‼️
7:38 System, micro, macro, measurement, etc. are state references. The concept "measurement" does not represent THE outcome of one. 2+2=4 is a measurement outcome. Addition is not. That is a wave function without being able to determine its momentum nor particle. I think Bell was rather a puritan sifting words. Not about natural physics theory. Einsteins quote is great. Fully support that.
mathematically, the wavefunction is just a representation of a probability distribution with a lot of dependencies baked in, that conditions probabilities on histories of different parts of it. there is nothing about that, that could not reflect the properties of a normal physical theory with a lot of interaction based dependencies for the elements of reality, that could be summed over in and old way to give a distribution that reflects the exact probability map given by a wavefunction, nothing is really in conflict with the old physics, except that the character of the dependencies require a richer dynamics than people were willing or able to imagine.
the thing is, the boundary between collapsed system, and system with knowledge of outcomes is misleading. the way quantum mechanics works mean you can put this boundary anywhere. the crutial point i would like to make, is that the fact of the collapses being integral to quantum mechanics is reflected int he structure of the evolution itself, not in whether you have to account for collapses or not, without measuring anything you have no need for collapses, but you also have no use for the theory, because you dont have any findings. for example with wigners friend, you can draw the line in one place or another, and the point is that the schrødinger evolution you have both sides of a collapsed superposition evolving, and any dependence between them, so you have either two or more options for eigenstates evolving either independently or in a coupled way, depending on what kind of system you are discussing. so in effect that means the collapse does not matter for the statistical description in between looking at it, that means that with two independent options for states of the world evolved, when u look you find out that one side, weighted by half the probability is just wrong, and you continue with the rest, that is correct but not necessarily determined fully, and so on. so the collapse is just something empirical, but if you made it happen 15 times in the intermision for all superpositions involved you would get the same result. therefore it is only the collapses where there is a dependence where an option for an eigenvalue is not left unchanged by the collapse that matters for determining the physicallity of collapses. but the collapses being the right way to view observation, just reflects the dynamics all along, there is nothing special there, there might just have been one eigenvalue that belonged to the real state all along, that is not an issue that would give rise to a conflict with the born rule or the schrødinger evolution. therefore quantum mechanics can just be viewed as summing over possible states of the world that are individually deterministic, where any dependence is reflected either in the interactions present in all deterministic states summed over, or reflected in the choice of what deterministic states to sum over, that is how it is and has to be, and it is how normal old school statistical mechanics would work. that's just how she goes. therefore this issue of where the boundary is, is just an artificial problem, collapses could be going all litterally continously, or spaced out like in grw, that is why grw works okey, if you take the limit of infinite densities of collapse in grw, this is where you will end up, just summing over worlds that are individually deterministic and that as a group shared some causal relations that shapes the probability distribution along with the selection of possible worlds. it was just nonsense all along. we dont have to twist ourselves into pretzels to avoid saying that.
doesnt mean we know its right in any way, it just means we need to try to describe what exists clearly with reasons in theory for why structures are what they are, and so on, such that we have soemthing to test.
so what bohr said can be boiled down to, trust me bro, its over now. but thats like his opinion man, to go from a simple statement like his first statement mentioned by David, to the second, is just an assertion that hangs on very little expect something like "its too hard i cant imagine how to do it".
thank you, economy will rise by using jet plasma machine and compressed gas(Air) in isolated structure in water pool with more than 80 % efficiency, it has two vertical cylinders, in first level it transfers compressed gas(hot air) temperature from engine to sea water in pool for steam electric generator, steam combines with high cold Air pressure to produce pure water and electricity , New energy from sea will change world soon, there are other source of energy that with international cooperation in coastline we can reduce effect of global warming, sea is huge source of energy, further more we can prevent these phenomena like cyclone and flood and wildfire by using this hot seasonal atmospheric condition, recent years in summer, geothermal energy happens in surface of coastline, there are many countries in coastline with seasonal hot weather and water condition in comparison with middle Ocean, its more than 12 degrees , in sum-up, by using this energy not only is economical but also reduce global warming in countries like Japan, China, India, Mediterranean countries, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Us, Canada, (Africa and Arabian countries....) . I invented new method base on air pressure rules and quantum physics ionization sea water minerals in strong dynamic permanent magnet(SMCO) with special frequency(1500or 3000)/minute bases on paramagnetic and diamagnetic particles and electrical microwave wave field and electric chemical reactions and photon wave from semiconductors Cations like(K+, Mg++, Na+, H+, H++, li+, H2, ...) are transferred to in the second level into up level by vacuum pump from storage into combustion chambers and they combine with O2 and N2 ,... as major part of fuel (more than 50%) for producing electricity and fresh water and fertilizer. this machine produces 150Megwatt-hour/hour and 20000M3/DAY fresh water and fertilizer. 7 methods zero pollution for reducing global warming I mentioned in my profile. (G20 countries can solve these phenomena).
With all due respect, Albert sounds like beating around the bush all the time and I try to endure his talk only to know what Maudlin responds to with outstanding clarity.
Funny, for me it is the other way around. David comes across more precise to me as well as more cautious, while Tim is sometimes carried away by his strong opinions and desire to polemicize against Bohr…well to be honest both are a pleasure to listen to, but I prefer David’s style of developing thoughts.
@@CalendulaFYou are right. Maudlin’s opinions can often be rigid but as long as we know that they are opinions, no harm done. And his opinion happen to make sense to me, so I may be biased :)
in the case of the cat, the cat, the phial of poison and the measurment of the decay is analogous to a photomultiplier, a circuit and a computer that records the result, in the cat experiment, the cat is like the computer in some lab, the experiment is not whether the cat is alive or dead, it is whether the result is a world where the cat is dead or alive, in the same way whethe rthe results in cern has a bump or not in the data on the computer, in the larger macroscopic system. the question i think is right, i think there is a reality problem at all scales here, where the essential difficulty is simply that the macroscopic system of correlated with the outcomes of a single particle doing this or that. the problem is in any case a problem of total outcomes, without any notion of separation of the single particle system and the macroscopic system, the question is whether there was a physical fact about the decay all along, in any case the correlation is such that that question is also tied tot he question of the cat, and so there really is no way to separate them, it is a question of whether stuff exists in a concrete state that evolves or some imagined superposition that has no meaning beyond a formal mathematical statement about probabilities.
I responded nicely and respectfully, and u sir tim u just keep on yelling at me and I don’t know what to say, what to react, if u don’t like me , ok I don’t like you too .
I get where Maudlin (and Bell) are coming from, but all true statements about reality will always be measurements, broadly speaking. Good science comes from true measurements and the statements themselves ARE still measurements, even if they are as simple is “This is x, rather than y.” They are responses to an observed reality that are quantifiable. The same limitation applies to philosophy of science. Any explanation of what is the nature of physics can only be a measurement. “What is the thing, as it is observed by me, to be?” Many science problems look like measurement problems, until a theory is stated that explains the measurement, or a measurement is made that suggests a theory. That doesn’t mean the notion of measurement has gone away, it’s just not a “problem” anymore.
it just boils down to the issue that the only verifyable parts of a theory is its observables. and bohr is both right about that, and confused about that, there is always a straight forward way to think about a resultant probabillity map in classical terms, with respect to the observables, that is just a straight forward fact about what any probability map looks like compared to outcomes measured. but he was completely wrong that trying to describe what is not ending up as observables in one theory, for example what is existing during the time between a decay and a particle showing up on a screen, cannot be described in a normal old school classical way, it can infact be described in any and all ways that leads to the same observables, ai the same probability map, or a better one, and from the details of such a theory, extensions can be introduced, that might in principle extend also the set of observables, and in principle, this can go on forever until any destinction in beables can be explicitly reflected in observables as well, as i said in principle, and so even though the process can never have full closure to it, one can always hope to make progress that can be explored explicitly in experiments, through new measurable destinctions of outcomes. therefore, to stop at some point and to say, well now we have to stop, is just crazy talk, no matter how right a person is that the unobservable parts of a theory cannot be tested empirically, because that just means that to test those things, one needs a richer theory, that can give rise to further observables by which we could tests such destinctions. it might be a lot harder to test whether photons are really little balls that move in magical ways, or some sort of distributed field phenomena that still results in discreet chunks showing up at detectors, and being emitted in chunks by atoms, than it is to just show that they are always detected in chunks for example, but thats just how it is, going deeper into the details of nature is always going to involve some difficult bit of understanding something new, that is not surprising at all.
