I’d like to think that the musical intros on your and Sean’s podcasts are you guys yourselves and that you’ll jam on your intro themes one day in a super mash up.
In the case of Sean's podcast music, that's a college friend of his who wrote and performed it (as I understand it from Sean on said podcast). Sean has apparently let his time on the bass guitar suffer. Tsk, tsk, tsk ;)
This was my favorite. Two of the most eloquent and intelligent physicists alive, passionately arguing about perhaps the most profound question in physics. Please arrange such a setup more often!
I'm an avid listener to Sean's podcast (btw the reason why I'm here is because he promoted your podcast), and have read his book on time. On the other hand I love David's genuine and almost stereotypical expression of wonder, confusion, and fascination regarding the various mysteries of our world, and the theories that we put forth. Brillant episode!
I might be Sean's biggest fan on the planet. I love his communication style. I really enjoyed the discussion on Boltzmann Brains. It's one of my favorite topics in physics.
Awesome interview, Robinson! I really enjoyed David's point about being skeptical of a priori intuitions re the correct probability distribution of physical states.
I appreciate David more every time I hear him. Sean, of course, is probably the goat explainer of physics. But man, I love how David dissects a problem or difference! 👏Super neat-o stuff gang! 👀....😏
Yes, Sean Carroll is a gift...but really, if you chose to listen to this, your mind is in no way "lesser", but open and receptive, like all human minds should be.
@@jasonanderson5980 Minds are not all the same, just as bodies are not all the same; there is significant variation in both. Sean has an exceptional mind, and I deeply appreciate that he shares his thoughts with those of us who are unable to fully understand the physical universe to the depths and breadths that he is capable of attaining.
I disagree. In this discussion one of them isn't listening, keeps referring to earlier moments in the conversation, keeps saying 'i could get into it more' but never does and is waffling. I guarantee if you sat them down and asked them to explain what the other person just said, you would not get a coherent answer.
@polkad3v I don't completely disagree with you. David Albert, in his attempt to be accurate while still using common language, causes him to stubble around. That said, I still stick by opinion. These two are great communicators of very highly technical subjects. Just opinions, though, everyone has them. Best wishes
Sean deserves a nobel prize. Best communicator of deep scientific concepts that break the brains of even the brightest minds trained for decades in math and physics that we have ever seen.
Albert is straight out of Hollywood casting for a professor. Sean rarely blinks when like my hunting he spots his prey. Love both these guys. Characters as my uncle would say:) I must say the multiverse explanation does sound good. Wouldn’t that make this reality we inhabit stranger and more complicated than “ bang / inflation / Pink Floyd?
I have been waiting for this discussion ever since Dr. Albert was invited onto Mindscape. The disagreement they have regarding self-locating uncertainties seemed so very important, and finally we have a continuation. I was very surprised to see Dr. Albert is skeptical of Bayesian interpretations of probability, and that this was his underlying hangup. During their first discussion, I had the feeling that Sean Caroll was hiding some critical flaw in his arguments from his audience, but now I feel he has properly defended his position.
Dude, your channel is like a youtube version of SEP or maybe even more extensive in terms of scope and accessibility. I wish I could cite your videos in my master's thesis. Guess I should spread your channel to my fellow students.
For some unexplainable reason, David Alberts way of presenting his thoughts really catches me. I have no clue whether it's his choice of words, his pronunciation or his gestures, but whatever it is, it makes me want to listen and to understand. That is not to dismiss Sean Carrol, I even think that Sean is often more concise and straight to the point, but for me, David Albert has this gift to make the actual process of thinking visible (as opposed to merely present the outcome). Thanks for having both of 'em on your podcast.
