Tim Maudlin: What Makes a Good and Clear Theory of the World?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Dr. Tim Maudlin is an internationally-renowned physicist and philosopher of science at New York University. He is known for the clarity of his thought, above all in the foundations of physics. Maudlin has undergraduate degrees in physics and philosophy from Yale University and a PhD from the Univ. of Pittsburgh. His books, released by the world’s most respected publishing houses, include "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity", "Truth and Paradox", "The Metaphysics Within Physics", and two volumes of "Philosophy of Physics". In addition, his "New Foundations for Physical Geometry" has received wide acclaim as a novel mathematical approach to a better understanding of space-time.
Dr. Maudlin is a member of the International Academy of the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). He has been a Guggenheim Fellow, taught at Rutgers for many years and has been a visiting lecturer at Harvard. He is also founder and director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundation of Physics.
Relevant links:
Please contribute to Maudlin's fight for the foundations of physics by visiting the following:
John Bell Institute Go Fund Me page: tinyurl.com/f8...
Interview web page: eism.eu/tim-ma...
Maudlin's personal website: www.tim-maudlin....
Maudlin's NYU page: tinyurl.com/y2...
Maudlin's books: tinyurl.com/5n...
The Aharanov-Bohm Effect: tinyurl.com/2e...
Maudlin corrects the Nobel Prize Committe: • Tim Maudlin Corrects t...
Time Stamp:
00:28 -- Preliminary comments - why listen to this video?
02:49 -- Introduction of Maudlin
04:28 -- Tim Maudlin & Bernardo Kastrup Confrontation
13:16 -- Why the Maudlin-Kastrup confrontation matters
14:00 -- Maudlin on "ground zero" in quantum theory
20:51 -- Maudlin's objection to the word "interpretation" in physics
33:04 -- Maudlin on Michelson-Morley,Einstein, & special relativity
41:56 -- Back to what theory-building and postulates matter
43:56 -- How do we evaluate / assess various physical theories?
47:24 -- How much credence should I give to a theory?
50:35 -- The historcal rejection of "foundational questions" in academia
53:45 -- Yakir Aharanov as an exception to the rule
56:23 -- How the above led to the foundation of the John Bell Institute
57:55 -- Is the tide turning in favor of foundational questions in physics?
1:01:05 -- Physics as the foundation of clarity and every discipline
1:03:50 -- Maudlin doubts the utility of foundational questions
1:07:40 -- Is Maudlin a consequentialist in physical theories?
1:10:20 -- The peril of basing values and ethics on physics
1:12:05 -- Maudlin's platonist mathemetics, ethics, and physics
1:13:15 -- Physics, voting theory, and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
1:14:55 -- Maudlin explains the John Bell Institute project
1:21:30 -- Maudlin on the requirements of a good physical theory
1:25:29 -- Maudlin's opinion on "emergent" spacetime
1:27:30 -- What advantages does discrete spacetime provide?
1:34:00 -- Clarification on foliation in a discrete spacetime
1:40:00 -- How would relativity emerge from discrete spacetime?
1:47:20 -- Maudlin on the Aharnov-Bohm effect & discrete spacetime
I'm a Maudlin Maniac
Hernandez Daniel Walker Amy Taylor Eric
I am very interested in discrete space time and the geometry involved. This is fascinating! A lot of what Dr. Maudlin has been discussing in the last parts of the video are resonating with my personal views. Looking forward to hearing much more on this topic.
Thanks for your comments and interest, Marc. I will try to come back to them as soon as I can. Thanks for your patience!
Substance exists outside our minds. If reality, what we observe and experience, is a play of ideas on substance, the question then becomes what is substance made of and what are ideas made of, what is their source? If the answer is consciousness, then consciousness is fundamental.
If science and philosophy cannot explain consciousness, they have no grounds to claim it is not fundamental because they do not know what it is. What pre-dates force?. A little is known about electromagnetism, absolutely nothing is known about magnetism itself; much less what lies beyond it; what its origin is.
BTW just like with Tim and also your experience you shared about BK, I have seen him doing the same kind of hostile and aggressive debating with Sabine Hossenfelder as well. So the common problematic factor in these interactions seems to BK.
nah, Tim and Sabine are just not aware of the depth Bernardo puts on the table.
I don't mind the aggressivess or the passion. It's the refusal to talk that is hard (for me) to understand. In any case, he is human and I would be open to talking any time.
@oliviergoethals4137 let me know if you'd like to talk about Kastrup's ideas. My initial position is explained with some detail in the following brief video: ruclips.net/video/4iutNJnud2U/видео.html
@@oliviergoethals4137 He puts speculation on the table...that's all!