Albert and Tim are in complete sync on measurement but their exchanges doesn't sound so. The damn Cat remains alive or dead, with no superposition. These discussions are meaningless and futile and Einstein was right when he waited for a new formulation of QM.
@@sonarbangla8711 Yes, Einstein didn't understand QM. It is complete. There is simply nothing else there, there. That is caused by relativity and Einstein of all people should have seen that.
just try to run that logic assuming you are just summing over possible worlds, it works out fine, there is no sensible way to create something in which it doesn't work like that.
WOW! We are spoiled to have this access. Thank you Robinson, Albert, and Maudlin
Tim Maudlin, very much appreciated.
Thank you, Robinson! I was just about to rewatch some of the old episodes to get my much-needed Tim Maudlin fix. David is a very welcome bonus.
glad to see the best in the game back at it!
Albert's explanation of the difference between von Neumann and Bohr (as to realism) at around 50:00 is especially helpful
The first discussion between these two is one of my favourites, cool to see more disagreement/debate in this one off the bat
Please bring Barry Loewer back for a one-on-one discussion. You 2 have great chemistry and synchronicity. I was a little worried about Barry on his last appearance. He seemed less than 100% physically although mentally he was 200% and sharp as a whip! Could have been a bad day. We've sadly lost David Dennett which is a tragic loss. Barry is going strong, so this is not a forecast of any kind. I simply think we need more Barry on RUclips and he just lights up when you are moderating the talks.
Listening to this video was a great way to start my Sunday. Thanks Robinson!
Gonna have to watch this episode three times over. Both Mr. Maudlin & Mr. Albert make valid points, having learned a great degree from both.
maudlin always has the most sober takes. such a treat to listen to
He's blind in terms of many things. I read his "Nonlocality", he doesn't understand not only the problem of consciousness but the internal logic of both GR and QM.
@@syzygyman7367 Wait, he argues consciousness will likely never be "solved". His typical example is that we have made zero progress on why a toothache feels as it does. The criticism against that position would require you showing why the hard problem of consciousness isn't hard, which I'd love to see why you think that.
@@Mesohornet11 I don't know why people differ in that, seeing or not seeing it. It's like animals being able or not to grasp that the reflection in the mirror are themselves. It doesn't correlate with IQ. Ben Shapiro sees it, Bret Weinstein doesn't. Elon Musk and Roger Penrose see that, Sapolsky and Dawkins don't. I don't know if you can, but just read what you wrote - "feels like it does". Feels by what, by whom? What is that entity that has the feeling? The problem of consciousness is not in what it perceives, but in the fact that it has the first person experience. It's the "will", not "free" in the free will question. Do you see, realize that current science and math, logic and coding simply have nothing that can have passive experience of looking at something?
@@Mesohornet11 I don't know why people differ in that, seeing or not seeing it. It's like animals being able or not to grasp that the reflection in the mirror are themselves. It doesn't correlate with IQ. Ben Shapiro sees it, Bret Weinstein doesn't. Elon Musk and Roger Penrose see that, Sapolsky and Dawkins don't. I don't know if you can, but just read what you wrote - "feels like it does". Feels by what, by whom? What is that entity that has the feeling? The problem of consciousness is not in what it perceives, but in the fact that it has the first person experience. It's the "will", not "free" in the free will question. Do you see, realize that current science and math, logic and coding simply have nothing that can have passive experience of looking at something?
@@Mesohornet11 Damn. Long replies disappear.
The two best guests....should be on once a month....
Another banger of the ages ProfTimMaud and ProfDaveAlb , talking about quantum mechanics.
this is such a good episode and the discussion is a listener’s delight. top shelf stuff
Best interview ever.
"The call is coming from inside the house." Love it.
Very enjoyable exchange. Thank you!
Imma drink a shot every time David says "OK" and I have no fucking clue what he just said.
Wow, david and tim
Thank you very much, Robinson! This show as always was very very nice.
I like to hear Tim Maudlin discussing scientific realism with Bas Van Fraassen. Do you think something like that is feasible? Wouldn't it be nice?
A Science Beggar.
Just what the world needs.
26:20 - 5-minute summary of quantum mechanics
"Shut up and theorize?"
¿Shut up and be open minded?
I find it amazing that we still reference Heisenberg, Dirac and Schrödinger when these issues are discussed, there seems to have been no real progress in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics for a hundred years.
True. But it’s the same with General Relativity :)
I got the opposite impression. They mentioned the history (and Bell, who came much later), but they also said we've moved past those things and now have various fruitful avenues for the question of foundations.
@@Mentat1231 there is no real progression on the fact that it could be an number of interpretations.
Great content as usual
Your mustache is what's holding back your star ratings
Particles in the mornin'
Particles in the evenin'
Particles at SUPPER-TIME
Wonderful. Thankyou
Whenever we measure anything in everyday life the measurement has an implied starting point or boundry for the dimensions. What exactly are the boundaries for quantum measurement?
Oh man, I have a long flight tonight, just in time! Thanks!! :)
1:40:05 Apparently the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation was invented by a Wikipeda user.
I can certainly not find much in von Neumann's book that would support the idea that he didn't understand quantum mechanics. I used to think that it was the formal character of his writing that caused a lot of the confusion and the "shut up and calculate" attitude, but then I read chapter 6 and he has some really healthy intuition in there. Wigner, however, seems to have been as confused as Schroedinger about the fundamentals. I would have to check his science writing, though, to see if the hearsay about him is correct. That Schroedinger was confused is fairly obvious from his own publications.
Pops just having sincere conversations! Yes, can make sincere conversations without a noise!
1:26:22
Given the thrice-inverted paradigm, one ends up with the Woo of the observer.
Matter, not the wave-function, collapses between the low pressure Moments in the One Substance, and evolves fluidically as per wave-function.
It reappears when the toriodal forces in the One Substance cavitate the strings/particles (pure void/vacuum) in the next low pressure moment.
… but until the paradigmatic errors are corrected, the wignerian and von neumanian "observer" woo variations will be thought believable 😂
a comment got lost, but anyway, yeah, the problem boils down to just what the heck exists and evolves. the confusion is due to measurment beign a destinguished kind of physical process, but in truth a measurment is just and simply a process in which at the end we gain some insight into what happend, whether it is smelling rotten eggs and finding a gas leak, or analysing the data from photomultipliers, there processes as bell said in the quote, are essentially the same as those that happen everywhere all the time, except nobody gets a sheet of paper with results on it for the light that hits your wall. measurment is just a physical fact about a certain kind of process, and the way we use it it usually refers to the processes that work like our apparatuses where we print out whatever result was recorded, so it is a special kind of process, just because of the recording, not because of some fundamental difference at all, bell was spot on with that.
For the clearest description of the measurement problem on the internet, click here 53:13
That's bullshit, then, because there is no such thing as a measurement problem. There are only people who don't understand physics. :-)
31:30
Nice summary of the assumptions and logical inconsistencies physicsts are schooled in.
No wonder that it was the physicsts who's reading lists extended Eastward who made the most successful models.
no matter how rube goldberg you go with your quantum process, you can always draw the line between measurement and measured anywhere.
Robinson doesn't react to the comments anymore. Did they break him? 😢
exactly right mr einstein, the observables are only the parts of a theory that can be verified, but the ontology or the structure of the theory might shine light on extensions that relate to different observables than another theory with the same observables as the original. the observables proper place is not as ontology, the ultimate ontology is unknown, it is as points of reference for mapping a theory onto the world, and contrasting it with different theories, if you only talk about observables, then you dont get to see the different kinds fo structures that might produce such observables, it just becomes a circular thing that is never predictive of new effects at all, or extensions either.
if you think about this problem, with this kind of destinction about physical processes we call measurments, or "processes that result on observables" or something like that, from the perspective of ccompletely general dynamical theory, what u get is that following this kind of pure logical empricism, is possible accountancy of observables ofc, just processes that end up printing out some paper that we could imagine reading, thats all, a better way to think is the way einstein suggested, taking first the treatment of all physical processes, and from that deriving the observables that are in principle possible, and from there trying to figure out what is practically possible, that is how physics has always been done, even when it comes to quantum mechancis, although with quantum mechanics, people have sometimes contradicted what they were doing by saying a bunch of nonsense about only being concerned with what is observable, but this would only really apply to theories that are spreadsheets of outcomes, with no mahinery being taken seriously at all as ontological, if one truely believed that, one would never talk about an electron as something real, or even atoms, or even chairs, you would discuss them as data you collect and record as forms appearing to you as you go along or soemthing like that, which is silly, nobody does that, it is just a description of what happens to turn up in front of your nose, but physical theories have always been, even quantum mechanics, some principles, shaped into mathematical formalism, that predict things, and that lend some picture to the people trying to understand it. and people are pretty liberal about thinking it is real in some sense that is deeper than just empirically experienced, its just a mess of contradictions in method and attitude in my opinion. might as well just do what einstein suggested, and think of the various theoretical constructs as proposed ontologies, and possible worlds, logically, following the kind of way for example sol kripke talks about possible worlds. and from there find observables, it makes no difference in the end, we have no claim to knowing the ultimate ontology based of some relatively young maths and wild interpeting, what we really care about is having clear theories, such that we can discover in what spesific way they fail, or what further structure they imply or suggest. without that aspiration, it is just useless to try to make progress.