Bernardo Kastrup is insufferable because he is arrogant and condescending. I never really liked him and cringe during his talks. He seems to say and infact has sometimes said it out aloud, laughing " this is so simple!! Why doesn't anyone get it ???!!!". What he espouses is a mismash of Buddhist anahata or nothingness and idealism. In his mind , it is all too simple and he has sorted it out totally. But really his philosophy is banal process theology like Buddhism mixed with idealism and I am just not impressed. He is arrogant at that !!!!
Thanks for your input. I can forgive the arrogance, if that's in fact what it is, but what is more difficult to understand is the unwillingess to talk about one's own book. Whatever the case may be, I'm always open to talking to him or any of his supporters. Thanks again for your input.
Classical physical reality appears to exist. But its nature is impermanent and in a state of flux. So its "real" nature is under question even in terms of classical philosophy - see Plato for example or Hume.
This characteristic is further brought to the fore by viewing the matter in terms of quantum mechanics where the issue of "reality" becomes SO moot that all we have is a probablistic account of it. To maintain realism and physicalism in the light of these facts is not intellectually sustainable unfortunately, whatever one might think in a knee jerk sort of fashion about the physical reality of things.
So what to do? There are two alternatives. Firstly one can do what Tim does and resurrect the physicalist bohm/de broglie pilot wave interpretation of QM. One can thus "save the appearance" of causality and determinism simply bh adding an epicycle or two to the Schrodinger wave function. Problem solved, appearances saved by a Ptolemaic maneuver.
But the problem with this approach is obvious. One could build mathematical add ons to the wave function to "save" any illusory phenomenon we wanted to and STILL come out with the same out puts as the wave function does. This is easy to do, but intellectually dishonest.
The other alternative is to accept the non local impllications of QM, that the nature of reality is intrinsically samsaric or illusory in character. This I believe is the correct approach and following Bell or Tims approach smacks of desperation. Sorry to go on like this but I think it is a very important point to make. Regards.
Thanks for your comment and interest. Two points: 1) are you under the impression that Maudlin does not accept non-locality? 2) what can it possibly mean, in everyday practical terms, to say that this world is an illusion? Does that mean that if World War III starts tomorrow and everybody dies, it's not really real? What does that even mean?
Time Stamps:
00:28 -- Preliminary comments - why listen to this video?
02:49 -- Introduction of Maudlin
04:28 -- Tim Maudlin & Bernardo Kastrup Confrontation
13:16 -- Why the Maudlin-Kastrup confrontation matters
14:00 -- Maudlin on "ground zero" in quantum theory
20:51 -- Maudlin's objection to the word "interpretation" in physics
33:04 -- Maudlin on Michelson-Morley,Einstein, & special relativity
41:56 -- Back to what theory-building and postulates matter
43:56 -- How do we evaluate / assess various physical theories?
47:24 -- How much credence should I give to a theory?
50:35 -- The historcal rejection of "foundational questions" in academia
53:45 -- Yakir Aharanov as an exception to the rule
56:23 -- How the above led to the foundation of the John Bell Institute
57:55 -- Is the tide turning in favor of foundational questions in physics?
1:01:05 -- Physics as the foundation of clarity and every discipline
1:03:50 -- Maudlin doubts the utility of foundational questions
1:07:40 -- Is Maudlin a consequentialist in physical theories?
1:10:20 -- The peril of basing values and ethics on physics
1:12:05 -- Maudlin's platonist mathemetics, ethics, and physics
1:13:15 -- Physics, voting theory, and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
1:14:55 -- Maudlin explains the John Bell Institute project
1:21:30 -- Maudlin on the requirements of a good physical theory
1:25:29 -- Maudlin's opinion on "emergent" spacetime
1:27:30 -- What advantages does discrete spacetime provide?
1:34:00 -- Clarification on foliation in a discrete spacetime
1:40:00 -- How would relativity emerge from discrete spacetime?
1:47:20 -- Maudlin on the Aharnov-Bohm effect & discrete spacetime
Whatever doesn't come from Bernardo Kastrup's mouth I suppose😂
It is a mystery why anyone buys Kastrup's guruic attitude knowing that he never presents valid or sound argumentation, instead he dabbles in a very bad sophistry that has a goal of claiming certainty from empirical research, therefore ignoring the problem of induction. That wouldn't be so problematic since many people claim some level of 'certainty' from physical theories, but Kastrup is different: he claims that it is unavoidable to conclude that analytic idealism is true😂 which is beyond ridiculous
Thanks for your input. Your choice of words is strong, but I think Maudlin and I (and many others) would agree that his conclusions are expressed with a little too much confidence. Thanks again.