How can a theory count as a "clear theory" if there's no agreement on the basic postulates? Without a claim about _what exists_ and _how those things behave,_ we do not have a "possible world" or a "clear theory" or anything of the sort. We have nothing.
Insightful podcast - and speaking of new philosophical and measurement paradigms, how about I present our i-TOE’s granular measurement approach measuring phases between up and down states of particles using the coordinates of the Riemann sphere?
That said, how about I present an overview of our theory as well so that you can understand what I mean? Simply Put --
Our i-TOE is an integrated TOE, that has been developed by framing fine structure constant(FSC-α) as the Hidden variable/Maxwell daemon/AoC of Banach-Tarski & Russell's paradox, in such away, that our “Ads/CFT/holographic principle complaint” Hodge lattice loop/gauge quantum gravity naturally can emerge from it with a discrete set of causal latticed Dirac spinor events, using our FSC’s 2/3:1/3 rule based computational/conscious CPTiad - all by leveraging our reality generating/regulating series function called CPT(α,Φ) function (developed using our meta proof of RH solving all $5MM+ CI problems) and by resolving the #1 relationship problem between the perturbation series of QED and non perturbation lattice formulation of QCD (as the coupling constant is sent to zero), by modeling the quantum spectrum of our Universe as the Riemann sphere. This Riemann sphere then gets renormalized with the value of α (n-> α or 137), in such a way that the zeros of zeta function(including their moments) end up following the eigenvalue statistical gaps of gaussian/hermitian random matrices before branching into two independent Brownian motion paths with an exponential Gaussian distribution of FHK Conjecture and our FSC-Maxwells daemon logic (by converging with an universality/gaussian decay), before branching again like the Ramanujan graphs with knots of algebraic L-functions with hermitian distribution whose coefficients & roots, reflecting the periodicity of the GR-Eigen-valued actions of our TOE, using 10+ meta dualities (with E8 and Lie group geometrical unity) as explained below
Turns out, our theory also happens to get realized using the very same CPT(α,Φ) function driven 5 step scaling/gauging steps using the following 5 scaling steps - which we call as 5 Shakespearean play-scaling steps”. Interestingly enough, these 5 steps, happen to align perfectly with 5 such scaling high-bars set by the experts of Institute of Advanced Study (IAS) as well(lnkd.in/geGA3gbq) - and so, how about I present them for your perusal to see if it will exceed your expectations as well -- and open some collaboration possibilities for us to team up in this integrated TOE/SOE/ESG program(lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf)
+++++ Our i-TOE's 5 such Shakespearean play-scaling steps vis-a-vis 5 scaling steps of IAS
IAS High-bar 1:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have an observation or nature based scale-correlation function, capable of both generating and measuring observables with a certain precision, by resolving the so-called measurement/scaling problem of both periodic fluctuations & early inflations, by re-scaling it automatically.
Our Shakespearean play-scaling Exposition 1:
The wave function (aka Hartle-Hawking wave function in steroids) of our i-TOE has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used nature's one such inbuilt “symmetry generating scaling function called CPT(α,Φ) function" to model both fluctuations & inflations. More specifically, it has been developed by leveraging our UNIVERSALITY META-SCALING-PROOF of Riemann Hypothesis(including all $5MM+ unsolved problems of Clay Institute), in such a way to scale/rescale the periodicity of both fluctuations and inflations(aka fluctuations in steroids) by expositioning/birthing their equivalent symmetrical dipoles(manifesting as Higgs + 68 particle+ 68 anti-particle symmetrical particle pairs, as modeled further by 2 spinors of Dirac eqn). For example, this idea of modeling these symmetries using 2 spinors in the complex plane is what gives rise to symplectic hodge geometry lattices in 3 and 4 dimensional classical hyperbolic cylinders of the projected plane.
IAS High-bar 2:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must be able to discretize spacetime by renormalizing the RG flow with an action formula for all particles (especially asymmetrical/anti commuting fermions) with a time-like holographic interpretation.
Our Shakespearean play-scaling Rising Action 2.
Again, our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same CPT(α,Φ) function as the “symmetry breaking CPT(α,Φ) function scaler”, by limiting the ∞-raised pole of Riemann sphere to a compact P-region, while simultaneously renormalizing the ∞ values of e with α, so that its position can be rotated as e^i137nπ Spin-Frequency (S-F) matched cycles unitarily. In other words, this S-F matching phenomena is what breaks the symmetry by shifting the center of mass of each particle by their respective “radius scaled α” so that their symmetry can be broken to create both classical mass and motion for every 1 out of 137(n) cycles in time dimension (and yet by preserving the conservation of CPT theorem).
IAS High-bar 3:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have a scaling/rescaling/limiting parameter for periodic action for lattice geometry, using a Fourier transformed action for both dS and AdS spaces with the opposite signs [I-ds(g) = - I-Ads(g)].
Our Shakespearean play-scaling Climax 3.
Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high- bar as well, as we've used the very same Fourier transformed CPT(α,Φ) function scaler, to sustain the action with an “α fine-tuned e and π driven action”(thanks to our additional framing of α as HV/Maxwell daemon/AoC), so that the coefficients & roots of their equivalent algebraic modular forming L-functions can model the periodicity of their GR-Eigen-valued actions via 10+ meta dualities.
(Note : If I may highlight a parallel, your theory’s E(5,13) walker function, in a way is equivalent to our GR-Eigen-valued fibinocci function F(5,13) wherein, the walker is deemed to be at 5, when the13th event indexed by the corresponding Eigen value index of the elliptic (including 10+ dualities of projected plane)
IAS High-bar 4:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have measurement algorithms by modeling the curvature of spacetime in proportion to both fluctuations & inflations i.e. ψ ~ e^- δN with an exponent of 10^120 or 10^10) in such a way that gravity can emerge from it
Our Shakespearean play-scaling Falling Action 4.
Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high-bar using its “Dice-rolling CPT(α,Φ) function scaler”, by slicing/squeezing the infinite slices (ψ ~ e^- δN) of quantum sphere in the form of one or four ellipsoid slices (as per the Descartes kissing circle geometry and α=r/R logic) into an exact radiused symplectic/asymmetric taurusized hodge geometry lattices of classical hyperbolic cylinder of the projected plane(aka Hilbert’s countable infinity hotel as per Banach-Tarski & Russell's paradox) so that they can orbit smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion with a curvature proportional to both fluctuations & inflations. This is where we have also additionally hypothesized/predicted that this gravitational motion can be modeled both by semi classical Einstein field equations and/or by our Hodge conjecture meta proof logic.
(Note : For example, a pragmatic implication of our Riemann hypothesis universality meta proof of Hodge conjecture is that the 3+ spherical body problem can be solved as 1 equiv. spherical body as follows : Inertia of r= αR gaped eccentric foci Riemann-Poincare Sphere(s=1) = Σ inertia of Riemann zeroed hodge algebraic cycles (S=1/2+ti).
IAS High-bar 5:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have an inbuilt statistical QM measurement system (for various scales) whose Hilbert space dimension must be able to model geometric dualities as per the static patch holographic principle, so that we can extrapolate/interpolate/interpret the measures accordingly.
Our Shakespearean play-scaling Resolution 5 :
Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE again has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same “classical reality generating CPT(α,Φ) function scaler”, to resolve the dualities of the static patch holographic principle by projecting the Riemannian sphere as a Lie-grouped classical sphere with 10+ meta dualities as visually depicted in the attached exhibit.
+++++
That said, this precisely is why, we have also scaled 5 AITGE origins of our TOE (i.e. RH sourced the Action generator of the Lie group as Action, Inertia, Time. Gravity and Entropy) with these 5 ingredients of CPT(α,Φ) function scaler in such a way to answer the top 3 paradigm shifting questions you had alluded (plus few more as well)
That said, let us start with these 3 questions with a hope they will also answer all the other paradigm shifting unsolved problems like the Riemann hypothesis (including 5+ Clay institute problems), as our TOE’s new paradigm is anchored on our CPT meta proof of Riemann hypothesis including $5+MM CI problems) only!
1. How does classical reality emerge from quantum reality?
First, under our TOE’s paradigm , the whole classical universe is its own observer, where all galaxies collapse gravitationally moment by moment at a particle level using our CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism of our TOE
In other words, our CPT(α,Φ) function of TOE collapses it by auto-collapsing/landing/toggling each particle from CFT into the next lattice of dS space. This simultaneous toggle/shift is what gives us the feeling to human observers that these CFT/dS dualities are orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion.
More specifically, under our theory - the quantum spectrum of our Universe (modeled by Riemann zeta function by imagining it as the Riemann sphere) gets renormalized with the value of α (n-> α or 137), in such a way that the zeros of zeta function(including their moments) end up following the eigenvalue statistical gaps of gaussian/hermitian random matrices. This eigen-valued gaussian path is what ends up branching into two independent Brownian motion paths with an exponential Gaussian distribution of FHK Conjecture (by converging with an universality/gaussian decay), before branching again like the Ramanujan graphs with knots of algebraic L-functions whose coefficients & roots, reflecting the periodicity of the GR-Eigen-valued actions of our TOE, using 10+ meta dualities as explained below
And one of the best ways to understand this insight is by understanding our UNIVERSALITY META-PROOF strategy of Riemann Hypothesis - which brings us to our firm’s “Gödel completed constructive meta-proof strategy of Riemann hypothesis (in pre print) that not only solves Riemann hypothesis but also all $5MM+ Clay institute unsolved problems, including our TOE.
Simply put -
Our UNIVERSALITY META-PROOF strategy has been developed by “ Gödel completing” Sir Michael Atiyah Riemann hypothesis proof with a new physical insight driven CPT(α,Φ) function proof, by additionally framing FSC(α) as an Omniscient AoC chooser of Banach-Tarski and Russell paradox/Hidden Variable/Maxwell daemon of our TOE, with a symbiotic symmetrical fractal causality to 10+C-old unsolved problems of TOE including Clay Institute problems as explained in this post f(lnkd.in/drGQ44Mt) and (lnkd.in/geUGrFuB).
(Note : While Poincaré conjecture is already solved using Ricci flow approach, our meta proof also solves it in a complementary way using our Maxwell daemon logic, as explained below)
What do I mean by that?
Let us start from our Riemann hypothesis proof as it is one of the foundations not only to answer this question but also for our TOE as well
For example
We imagine our Universe as the Riemann Zeta function governed LMFDB universe (that is a motivic/metamorphic/Galois representation based SU 2/SU3/SU4 symmetrical engine.
In other words, Z(1) is the fundamental frequency of this Universe’s TOE engine that is QVF/ZPE sourced, FSC(α)-Einstein-Bohr-HV-Maxwell Daemon governed frequency of Riemann's zeta function Ζ(S) with a singularity of S=1+0i, that is made up of his harmonic oscillating zeros(S=1/2+it stacked on his 1/2 critical line, before being transformed as a 137 frequency-spin momentum matched dipole, using our FSC(α)-GR-PLA+5 AITGE origin formulas(see exhibit)
In other words, our TOE/SOE engine is the one that is transforming the Riemann's zeros into an artistic unit charge SU2 dipole(see visual), by contracting/expanding its electric flux as the center of mass (as r = αR), before rotating its magnetic flux by 90 in such a way that it can be extended into the left plane as a paired unit charge, using the "only possible analytical continuation of Zeta".
Sure enough, this engine function is nothing but universe's wave function only, transforming itself from position/time space into frequency/momentum space, using the Fourier transform operator ( kind of equivalent to Feynman’s path integral with propagator )
ψ(k) = ∫ ψ(t) e^-iwt dt -
This brings us to our next point about CPT function
This "one & only allowed analytically continued/functional equation allowed symmetrical dipole" is what limits/constrains the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to a value of 137 cycles( per Laurent/Cauchy residue including the α=r/R,=fe/fp=we/wp logic of our CP function as explained in my post and attached one page exhibit for details
lim t→ ∞ CPT(1/2 + ti) = 1/α cycles of dipole
In other words, this CPT function proof(lnkd.in/drGQ44Mt) for Riemann hypothesis is a polynomial in the convex region of the Riemann Sphere only (thanks to the "one and only allowed analytical continuation logic of dipole & its 137 cycle ratio logic"), limiting/constraining the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to the convex region, as explained in this article(www.linkedin.com/pulse/summary-our-firms-10yrs-toe-work-wa-request-world-form-prabakar-k25sc/?trackingId=3oeFnfoaRT61kGCCQ7VNNQ%3D%3D)
In other words, our TOE is a CPT(α,Φ) function operated cosmic dance, where α ends up splitting the frequencies of QVF as 137 dipoles ( aka elementary particles including electrons quarks etc) using Riemann Zeta function(including its corresponding Fourier/Mobius transformations), in such a way that the electric field of each dipole gets rotated as nπ cycles (using Euler’s identity eiπ ) before getting rotated by their magnetic field (by 90 degrees) so that their combined least action (A) can be twisted to flow along the eigen-valued nodes of Ramanujan graph, using the 2/3:1/3 rule of α (ratioed by its flip sided golden ratio Φ)!
Stated otherwise, this idea of embedding CPT function within our TOE with 10+ META DUALITIES of the Langsland/Banach-Tarski/Russell paradox of our SOE/TOE engine is what differentiates our approach with this new paradigm!
2. How do we solve the so-called measurement problem of QM?
As alluded earlier, our TOE measures/predicts Quantum continuum steps using the coordinates of Riemann sphere and Classical lattice steps(including outcomes) using both Hodge conjecture(which is unique to ours) and semi classical Einstein field equations
Similarly, when it comes to both radius and mass of elementary particles (electron, muon Tau, quarks including proton)
- We have predicted that there are maximum of 137 distinct particles( 68 particles + 68 anti particles + Higgs) as represented by 137 Riemann zeroed dipoles (1/2+it) - and they come in as both quadruples and octuples forms following the Descartes kissing circle geometry.
For example, when we carefully study the Descartes quadruples, there exist a smaller circle whose radius is minuscule
This is where, we have also predicted (pending additional research) that we might also be able to discover a fourth generation lepton particle in alignment with our quadruple model, which not only can explain this electron/muon ratio with certainty but also the mismatch of muon mass value between Dirac equation and its observation!
Likewise, our theory also explains the origin of election/muon ratio including the “mass gaps” existing in the Yang-Mills equations - all using our "r=αR dipole logic guided 2/3:1/3 rule driven CP-Yang-Mills-Koide-Descartes-Kocik formulas" of n+2 spherical dipoles in 'n' dim-spaces (lnkd.in/dxnNs_Xf).
For example, the radii & mass formula for 3 lepton dipoles of quadrupole equals k=2/3, when p=2
1. Radii configuration
b1^2 + b2^2 + b3^2 + b(n+2)^2 = p/(n+1)p-1 (b1+ b2 + bn+2)^2, where bn=1/rn, p=1/(n+1) -(1/k), k=2/3, p=2/2n-1
2. Mass configuration
m1+ m2+m3 + ….mn = k (m1+ m2+m3 + ….mn)^2
For example, now that the Koide formula has been proven to be true for many permutations and combinations of masses, we feel very confident about our theory legitimizing every one of those permutations and combinations as well.
For example, the mere fact of “dividing the sum of any 3 or 4 masses by the square of the sum of each of their square roots, resulting in a number between 1/3 and 1 is yet another validation of our 5 AITGE origin least action formula logic (2/3 KE - 1/3PE = 1/3A)
Similarly we have hypothesized a 4 quark model for proton using our quadruple model driven CP-Yang-Mills-Koide-Descartes-Kocik formulas".