@@eismscience I was being pretty mild. The guy deserves much harsher treatment since we saw how he deals with opponent views while faking politeness. He showed his face in debate with Maudlin but I personally spotted his true face while watching some of his interview for the first time. I mean, you can't write a book with a headline that says 'opponent view is baloney' and expect to be taken seriously and treated with respect. As a person he's a childish bully that fakes intellectual grandeur, while as a philosopher he's a pure simpleton. He reminds me of Massimo Piggliucci, another double Ph.D that establishes nothing at all, but that doesn't prevent him from acting like some kind of intellectual aristocracy. I talked with teenagers that are smarter than both of them combined, so for me it doesn't make any sense how these 2 are posing as 'intellectual elites'. Despicable and cringy.
I was quite disappointed in Kastrup during the debate. He could’ve easily continued and made his case. He does have a very solid understanding of physics and foundations of physics. He’s not a “faux intellectual.” While I’ll admit this is an appeal to authority, one doesn’t simply get two PhDs and work at CERN at 21 without a certain intellectual prowess.
That being said, to address what you said, he does nothing of the sort. You’re projecting and engaging in exactly what you claim Kastrup to be doing. Who are you? Kastrup simply presents his arguments and believes his position to be superior. This is the nature of philosophical discourse, is it not? I’ve never once heard him say “Analytic Idealism is true.” I do, however, find that he has built a very strong case against traditional materialism, along with a decent one in favor of Idealism, and having done so, is justified in claiming Materialism to be “baloney.” Again, this is what philosophers do. If you have a problem with that, address the arguments, not the faults of the philosopher. Maudlin called his statements “silly” and presented little evidence to support this. He didn’t lay out any arguments, instead he just made claims. Did you question him? Probably not. Most of the arguments against something like Idealism, that I’ve seen, are built on much less evidence and much less reason, but you seem to unjustifiably accept those arguments… why? I’d simply ask you this: are you applying the same level of skepticism towards Maudlin and materialism as you apply towards Kastrup and Idealism? If not, then you need to engage in more critical thinking. It’s more than likely the case that neither of them are right, so why dogmatically support one over the other?
And… if we’re going to talk about unpleasant people… you can’t get much more unpleasant than Maudlin 🤷♂️
@@cashmoneyfrench5993You established nothing but merely claimed that he made a strong case against materialism and appealed to authority and credentials. What does 'strong' in his case stand for exactly?
Can you back that up since I've found nothing at all in his dissertation from University in Nijmegen from couple of years ago and articles he wrote(2019, 2021, 2022)?
His professional history is completely irrelevant since his credentials can't argue for him. Can you show us any sound or even valid arguments that he apparently made for so called 'analytic idealism' which is an obvious refurbished version of metaphysics a la Schopenhauer, spiced with some Buddhistic and Vedantistic notions? If not, then why would I take his view seriously? What does sophistry bring to the table?
From my understanding of Kastrup's pseudo-philosophical endeavor, he doesn't construct consistent argumentation based on any logical system(classical, predicate, modal, non classical or mathematical logic), doesn't respect rules of inference, and occasionally refers to his view as more parsimonious than physicalism, which is false. All that while claiming that analytic idealism is product that bears on logical consistency, empirical grounding, explanatory power etc. To claim something and to actually prove it true are 2 different things. He accuses physicalists for evading these values which is laughable. I mean, how can a pure speculation(pretty bad one) be in favour against another thesis when it's underdetermined by the data? Kastrup presents his view as some sort of scientific theory where he thinks it provides explanation of ultimate substance in terms of DID type of Mind at large. I just cringe by reading bad sophistry acting as almost scientific enterprise. He never proved his analogies to be true, yet he acts as they are irrefutable arguments. Besides being completely convinced that Analytic Idealism is true, he as well started a foundation that attacks physicalism?? since he thinks that the whole scientific paradigm is pointing at his thesis. Crazy! If you by any point try to question him or reject his stuff, he's immediately patronizing you by pretentious dismissal. So I believe that 'give respect of you want to get respect' is a norm, and consequentially, I think he should get some of his own poison back, since he continuously attacks people that hold positions he dislikes or reject his own, like he did to Graziano, Sam Harris, Frankish etc. Funny enough, he attacked Graziano on personal credulity and said 'this guy knows nothing about consciousness'(paraphrased), which should give us illusion that Bernardo somehow knows something more on consciousness, or regarding his thesis; everything on consciousness. Or better, when he directly called out Sam Harris of being scared to debate him, like Bernardo is some kind of serious expert in the field, LOL!
Ph.D doesn't make you relevant at all, nor does a PR, RUclips popularity or guruic self proclaimed expertise. What counts is the content of your work, novelty and arguments which Bernardo lacks pathologically. I am not familiar with Maudlin's work yet, so I will give my final judgement when I read him. Why don't you invest yourself into more critical thinking instead of calling out strangers on the internet just because you think you know what they do based on your own view of idealism/materialism debate? I mean, since you're naive enough to think Beenardo has anything valuable to say? I am me, thanks for asking, what does my identity have to do with anything?