The implication is there might be an undiscovered fourth quark in the current 3 quark proton neutron model (pending additional research).
Similarly, we have extended this idea with a new measurement approach with implications to quantum computing as well!
For example, we foresee a possibility of measuring multiple phase states using one electron wave function itself
In other words, we can go granular in between spin-up or spin-down values by navigating the coordinates of the complex plane. Stated otherwise, theoretically we can go up to 10 or even 100 states (aka 2 to the power 10 or 100 possibilities). We are currently in the process of testing if experimentally - and so, I welcome suggestions as well
3. How do we solve 3+ body problem of GR using a new field centric theory including a few more unanswered questions including hidden variable/maxwells daemon related questions?
To answer this question, first we may need to understand our META PROOF strategy to solve all Clay Institute problems (especially hodge conjecture) . For example, the first pragmatic implication of our hodge conjecture is that the 3+ spherical body problem can be solved as 1 equiv. spherical body as follows
Inertia of r= αR gaped eccentric foci Riemann-Poincare Sphere(s=1) = Σ inertia of Riemann zeroed hodge algebraic cycles (S=1/2+ti).
Similarly see below the summary of other proofs
1. BSD Conjecture
Acid Test : Can the rank of an elliptic cube proved to be finite & rational?
Summary Proof : Yes, our generalized-RH CPT(α,Φ) function proof (w/its analytic cont. & functional eq logic) limits the rank of an elliptic curve to be finite & rational, in such a way that the coefficient of "Euler products of modulo of each prime" (indexed by each point) is an Eigen valued multiple of GR Φ)! In other words, this Eigenvalue logic of CPT function is what limits the rank of an elliptic curve to be finite & rational,
2. Hodge conjecture
Acid Test : Can complex mathematical models/shapes be built from simpler ones, like how legos are built?
Summary Proof: Yes, our CPT function proves that every differential form on a Riemannian manifold (S=1) is the sum of dipole harmonic geometrical forms (S=1/2+ti) both as exact/co-exact forms.A pragmatic implication here is that the 3+ spherical body problem can be solved as 1 equiv. spherical body: Inertia of r= αR gaped eccentric foci Riemann-Poincare Sphere(s=1) = Σ inertia of Riemann zeroed hodge algebraic cycles (S=1/2+ti).
3. Navier-Stokes eqn.
Acid Test: Per Tao, have you discovered a new globally controlled nature's coercive/critical variable/method that can explain the fluid smoothness of this eqn?
Summary Proof : Yes, we have discovered one such 2/3:1/3 rule based FSC variable incl. a QVF fluid sourced info-medium of Maxwell daemon engine (e.g. "Stoddart-Leigh's light sourced mech-interlocked rotaxane ring-lnkd.in/g6re2Nx6), very similar to Tao's engine(without our FSC part)!
4. Yang-Mills mass gap
Acid Test: Can you "explain/legitimize/Gödel complete" the “mass gap” existing in the Yang-Mills equations?
Summary Proof : Yes, our "r=αR dipole logic guided 2/3:1/3 rule driven CP-Yang-Mills-Koide-Descartes-Kocik formulas" of n+2 spherical dipoles in 'n' dim-spaces can do so(lnkd.in/dxnNs_Xf).
5. P vs NP
Acid Test : When Riemann Hypothesis proof is a Polynomial, can it simultaneously also become a proof for P=NP?
Summary Proof : Yes, our CPT function proof for Riemann hypothesis is one such polynomial in the convex region of the Riemann Sphere only (thanks to the "one and only allowed analytical continuation logic of dipole & its 137 cycle ratio logic"), limiting/constraining the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to the convex region(per Laurent/Cauchy residue incl. α=r/R,=fe/fp=we/wp logic) -- which brings us to our TOE below
Turns out, this is what also makes our TOE as the best candidate (compared to all other TOEs), as we visibly see the signatures of FSC and golden ratio throughout nature (link)
Simply put -
Ours is the only TOE that is anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism!
In other words, for any TOE path to become a final TOE, it must be anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism end to end (in one form or the other)!
Similarly, how about I expand its scope to the productivity challenge in the business dimension that has been developed by the very same TOE principles(& synthesized as 1 sentence below and in exhibit)
-- Every Maslow’s holacracial(1) economic need is a direct/indirect manifestation of QE caused Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model problem(2) only -- that is solved using the Principle of least action & its new insight(3) driven Fine-structure-constant(FSC) caused Attention factor (4) driven FSC/GT/Nash Equilibrium(5) based reality accurate S-economics model(6) caused Friedman’s Attention-Pluck(7) -- that is followed by an Solow’s TFP-expansion( 8 ), before it being executed by “sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion(9)” motto, driven Next-Gen capitalism called Sovereign/Conscious Sustainalism(10). as explainer in this summary (www.linkedin.com/pulse/summary-our-firms-10yrs-toe-work-wa-request-world-form-prabakar-k25sc/?trackingId=3oeFnfoaRT61kGCCQ7VNNQ%3D%3D)
Similarly, I had that poetized these steps using Keats' Endymion genre in 5 parts((titled, "A thing of alphic (α) beauty is a joy forever", below & exhibit),
1. The Genesis
A thing of alphic (α) beauty is a joy forever!
Its loveliness increases; it will never,
Pass into nothingness; but still will fluctuate
As a quantum quiet for us, and will simul-caste
Fully ready to be birthed as a formless void
By hovering over its harmless poid
Filled with e-fields, sliced as 137 dipoles of zeta
Right angled with m-fields, rotated as e^inπ cycles of quanta
Outputted as least action, fluxed as eigen-valued-golden ratioed(ϕ) Ramajujan graphical dualities of geo-mata
All by the "let there be light" operator of CPT(α,ϕ)-TOE-mata
2. The Blueprint
Therefore, on every morrow, we wreathe,
A flowery zeta being bloomed again and again
Despite its wavered collapse, we breathe,
All wavery humans, being born again & again
Of all the unhealthy and o'er-darkened ways
With noble natures of the glorious gain
Birthed from our search: yes, in spite of all bays
Zeta’s beauty cleansing away the pave
With His Spirit of cosmic costume
hovering over the panoramic plume.
3. The Roadmap
As CPT(α,ϕ) starts rolling its (Solomonic) dices
Humans old and young, following their aces
Like the lilies of the valleys,
Lock-stepped with their Saronic roses
That for themselves overtly unaware
'Gainst their deprived realities ; their mid forest fires,
And such too is their (quantum) entangled depravities
The nature’s design for the mortally deprived,
Ten such (depraved) dualities that we have heard or read:
And yet an endless fountain of gracious gravity awaits to save
Pouring unto us from His mountainous wave!
4. The Solution
Nor do we could gaze His Grace
As there existed a chasm to cleave
Like the veil of the holy of holies
Where the logos resided as glory of glories
Chasing us till we become His own
Unto His souls, as His own crown
Heralding us from the wilderness:
With a helmet of salvation, simul-ed with justus
Thro' a greenery path, that we can chisel
Easily onward, through its thorns and thistles
5 The Great Commission with three missions
Therefore, w'ill proclaim it all as Endymion's 3 great commissioning factors of activity
First, save people’s depravity with productivity
By alpha-fying Solow's TFP as an attention TFP
Resulting in with a quantum leap of productivity;
Second, save planet’s depravity with sustainability
By kingdomizing next-gen capitalism as a purpose scored-ism
Resulting in with a quantum accuracy of sustainability;
Third, reform both people and planet with an integrated reformationism
By alpha-fying Luther's one such Simul Justus Realism
Resulting in with a TOE-tinged golden next-Genism
In closing, I welcome constructive feedback/advice (including a potential collaboration possibility), similar to how we collaborated with Prof Clay Christensen of Harvard and NT Wright of Oxford (lnkd.in/gRakUNVg).
Maybe it's better to call it QM "theories" instead of "Interpretations" as every such "theory" provides their own ontology or epistemology. But with the same end results of course.
Maudlin should just admit he's a dualist. You cannot hold the position "the mind-body problem is insoluble" and not be a dualist, as that's like the definition of dualism. I've seen him in various lectures repeatedly argue that there is a fundamental insoluble disconnect between mind and body, yet he shies away from the term "dualism" despite arguing the literal position of dualism repeatedly.
that is kind of my point here :P, both attitudes are right, observables are the only thing we can really measure to be in agreement with whateever theory we come up with, but the details of any theory that is not in the form of an observable, can be made to become an observable, or to depend on new observables in a way that differentiates realistic theories, such that one can make progress. there is no way to be a true instrumentalist with no aspiration of inventing theories of what is going on so to speak, without already have a list of all possible theories and associated observables to check of on by doing experiements, both projects go hand in hand, instrumentalism is just about checking whether a theory and its observables match with nature, independently of the other details of representation, but those other details of representation are never on equal footing when varied when extending to a larger set of observables to consider experimentally or theoretically as having observable consequences. that is why some version of a realist aspiration is important even to an instrumentalist. you have to be in some sense and instrumentalist about all theories, never just one theory, for the concept to work at all you see, and that is the issue, we do not know about all representations of what exists, and therefore we have to do the realists work first.
You can call it "the measurement problem episode".
What I remember is they say that i am wrong I could not follow, and i said that maybe im tired, then the video is cut suddenly that was happen
1:13:28
The Epicyclists, likewise, gave up on the "realism" of their times, and proposed their Crystal Spheres as a solution.
Maybe a little history should be part of the schooling of physicsts.
It is pretty clear too, that the standard mystery school exercises in examining one's assumptions is not part of academic philosophy schooling.
Either of those would have made ubderstanding quantum phenomena and the mechanism quite trivial.
We are interested.
12:28
The baddest word of all is "theory", when it is used to describe a mathematical model.
That misuse leads to mistaking a mathematical model for a description/understanding of mechanism.
Hence, few notice their paradigm problem and continue to make the Epicyclists' mistake.
And what passes for Philosophy in academia falls for it too 😂
Regarding completeness of theories and Bohr's answer and Maudlin's opinion that Bohr's should just have answered "we were never looking for the theory to be complete". I think that misrepresents the discussion between Einstein and Bohr. Bohr certainly thought that quantum mechanics is a complete theory. it is rather, he did not agree with Einstein's and Maudlin's point of view that a complete physics theory must account for what is going on in the sense of realism. In my understanding no physics theory prior to quantum mechanics has needed to offer a picture of what is going in detail for it to be complete. One example I can think of, which I do not know if Bohr had in mind, is Newtons theory of gravitation. Newton knew painfully well that his theory did not tell us what gravity is, or what causes it. He disliked the "action at a distance" in his theory, and found it unreal, quote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.". Still, the fact that the cause of gravity (or mass for that sake) are not accounted for in the theory did not make Newtons theory of gravitation an incomplete physics theory. And indeed, you can say the same of all field theories as they also lack causal bridges. Essentially, (as Maudlin himself has pointed out here on youtube) vector fields are just numbers with a direction assigned to an imagined coordinate system around a particle. But nothing links the number to the acceleration another particle experiences in the field. All field theories lack causal bridges . In general relativity, for example, there is no explanation to how energy deforms spacetime. It is unaccounted for, and just happens by miracle/definition, so to speak. But historically, this lack of causal bridges in physics theories did not render them incomplete. And I think following that logic, Bohr's point of view is not unreasonable. Physics has never told us what makes things happen, not even how they happen, physics theories are mathematical constructs that can predict what will happen and when it happens (what we will be able to observe). So, the way I understand it, Bohr is simply saying that the measurement problem is irrelevant to the discussion of whether quantum mechanics is a complete theory. Complete physics theories are not about realism, but about predicting what will happen in experiments.
@LisaBlooper Thanks. I didn't mean to say that spacetime is some material. Of course GR is an abstract description. The numbers and symbols in the equations are not reality. The world is not a coordinate system, I get it. The point, i was trying to make, is that there is no causal description in the theory. There is nothing that links energy to deformation of spacetime. It just happens by definition in the theory.
@LisaBlooper Thanks again. I appreciate your comments. Einstein was an absolutely brilliant physicist, probably the greatest there ever was. His numerous ground braking contributions to quantum mechanics and his two theories of relativity clearly illustrates that. The work on the general theory of relativity was a successful attempt to unify gravity and inertia from the weak and strong principles of equivalence. He did not find the idea of a four dimensional space-time productive, by the way, so I suppose he was not concerned about why energy would curve spacetime. I don't know, but doubt however, whether he critically investigated the ontology of physics. Rather, I suppose he was very much content with the intuitive concepts of classical physics describing the behavior of objects in space and time. His call for realism with quantum mechanics and his concern about the nature of said theory can maybe be taken as evidence of that. Please note that I am not criticizing physics here. Modern physics theories are wonderful and very accurate. All I am saying is that I do not believe they are informative about reality as they lack causal bridges and actually also because they use concepts such as mass, time and space which are not well defined, nor well understood, and likely emergent. And because of this lack of a link to reality (reality being Das Ding an sich, as Kant called it, that, which everything emerges from, I think we would say today) I do not find Bohr's objections to Einstein's claim that a theory must apply to realism (as defined in the EPR-paper) problematic. And I think that maybe Bohr was thinking along those lines also, that physics theories are not about what reality is, but rather about how the concepts we use to make sense of reality behave. The theories are about how the world as we perceive it behaves, not about what the world is.
Why not replace measurement with interaction or opportunity for interaction?
@LisaBlooper at the bare minimum there is an "articulating what constitutes a measurement" problem to define what it is that triggers that whole pesky non-local wave function collapse thing
@LisaBlooper sounds like you might not understand the implications of the results of experiments involving the measurement of entangled particles.
@LisaBlooper seems you may also not understand how to debate without the use of the most obvious logical fallacies.
Do you have a Paterson account?
Mr. Maudlin is a better speaker, it's easier to understand what he means.
How I sometimes explain the 'reality problem' to the person on the street is like this.
Quantum mechanics is like a fast car. And you know that if you put gas in it it goes. But then you pop the hood to look at the engine and... it doesn't make any sense. So what do you do?
Does anybody know what name is he saying at 1:58:30. Who is the most important philosopher of physics in the second half of the 20th century?
Albert Einstein and John Bell
@@das_it_mane Yes not obvious till you realize, bell sounds like he says john bettts at first.
This is y sometimes I don’t want to communicate, because of this, I may say something wrong, that I didn’t know
Susskind following Everett thinks the various paths providing the eigen state is the 'observer' that observes/measures the quantum state, which is the reality. Philosophers can at best do is to choose the eigen state from among the different paths, as defining the measurement problem. I doubt if these philosophers come any close to quantum reality, in which the different paths observe and measures the quantum state.
Sir tim, before u cross the road , pls try to look first left or right, don’t just jump into conclusions, and u have phd right!!!
I wonder if there's an observable one could measure on David Albert that forces him to get to the point.
1:47:43
It is indeed a scientific problem.
Deeper than the schooling of physicsts can address, though.
Until the unconsciously accepted paradigm is addressed, the obviously elegantly simple mechanism from which all the complexity of phenomena arise … will remain as unknown as were orbital dynamics pre-Copernicus.
And philosophers who descend from Aristotle can be no help, given that it is his inverted misunderstandings of Advaita which are the root trouble.
To fix this in the West, one has to go back to Thales.
Ending now.
I always hope for some sign of the Copernican Penny dropping. Nothing here, sadly.
1:59:16
Dear Robinson
If you ever get bored with hearing the same story retold repeatedly, ending in the same hand-waving and imponderables, over and over again …
I'll be happy to explain Aristotle's errors, and intuitively explain Strings, QM and GR in simple woo-free language.
Privately, or on your show.
The almost unanimous acceptance that Bohr's thinking that the QM is beyond fundamental understanding and is, in principle, impossible to understand and therefore we should "shutup and calculate" only, is wrong and should be rejected - knowingly or unknowingly, David Chalmers is playing the same role with the "Hard problem of consciousness " in the area of understanding of consciousness and learning from our previous mistake, should be strongly rejected.
And because we are doing the same mistake of blindly accepting the dogma of "Hard problem of consciousness," we should reject it in ever stronger terms.
BTW David Chalmers as it was mentioned by Robinson, still sites Eugene Wigner and his idea about the role of consciousness in the collapse of the QM wave function tells 8us that David is cherry picking. Eugene Wigner later decanter that viewpoint which is mentioned in the wikipedia rticle. Someone should tell David.
Do you have an idea on what might resolve the hard problem?