After all, since Bernardo solved nothing, explained nothing we didn't know before, provided no resolution on hard problem of consciousness and gave no valuable account on any mystery in philosophy, and judging by his media appearance and PR, I conclude that he's just a pretentious, guru-like, obscurantist that merely dabbles in pseudo-philosophical endeavor while making this whole 'analytic idealism' stuff about himself, while being fake and acting polite in order to seduce layman into thinking he has solutions, with his stupid "victorious war against physicalism' type of cringe
Both Barnardo and Tim are very intelligent people but the sad part is that they both think they have figured it out 100 percent , which is not true. It makes them look small. The host of the show instead of making an intelligent conversation talking about someone like this make him look small too. Yes you are right, Tim is right, Barnardo is right. Be humble dudes. You all look consumed by your egos.
"To come up with a good, fundamental theory of the world, one has to either begin or end with the foundations of physics, precisely because we live in a physical universe. Anyone who wants to build a fundamental theory of the world, even if their philosophy or theology or mathematics takes them to many other imaginary worlds, must ultimately return to THIS world, the one in which you and me actually live."
WHOA! That's a big bowl of dogmatic presumption right there!😅
Rodriguez Frank Johnson Charles Johnson Steven
"We are not philosophers, we are empiricists". This is Philosophy, buddy.
The whole Idealsim thing about Mind doesnt even make sense to Advaita Vedanta "nondualists"
To them, mind is just the body except more subtle. But still the body. They are interested in the awarenes that observes the mind, or existence. When they say "consciousness" thats what they mean. Its got nothing to do with mind or thought
If everything is energy and all energy is physical that is true, energy is everywhere, both gross and subtle, depending on rate of vibration. However, do the forms come from, are they engineered by energy as we understand it, gross and subtle. Energy is pretty smart then. Maybe smarter than minds are. I do not agree with this guy.
when it comes to ethics there are choices to be made and understanding the choices is relevant to the ethics. one thing for example that isnt really a fundamental question of physics is whether as a result of your actions a criminal can be reformed, thats one type of question, that then flows from understanding brains and social environments and so on, and if the answer is yes then maybe punishment isnt as coherent as a concept, what physics or chemistry can do for you there is providing a better basis for understanding brains, and if some progress is made such that we understand better how to reform a criminal without harming them, then there is a clear choice there that is clarified by a better understanding of the world, even if the dependence is not on what the physics is, it is what it is anyway, but our applied understanding of it. contrived example but still, its not like we can find out whether its good or bad to steal by figuring out how a neuron works, but we can maybe get a better grip on what to do about it, or what causes people to steal ect.
Totally agree and it's good to see this kind of perspective is getting some traction in public discourse. Robert Sapolsky was literally the first person I saw arguing this besides myself and I am thankful that he's doing what he's doing.
TBH, I was rather disappointed that BK rage quit, especially so early on. It just wasn't a good look period & also quite out of character. Though nobody is always 100% immune from emotions. Although their endeavors(BK's Essentia Foundation & TM's John Bell Institute) seem to be rather similar on the surface, there is a certain sense in which they are polar opposites, where Tim is literally the "face of/embodiment" of what BK has been battling from the very get-go. @EISM Anyway, it not too surprising that even after personally speaking with BK for at least an hour in not several, all you have is a strawman. Well, go ahead & burn it, bc that's NOT at all what he EVER said OR meant. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. In fact, it was pretty obvious that you weren't really even paying attention at the time.
Thanks for your comment. I agree that Kastrup and Maudlin are after the same goal, but I think it's too big of a stretch to say that they have similar ideas. Also, let me clarify that I did not actually talk to Kastrup. However, I did lay out my thoughts about his book, which is what I would have said if he would have kept his agreement to talk. Here is the link to those thoughts: ruclips.net/video/4iutNJnud2U/видео.html. If you see a strawman in the argument and would like to talk about it on camera, please let me know. Thanks again.
@@eismscience Right, must have mistaken you for someone else, my bad.
@@realcygnus no worries. Thanks again.
Too much invested in his own worldview.
Not sure I understand the arguments against idealism or simulation. Of course you would have no access to the reality running the simulation, and the simulation would absolutely be coded for particular physical properties. Interestingly, spooky action at a distance becomes less spooky if you consider that in a simulation location is nothing but a set of coordinates. Note: I'm dumb as a bucket of mud.