@@aidanhall6679 Yes. One of the clues I pay attention to is this - we can be aware of our conscious experience only when our brain is working in normal state. Brain injury, drug effect or general anesthesia removes parts, or full state of consciousness. Heck, with drugs like DMT and Ayahuasca, one can get extremely different conscious experiences of splintered selves or no selves etc. which are physical substances that affect brains's electrochemistry. With phenomenon like Havana Syndrome it may not even have to be a physical substance that affects the brain directly, but could be microwave radiation etc. This tells me that the systems in the brain that detect, classify and register the conscious state have to be in a "normally" working state. In other words, taking an example of subsystems in the brain that process the visual signals (let us call this S1) and the part (let us call it subsystem S2) that detects the state of S1 and register it as an experience have to be working. There many brain related affects where it is clear that there is separation between these two. And the locus of what we call consciousness is going to be found in subsystems like S2. Of course this partly an extrapolation of what we know. Let me give an example:
- In the past we use to think that infectious deceases were caused by curses and spell (stage 1)
- Later, we understood with the advent of germ theory that such deceases care caused by microbes (bacteria and viruses (COVID 19)) This is the biological stage of understanding. (stage 2)
- And in modern times we now understand how the mRNA protein spikes of COVID 19 virus actually work at the level of bio chemistry, which more or less precisely tells use what happens to the chemical processes inside the cells that cause the symptoms of the decease, and not only that we can thus come up with precise vaccines. I call this bio-chemistry or molecular biology or simply organic chemistry stage of understanding (stage 3)
I think in terms of understanding of consciousness, we are at stage 2. We know for sure that subsystems like what I called S2 cause the conscious experience to occur. We need to reach the stage 3 understanding. The project or research on this is not finished and the work is being done by people like - Anil Seth, Michael Levin, Nick Lane, Manolis Kellis, Michael Graziano, and work of philosophers like Dan Dennett, Ned Block, Lisa Barrett. Therefore I stand by my call of rejecting the dogma of Hard problem of consciousness and adapt the Real problem of consciousness as Anil Seth calls it.
It may also turn out that we may have to shift our perspective on consciousness, similar to what happened to ideas like Élan vital. We had to shift the perspective on what life is i.e. it is not some kind of life force.
@@aidanhall6679 Yes. One of the clues I pay attention to is this - we can be aware of our conscious experience only when our brain is working in normal state. Brain injury, drug effect or general anesthesia removes parts, or full state of consciousness. Heck, with drugs like DMT and Ayahuasca, one can get extremely different conscious experiences of splintered selves or no selves etc. which are physical substances that affect brains's electrochemistry. With phenomenon like Havana Syndrome it may not even have to be a physical substance that affects the brain directly, but could be microwave radiation etc. This tells me that the systems in the brain that detect, classify and register the conscious state have to be in a "normally" working state. In other words, taking an example of subsystems in the brain that process the visual signals (let us call this S1) and the part (let us call it subsystem S2) that detects the state of S1 and register it as an experience have to be working. There many brain related affects where it is clear that there is separation between these two. And the locus of what we call consciousness is going to be found in subsystems like S2. Of course this partly an extrapolation of what we know. Let me give an example: - In the past we use to think that infectious deceases were caused by curses and spell (stage 1) - Later, we understood with the advent of germ theory that such deceases care caused by microbes (bacteria and viruses (COVID 19)) This is the biological stage of understanding. (stage 2) - And in modern times we now understand how the mRNA protein spikes of COVID 19 virus actually work at the level of bio chemistry, which more or less precisely tells use what happens to the chemical processes inside the cells that cause the symptoms of the decease, and not only that we can thus come up with precise vaccines. I call this bio-chemistry or molecular biology or simply organic chemistry stage of understanding (stage 3) I think in terms of understanding of consciousness, we are at stage 2. We know for sure that subsystems like what I called S2 cause the conscious experience to occur. We need to reach the stage 3 understanding. The project or research on this is not finished and the work is being done by people like - Anil Seth, Michael Levin, Nick Lane, Manolis Kellis, Michael Graziano, and work of philosophers like Dan Dennett, Ned Block, Lisa Barrett. Therefore I stand by my call of rejecting the dogma of Hard problem of consciousness and adapt the Real problem of consciousness as Anil Seth calls it. It may also turn out that we may have to shift our perspective on consciousness, similar to what happened to ideas like Élan vital. We had to shift the perspective on what life is i.e. it is not some kind of life force
Schrodinger did not like his mother-in-law. He reverted to the cat after his wife's objections.
My Heir Host Robin ye already know? Thank you!
What is that stuff on your arm???
I really enjoy conversations involving Maudlin and Albert. It's all drivel of course but fascinating drivel nonetheless.
Measurement (n) the act of assigning numbers or labels to observations.
But I don't think that is Tim's definition ... is it?
For a mathematician it's the correct definition, for a physicist it's not. This is no different from the case of dice. A physicist will notice that rolling dice imparts kinetic energy to them and that a dice roll isn't finished until all of that kinetic energy has been used up by the friction with the table. To a mathematician a dice role is a mechanism that selects an element from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. The exact same thing is true for quantum mechanics. A single measurement to a physicist is an irreversible energy transfer. The quantum of energy that deposits energy, momentum and angular momentum in the detector gives us the necessary indices into the states of the theory. To a mathematician the exact nature of that energy transfer is irrelevant. (S)He merely expects to be told which Eigenvalue/state was measured. That energy and momentum had to change from one system to another is irrelevant.
If you have a perfect rating, you're doing something wrong! or sketchy.
woohoo!!!!
is it possible that this podcast will conclude before mentioning bohm? kind of stunned at the blind spots many scientists have.
they moved straight into an idealist interpretation of this debate-“it’s all personality, who knows!” there was a lot at stake politically in the background here and there were major divisions between western and soviet scientists. they missed so much of the history.
ok, there it is. he’s not curious about how the world works, in his own words. therefore why bother taking a materialist approach to the structure of the debate over measurement. just handwave and call it personality. seems like he’s an idealist outside the domain of science.
Shouldn’t we wait for AI to tell us what’s going on? Or will we understand the answer :)
It's the cat. Of course.
Pops David and Neils thank you for attending unto our OWN! Pops say if I take away all neighbors. How else can ye show off unto WHO?
🤯Funny that the host is the only one who prounounces the name SCHRÖDINGER correctly as shrodinGGer whereby G is hard as g in the word garden. ✅And then under the influence of the guests he goes to the wrong pronunciation‼️‼️
Sorry but I need to leave u sir’s. Have a great day
80-100 years if luckily can live that long! Then what?
'Schődinger' rhymes with 'singer', not 'ginger'.
It rhymes with orange.
Im sorry do i have a wrong word that i said?
7:38 System, micro, macro, measurement, etc. are state references. The concept "measurement" does not represent THE outcome of one. 2+2=4 is a measurement outcome. Addition is not. That is a wave function without being able to determine its momentum nor particle. I think Bell was rather a puritan sifting words. Not about natural physics theory. Einsteins quote is great. Fully support that.
Sorry but I don’t know what was happened , I only knew In this video,
mathematically, the wavefunction is just a representation of a probability distribution with a lot of dependencies baked in, that conditions probabilities on histories of different parts of it. there is nothing about that, that could not reflect the properties of a normal physical theory with a lot of interaction based dependencies for the elements of reality, that could be summed over in and old way to give a distribution that reflects the exact probability map given by a wavefunction, nothing is really in conflict with the old physics, except that the character of the dependencies require a richer dynamics than people were willing or able to imagine.
the thing is, the boundary between collapsed system, and system with knowledge of outcomes is misleading. the way quantum mechanics works mean you can put this boundary anywhere.
the crutial point i would like to make, is that the fact of the collapses being integral to quantum mechanics is reflected int he structure of the evolution itself, not in whether you have to account for collapses or not, without measuring anything you have no need for collapses, but you also have no use for the theory, because you dont have any findings. for example with wigners friend, you can draw the line in one place or another, and the point is that the schrødinger evolution you have both sides of a collapsed superposition evolving, and any dependence between them, so you have either two or more options for eigenstates evolving either independently or in a coupled way, depending on what kind of system you are discussing. so in effect that means the collapse does not matter for the statistical description in between looking at it, that means that with two independent options for states of the world evolved, when u look you find out that one side, weighted by half the probability is just wrong, and you continue with the rest, that is correct but not necessarily determined fully, and so on. so the collapse is just something empirical, but if you made it happen 15 times in the intermision for all superpositions involved you would get the same result.
therefore it is only the collapses where there is a dependence where an option for an eigenvalue is not left unchanged by the collapse that matters for determining the physicallity of collapses. but the collapses being the right way to view observation, just reflects the dynamics all along, there is nothing special there, there might just have been one eigenvalue that belonged to the real state all along, that is not an issue that would give rise to a conflict with the born rule or the schrødinger evolution. therefore quantum mechanics can just be viewed as summing over possible states of the world that are individually deterministic, where any dependence is reflected either in the interactions present in all deterministic states summed over, or reflected in the choice of what deterministic states to sum over, that is how it is and has to be, and it is how normal old school statistical mechanics would work. that's just how she goes.
therefore this issue of where the boundary is, is just an artificial problem, collapses could be going all litterally continously, or spaced out like in grw, that is why grw works okey, if you take the limit of infinite densities of collapse in grw, this is where you will end up, just summing over worlds that are individually deterministic and that as a group shared some causal relations that shapes the probability distribution along with the selection of possible worlds. it was just nonsense all along. we dont have to twist ourselves into pretzels to avoid saying that.