Something that doesn't exist becomes less spooky if you consider that it's just a non-existing simulation by aliens that are spooking around your mind? What? ;-)
Good interview Luis, you were able to coerce some extremely valuable insight from Tim. I am glad to see him doing well and on track. Research into the foundations of physics is a marathon and not a sprint. Good luck to John Bell Institute. It was good to hear him explain what happened with Bernardo, watching that on TOE with Kurt left me feeling a bit queezy. Idealism and panpsychism have gotten too much airplay lately.
Isn t an ethical world put its results in the physical world? All comes from spirit first, from the way we think and then gets material. The results of the material mode become from the unseen thoughts and inner being. Loving others is the result of loving yourself....
"Spacetime is dead"
A theory which can provide guidance to computer simulators would be appreciated. In the case of quantum mechanics, I think any simulation needs to make use of a random number generator. All proposals as to how are welcome. The simulation will indeed need to deal with nonlocal over-correlations. Is that a problem?
Improving our understanding of fundamental physics could certainly help us advance technology.
For instance some people believe that differing momentum arising in the same space creates particles.
Some people believe hat a rotational momentum creates charge.
So with nano bots we could potentially create chemicals on command one day, and dissipate them when done.
Scientists would first have to be open to exploring this idea though.
if we assume we can in principle meet Einstein's dream of a theory for which every "element of reality" is represented accurately in the scheme, which is different from saying we can prove such a theory to be of that kind(because of limitations of data points and the lack of metaphysical certainty in the continuity of past results carried into the future ect). then an interpretation may be talked about as just the musings prior to a successor theory, more alluding to a theory than a proposed theory. but that is rather semantic :P. so with respect to for example pilot wave theory, we could say that saying "i think something like pilot wave theory is correct" is one interpretation of the metaphysical implications quantum mechanics, or if you will "i think quantum mechanics is telling us this about the world" and such a statement and adjoined thoughts may be called an interpretation, but a concrete example like pilot wave theory, is just a different theory. like with art an interpretation sort of has to be hand-wavy.
you don't need to accept that, but still the notion of using re-normalized values is motivated pretty similarly as the motivation for using a discreet space time, you want to take the infinities out of the dynamics.
One that doesn't contain false ideas about postmortem justice or the Law of Karma. These are lies.
Technically, you can't call postmorten theories lies, for the same reason you can't disprove the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics. At best, you can say that these kinds of theories are irrelevant for *this* world, the one in which we actually live. That condemnation is already strong enough, though.
the motivation for selecting a discreet spacetime is about the same as using a re-normalization scheme. if you just imagine having some theory where the state defines the law in an environmental way, meaning an infinite regress of laws defined by state defined by state ect all the way down, then you can have things like infinite energy densities in the uv complete theory, but all structures have a certain size and the physical attributes of say some particle in such a theory will always have dynamical properties that are finite with respect to the dynamics at that level of description. if you think about it, such a theory could not have any point particles, and all definitions of energy would necessarily have to be re-normalized, and in that case all that means is that the way they evolve at some speed of interaction and with some energy density associated with it and so on, is defined with respect to the dynamical properties at that level, not in terms of some uv complete notion of energy, or whatever else, no approximate subsystem would have any dynamical infinities associated with their dynamics, the infinities might be very real but shielded from all the levels of subsystems and their dynamics, and therefore the magnitudes involved in the dynamics would be finite at every level of description even if the infinities are physical.
What happens if both the magnet and the wire are moving?😊
Once again happy to see Tim Maudlin however it’s unhelpful to spend any significant time debating a Kastrup strawman as understood by two people who aren’t Bernardo. I think there’s fruitful discussion to be had between them and it’s a shame to keep building up this notion that there’s some impossible impasse, especially in each others absence. Tim knows enough philosophy to understand that an Idealist position isn’t a disqualification from debate, I really think it’s just an unfortunate happenstance of personalities and moods that’s caused this state.
Anyhow, always happy to hear Tim discuss foundations of physics.
Thanks for your comment and input. You say that "it’s unhelpful to spend any significant time debating a Kastrup strawman as understood by two people who aren’t Bernardo". The point is that both Maudlin and myself have both been willing to talk to Kastrup about HIS ideas, and he bailed out on the discussion. If he's not willing to defend his own idea against his critics, I'm not sure what to say. In any case, thanks for your receptivity and input.
To say "philosophy offers only opinion" is unhelpful. Empiricism has a philosophical basis (answering "What can be said to be the case, in principle to contextually cover what is said to be true in fact."): it's based upon accepting Descartes' discrete separation of mind and body. Empiricism, as designed by Descartes scrupulously avoided ontology in favor of epistemology. Descartes sold the practice of natural science to the church fathers and judges of the Inquisition by not making claims about what is the case in absolute terms. Empirical practice posits hypothetical claims about this world on grounds of perceptual experience as described logically in a theory, and it's claims can be rejected at any future time by contradictory empirical evidence. The philosopher P.F. Strawson, in "Perception and its Objects".explained that science is conceptually a form of philosophy, not outside, or above it. Since requires an observer of particular objects, looking on from outside even if observers are part of Nature and care about what they are doing; try to find "caring about" in Nature-now we're back to God, the church and the Inquisitions torture chambers. A way to prove a heliocentric theory of the universe wrong is to choke the life out of the messenger.
That's all great, but philosophy is actually created by empiricism and not the other way round. Physics came first, the philosophers just didn't continue with it some 2300 years ago and have been intellectually adrift ever since.
@eismscience This was a great speech from Dr Maudlin! I'd propose you to try and involve Dr. Gabriele Carcassi (University of Michigan) to comment Dr Maudlin's model. His research on foundations of physics to me seems to profit of a 'reverse-engineering' approach to the physical law, and I suppose he would be able to listen logically sound ideas past the worn-out conventions.
Thank you very much for your comment and the reference to Carcassi. Let's see if we can make something happen. Thanks again.
Discrete space time and this event struture seems like what Wolfram is doing with his physics project. I would like to see a broadcast about a duscussion between them.
Thanks for your comment. That was my initial impression as well, but Maudlin did not feel the same. Maudlin told me that Wolfram's approach was radically different. In any case, thanks for your comment.
With respect to the idea presented (1:14:55) -- it sounds like a wonderful idea to create an institute where this type of activity can be fostered... however, I don't think you will do the idea justice by simply purchasing a plot of land and asking people to come participate.. it sounds to me that the "land" can be anywhere... what you really want to do is create a virtual forum where Physics students, Physicists, Mathematicians etc... can meet at various virtual conferences to share ideas and "discuss" things... in a more structured approach vs say just a chat room. But, I do understand the desire to have a physical location... I just don't think it will be able to be used by people as well as a virtual conference system where all the world can be present.
I guess my suggestion would be to create a system of conferencing where any institution has a virtual conferencing room / system of rooms that could interface with your "institute" to create a giant liaison where people from all over the world could meet and interact on one or more of the topics of interest presented by the institute (in real time). Similar to very large conferences in big cities, but held virtually in a distributed manner and organized by the one central location in order to provide a central place of oversight and organization.
Thanks for your comments and interest, Marc. I will try to come back to them as soon as I can. Thanks for your patience!
I disagree with most of the proposed solutions, but the analysis of problems mentioned is spot on.
Solutions about what problems? Please, give time marks and why you disagree
A form of Idealism that is consistent with the non-local experiments and the Aharanov-Bohm effect (I think) is Panpsychism. See Goff.
But I gather that’s not what Kastrup was talking about. What he wanted to talk about was QBism. But QBism is silly. I don’t go back to the textbooks and look up the Born rule every time I put on a pair of polarized sunglasses, and neither does a 5 year old.
Or Bayes' Theorem.
Nah, I'm not sure he ever even mentioned "QBism" in ANY of his 10+ books or countless interviews. Also Panpsychism isn't really a form of idealism & certainly not regarding BK's formulation. Though there are perhaps some vague overlaps regarding both QBism Vs. Analytical Idealism & Idealism Vs. Panpsychism. But the devil is in the details & they are all quite different things.
Thank you for this interesting interview.
Re: (21:00), It took a while to understand the issue with the word, "interpretation"... initially it just seems like a personal issue with the semantics. Ultimately, We can lump / split all we want. It is just a categorizing of how we view different things. Some people will call them interpretations and some will call them completely different theories. I do understand however, that Dr. Maudlin's issue is that many people seem to use the word "interpretation" too loosely when discussing theory (theories) because applying wide interpretation to a theory would result in a different theory.
Because there is some debate about division by zero in certain math circles, I am curious with the new mathematics that Dr. Maudlin is developing, where he stands on certain things like 0/0 or anything divided by 0.
The idea of developing a math that describes the geometry of space is very intriguing... It feels more intuitive for the basis to be discrete. Perhaps a new interview discussing this in the future! How many dimensions are being considered for this theory... ie, 3 physical dimensions, is there a "quantum" dimension in this theory? How is time being treated with respect to this theory?
Re: (1:07:40) I find it an interesting chess game, because earlier Dr. Maudlin was very opposed to the use of the word "interpretation", which then forces you (the host) to couch your question as "if one of the different theories... gives us insights into how to better run a city or country, or the planet... would you agree that it is a more useful approach vs one that does not..."
When the question is asked in that particular way, it certainly changes how I view the question. I think the answer is fairly obvious as the formation of the question includes the word -- "Better run". Is there any fool that would choose the Theory that would not run a city/country/planet better over one that did not?