Now bring all will bring to remembrance "what is neighbors"? KEEP WATCH!
doesnt mean we know its right in any way, it just means we need to try to describe what exists clearly with reasons in theory for why structures are what they are, and so on, such that we have soemthing to test.
so what bohr said can be boiled down to, trust me bro, its over now. but thats like his opinion man, to go from a simple statement like his first statement mentioned by David, to the second, is just an assertion that hangs on very little expect something like "its too hard i cant imagine how to do it".
thank you, economy will rise by using jet plasma machine and compressed gas(Air) in isolated structure in water pool with more than 80 % efficiency, it has two vertical cylinders, in first level it transfers compressed gas(hot air) temperature from engine to sea water in pool for steam electric generator, steam combines with high cold Air pressure to produce pure water and electricity , New energy from sea will change world soon, there are other source of energy that with international cooperation in coastline we can reduce effect of global warming, sea is huge source of energy, further more we can prevent these phenomena like cyclone and flood and wildfire by using this hot seasonal atmospheric condition, recent years in summer, geothermal energy happens in surface of coastline, there are many countries in coastline with seasonal hot weather and water condition in comparison with middle Ocean, its more than 12 degrees , in sum-up, by using this energy not only is economical but also reduce global warming in countries like Japan, China, India, Mediterranean countries, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Us, Canada, (Africa and Arabian countries....) . I invented new method base on air pressure rules and quantum physics ionization sea water minerals in strong dynamic permanent magnet(SMCO) with special frequency(1500or 3000)/minute bases on paramagnetic and diamagnetic particles and electrical microwave wave field and electric chemical reactions and photon wave from semiconductors Cations like(K+, Mg++, Na+, H+, H++, li+, H2, ...) are transferred to in the second level into up level by vacuum pump from storage into combustion chambers and they combine with O2 and N2 ,... as major part of fuel (more than 50%) for producing electricity and fresh water and fertilizer. this machine produces 150Megwatt-hour/hour and 20000M3/DAY fresh water and fertilizer. 7 methods zero pollution for reducing global warming I mentioned in my profile. (G20 countries can solve these phenomena).
With all due respect, Albert sounds like beating around the bush all the time and I try to endure his talk only to know what Maudlin responds to with outstanding clarity.
Funny, for me it is the other way around. David comes across more precise to me as well as more cautious, while Tim is sometimes carried away by his strong opinions and desire to polemicize against Bohr…well to be honest both are a pleasure to listen to, but I prefer David’s style of developing thoughts.
@@CalendulaFYou are right. Maudlin’s opinions can often be rigid but as long as we know that they are opinions, no harm done. And his opinion happen to make sense to me, so I may be biased :)
I really enjoy Tim and David but David was kinda long winded making points that were difficult to follow…..
Honestly robin you have one of the best podcasts in the world
Time come here in front! Remind! LORD without none can exist in front of thee!
in the case of the cat, the cat, the phial of poison and the measurment of the decay is analogous to a photomultiplier, a circuit and a computer that records the result, in the cat experiment, the cat is like the computer in some lab, the experiment is not whether the cat is alive or dead, it is whether the result is a world where the cat is dead or alive, in the same way whethe rthe results in cern has a bump or not in the data on the computer, in the larger macroscopic system. the question i think is right, i think there is a reality problem at all scales here, where the essential difficulty is simply that the macroscopic system of correlated with the outcomes of a single particle doing this or that. the problem is in any case a problem of total outcomes, without any notion of separation of the single particle system and the macroscopic system, the question is whether there was a physical fact about the decay all along, in any case the correlation is such that that question is also tied tot he question of the cat, and so there really is no way to separate them, it is a question of whether stuff exists in a concrete state that evolves or some imagined superposition that has no meaning beyond a formal mathematical statement about probabilities.
A useless , handwringng, confusing, convoluted rant that enlightens no one.
Is like all trees will come in front! Who sitteth upon OLDER THAN TREES! Is like....fill in the blank!
I responded nicely and respectfully, and u sir tim u just keep on yelling at me and I don’t know what to say, what to react, if u don’t like me , ok I don’t like you too .
David is one of the most nauseatingly discursive speakers on planet Earth! Jesus Christ.
I get where Maudlin (and Bell) are coming from, but all true statements about reality will always be measurements, broadly speaking. Good science comes from true measurements and the statements themselves ARE still measurements, even if they are as simple is “This is x, rather than y.” They are responses to an observed reality that are quantifiable.
The same limitation applies to philosophy of science. Any explanation of what is the nature of physics can only be a measurement. “What is the thing, as it is observed by me, to be?” Many science problems look like measurement problems, until a theory is stated that explains the measurement, or a measurement is made that suggests a theory. That doesn’t mean the notion of measurement has gone away, it’s just not a “problem” anymore.
Why are you telling us that you don't understand physics? ;-)
Hail Satan 137
It's funny how wrong all of the physicists are!
If only they could comprehend the universe!
Why given thee time?
it just boils down to the issue that the only verifyable parts of a theory is its observables. and bohr is both right about that, and confused about that, there is always a straight forward way to think about a resultant probabillity map in classical terms, with respect to the observables, that is just a straight forward fact about what any probability map looks like compared to outcomes measured.
but he was completely wrong that trying to describe what is not ending up as observables in one theory, for example what is existing during the time between a decay and a particle showing up on a screen, cannot be described in a normal old school classical way, it can infact be described in any and all ways that leads to the same observables, ai the same probability map, or a better one, and from the details of such a theory, extensions can be introduced, that might in principle extend also the set of observables, and in principle, this can go on forever until any destinction in beables can be explicitly reflected in observables as well, as i said in principle, and so even though the process can never have full closure to it, one can always hope to make progress that can be explored explicitly in experiments, through new measurable destinctions of outcomes. therefore, to stop at some point and to say, well now we have to stop, is just crazy talk, no matter how right a person is that the unobservable parts of a theory cannot be tested empirically, because that just means that to test those things, one needs a richer theory, that can give rise to further observables by which we could tests such destinctions. it might be a lot harder to test whether photons are really little balls that move in magical ways, or some sort of distributed field phenomena that still results in discreet chunks showing up at detectors, and being emitted in chunks by atoms, than it is to just show that they are always detected in chunks for example, but thats just how it is, going deeper into the details of nature is always going to involve some difficult bit of understanding something new, that is not surprising at all.
Albert and Tim are in complete sync on measurement but their exchanges doesn't sound so. The damn Cat remains alive or dead, with no superposition. These discussions are meaningless and futile and Einstein was right when he waited for a new formulation of QM.
Neither Einstein nor Schroedinger actually understood QM, but they certainly misunderstood it in different ways. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Einstein thought QM is incomplete, but he came close as ER=EPR brought completeness as QM and GR were joined at the hip.
@@sonarbangla8711 Yes, Einstein didn't understand QM. It is complete. There is simply nothing else there, there. That is caused by relativity and Einstein of all people should have seen that.
@@lepidoptera9337 WRONG.
@@sonarbangla8711 Good luck with your DK. ;-)
Thy all HEIRS HOSTS shared "i" AM knows? Indeed!
just try to run that logic assuming you are just summing over possible worlds, it works out fine, there is no sensible way to create something in which it doesn't work like that.