I find this question very odd. The real issue tho, is better for who? better for what ideology? Better for which cultures? Which populations? There is no easy answer to these questions when you include the real meat of the problem into the question.
I agree with Dr. Maudlin on the issue at (1:12:41) Ethics is a different subject matter vs physics... it is something I have been trying to say many times, in many ways. While Physics may guide our behavior in the physical sense, how we form our ethics toward each other isn't really a basis in physics but in our free will. And of course there are those that do not believe in free-will and will argue that it is an illusion. Nevertheless, Dr. Maudlin clearly states he believes that ethics and physics are separate. And you can't have that without free-will. There are of course various physical influences on our behavior... hunger, disease, lack of resources... all affect how we behave. If there is something that physics might be able to do, is to solve these many issues.
@@marcfruchtman9473 As always, I appreciate your perspective on the relationship between physics and ethics.
One could argue that if a person is willing to grant that the continued existence of humanity is preferable to its demise, then this moral stance can be approached from a physical science perspective. The argument here is that the well-being and survival of humanity are ultimately based on physical conditions and factors. From this viewpoint, one might explore how various physical, biological, and sociological factors contribute to human well-being and ethical considerations. This approach moves morality away from philosophy and makes it an empirical science, I would argue.
If you're interested in my longer argument, you'll find it here: ruclips.net/video/KOC-fAe4xFk/видео.htmlsi=jIs0XLYAW-S0YdN_. As always, I would be open to talking about it for the channel.
Thanks again, Marc.
Tim just says that we shouldnt stop criticising new theories and correcting them all the time. That seems Popperian to me.
Thanks for your input. I wouldn't mistake Maudlin's clarity for banality. Here is one sample lecture: ruclips.net/video/4iutNJnud2U/видео.html. And here is a brief paper about one of his books: tinyurl.com/2epw3yjp. Let me know if you disagree and want to talk about it on camera. Thanks again.
@@eismscience thanks too😊
Perhaps a talk with the physicist David Deutsch would be a great input❤️
Reverse the question maybe? What are "bad" scientific theories that can increase the likelihood of catastrophe? It seems that there are several theories that are all bad for the same reason. Those that encourage nihilism that I can think of: simulation theory, many-worlds theory, two-state vector formalism, Idealism and panpsychism, etc.
Thanks for your input. You're right. Reversing the question is good. I'm curious why you think the two-state vector formalism leads to nihilism?
@@eismscience the same reason Tim gave. If everything is determined and the future is set with backward causation then where is the choice to do anything? I heard your explanation as well Luis, but agree with Tim. It will lead to nihilism even if that is not what was meant.
@@eismscience and of course this idealism will lead to extreme narcissism, which inevitably indirectly leads to nihilism or at least has the same eventual outcome: anarchy
@radical137 Thanks for clarifying. If that's Maudlin's main argument against the two-state approach, there are two compelling (from my perspective) responses: 1) the two-state vector formalism is not equivalent to determinism, and there is a formal mathematical argument to support that, in addition to indirect empirical evidence, not to mention our subjective experience, provided by Yakir Aharanov himself; and 2) the two-state formalism, in addition, provides insights into what to do, physically and mathematically, about two conflicting interpretations or theories or models (pick your favorite word) of reality, which in turn sheds light and leads to novel resolutions and answers to some of the biggest open questions in various other disciplines, including voting and political theory. Standby for a lot more about this, as Maulin has accepted an invitation to engage with our research team. We are actively working on these questions. Thanks again.
@@eismscience my own theory is a dualistic one with two-state formalism, and I know that my own theory should never be misunderstood to encourage nihilism. so I am going to look into Aharanov more closely as well and probably change my position. Thanks. The way I do it, to make a special exception that allows for freewill in an otherwise deterministic system by creating a virtual internal universe with conscious brains that allows for internal quantum jumps. All this is emergent but still important if we want to come up with a theory consistent with any scale or any level of emergence.
Great video. At 1:37:20 Tim mentions an event in spacetime and its neighbor events in spacetime and their neighbors and so on (lets call it scenario A) extending to infinity (implying at one instant of time). Later he goes on to talk about temporal events connected by directed arrows that only reach some neighboring events in the next, discrete minimal time tick (lets call it scenario B). But an event in spacetime has both space and time in it. So it is not clear if the neighbors as in scenario A above do or do not have time arrows in them and only have space adjacency? Or is he talking about only about space components of the events next to each other in space like terms? He calls it foliation. I think that is what we intuitively think of simultaneity. But SR says no such thing as global simultaneity has any meaning.
In any case and independent of Tim's discrete spacetime theory, it still makes sense to think of space point an instant, and that point, at that instant has another neighbor on the other side and so on to infinity. Can this logic be used to talk about simultaneity spatial surface. Sure, it may not be possible to access in any meaningful way (such as receiving or sending signals from) the space points that are far away because of the maximum velocity of light, but we can still think of that space like surface (plane (2d) or volume(3D) in SR)? And this is not the full sliver between the light cones but a specific planar, one point thick surface, cross section of it (assumin 2Ds for space). Does SR deal with this spatial surface in any special way.
Thanks for your comments and interest. Let me respond with my non-Maudlinian two cents:
Temporal Events and Neighbors:
Point A: The concept of an event in spacetime and its neighboring events extending to infinity implies that we're considering events at different instants in time. However, I think these neighbors primarily relate to spatial adjacency and temporal connectivity, where events at different instants are considered in the broader context of spacetime. This notion seems integral to understanding how discrete spacetime theory operates.
Point B: The discussion of temporal events connected by directed arrows indeed suggests events at the next discrete time tick. These directed arrows represent the temporal precedence of events. This concept introduces the idea of a foliation, which is essentially a way to structure and relate these temporal events.
Understanding Neighbors:
The distinction between neighbors in Point A (extending to infinity) and Point B (connected by time arrows in discrete time ticks) is essential. In the discrete spacetime framework discussed, both spatial adjacency and temporal connectivity are taken into account. The neighbors in Point A involve both space and time, whereas in Point B, we are specifically addressing temporal connections.
Foliation and Simultaneity:
The notion of foliation and what people intuitively think of as "simultaneity" is intriguing. Special relativity (SR) challenges the idea of global simultaneity, as different observers may perceive events as simultaneous or not depending on their relative motion. However, in the discrete spacetime framework, foliation serves as a way to introduce a form of simultaneity at a fundamental level. It's not global simultaneity, as SR negates, but rather a local simultaneity that emerges within this discrete structure.
Spatial Surface in SR:
Special relativity primarily deals with the spacetime structure in terms of light cones, emphasizing the relative nature of simultaneity. The concept of a specific, planar spatial surface is not explicitly addressed in SR. However, in the context of discrete spacetime, as described in the interview, there is an opportunity to consider specific spatial surfaces within this framework, acknowledging their existence while adhering to the principles of relativity.
Thanks again for your interest.
@@eismscience Thanks for your response. The way I understood (which may be wrong) from what Tim said, is what we are now calling Point A in our discussion. I think Tim only meant space adjacency. So this is one member surface of the foliation. And after the next discrete time tick, the next surface that is a member of the foliation comes about. And then the next and the next towards the future. In other words Tim first meant to introduce space adjacency only. Because at 1:37:28 he says "these neighbors are not before or after...I am not introducing time yet". (this I call Point A or scenario A). He also mentions foliation at this point. THEN at 1:38:05, he says "now I put time in" (which I call Point B). Can we get that clarified from Tim? Because he seems to be introducing some global simultaneity at every instant - what I mean by that is - all spatial neighbors extending to infinity at that instant. And to me even in SR there must be a way to talk about it. And like I said in my second paragraph above, sure, due to the maximum speed of light limitation an event may not able be access anything meaningful from spatially distant neighbor events that are far away. And if we are talking about an instant...then heck an event will have causal access to only touching neighbors (may be?) and not even the neighbors on the other side. It has to wait for one time tick to have access to them. Hope you understand what I am saying.
Thanks for great videos again.
Thanks again for your comment. Let me see if we can get some input from Tim about this, either here or in a more complete lecture/presentation.
@@eismscience Wow, that will be great. Let us know if I can send questions for Tim ahead of time.
@@SandipChitale Yes, definitely, send questions. That would be great. Thanks again.
Mr Maudlin you are one of the few modern day physicists that are reputable and worth listening to. That said, you need to step up your game by many orders of magnitude if you want to advance physics beyond its current 1930ish mind set. In a similar way that you positioned your career at the junction of Physics and philosophy, you need to blend in the psychological motivations that influence the modern theories. For example, listening to Sean Carroll's abomination about so called Many Worlds is obviously driven by greed. It is imperative that someone of your stature Mr Maudlin call Sean out on his phony quest for lucrative book deals, by suggesting, for example, that Congress pass strict tax laws on profiting from junk science by imposing a 100% income tax. Be interesting to see if Sean changes his tune after that. My point is, physics is stuck in the dark ages of 1930, and the physics community is not cleansing itself of the villains holding it hostage. To hear the phrase "collapses the wavefunction" is equivalent to hearing "the moon is made of cheese". Yes it is that stupid. Stop saying it please Mr Maudlin.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.-----------------------------