@ 10:00 David starts talking about double slit experiment, the thing to note is that - if we perform the experiment with a single electron, what we find is that we see one single spot on the screen, we do not see interference pattern. The interesting thing may be that the spot may or may not be in exactly the line of source and the slit thru which it may have passed. And even if it were not, it is possible that the electron may have brushed off of the wall of the slit and lost its straight line trajectory. It is true though that when both slits are open, there are places where electrons do not end up it is said, but if one slit is closed then they do end up in those places. May be that is the strange bit. Secondly, if we perform this same single electron experiment, with say a gap of 1 day between each electron being fired, and we do this experiment with lots and lots of electrons, only then the interference band pattern appears. But how could that be interference, at least to the way I understand it. IMO interference in classical waves happens at same instant in time and crests and troughs are created at many places, not at one spot. Therefore, I never understand, then as to why scientists call this appearance of band pattern interference. Even more strange things that scientists say is that the reason the interference bands appear because each electron was interfering with itself as if it were a wave. Once again, huh? Where is my thinking going wrong?
I don't think it's correct that "if we perform the experiment with a single electron, what we find is that we see one single spot on the screen, we do not see interference pattern." It's true that you see a single spot on the screen. But so long as you don't look to see whether the electron passed through one of the slits, you still get an interference pattern. That is, if you send electrons through one at a time (however long you wait between electrons), the resulting pattern of spots on the screen will involve clustering of spots along interference lines, as if each electron was guided by a wave that passed through both slits and interfered with itself.
@@snowpants2212 I think you missed my point. My specific point was about, lets say when we do the experiment with one electron only and we stop at point in time, then we get one spot. That is all. If it were a wave passing through two slits we will not get a crest at only one point. There will be many crests and troughs right? And this happens because the wave interferes with itself at same instant in time but many different places. And we also know that if we do not observe the electrons (plural) - ( to make the time separation I said a gap of 1 day between each electron ) - for which slit they are going through, yes we get interference pattern. Yes I know that. And if we do observe which slit the electrons are going through, then the interference pattern disappears. Yes I know that also. So if we want to send 1000 electrons then the experiment will thousand days. Which means that the interference pattern will develop over thousand days and not at one instant in time. My key point is that a single electron by itself, because it creates a single spot on the screen, cannot be said to be a wave itself. Sure a collection of electrons behave as if they were riding a wave somehow, but as they pass thru 1 day apart it could not be same wave right? I think you make a subtle point "was guided by a wave" and you did not say electron itself IS "a wave". And that I do not disagree. But I am trying to point out that electron itself is not a wave and thus it is wrong to say it has dual nature. I also do not understand when then you go on to say "....and interfered with itself. Here by itself you mean the electron or the WAVE that guides it? If later I do not disagree. My objection is to the statement that scientists give DSE as an example of electron being wave and particle itself. Electron guided by a wave - sure - Bohemian or De Broglie. Hope it makes sense.
@@SandipChitale I now think we understand each other and agree. Yes, it is as if the guiding *wave* of each electron interferes with itself. The "dual nature," on my preferred view (Bohm), does not involve the electron being both a wave and a particle. It involves the electron being a particle that moves as if guided by a wave.
@snowpants2212 Excellent. We agree. I feel sometimes scientists are sloppy. They may understand each other what they really mean, but non-scientists but interested in physics people are misled. Because based on our discussion, one may end up with Bohmian interpretation or something else that is not it.
David has entered a psychological state where rambling and repetition have taken hold. Sean, on the other hand, is precise, parsimonious, clear, and quicker to reach his point.
What are you talking about? David is incredibly clear. I don't know why you people let your irrational attachment to science figures blind you to the worth someone else brings to the conversation. I guarantee you that David has thought about the philosophical ramifications of these ideas a lot more than Sean has.
@Al-ji4gd Maybe your hearing aid malfunctioned by not picking up the innumerable "umm...umm...umm" and "aaa....aaa...aaa" meaningless filler noises in just about every sentence david uttered repeatedly; maybe it is your low IQ that failed to pick up the complete mess of david's explanation as to why it was low entropy at big bang by failing to include smoothness gravity field ( and hiding behing zeroth order approximation jargon) that, thankfully, sean caroll had to correct masterfully as our fumbling philosopher hid behind his munchies while washing it down with a big glass of hogwash. However, you have been drunk with the same hogwash that david spewed laced with his usual verbosity.
Ooohh, Prof. Carrol is the reason Algorithm Almighty sends me (emissary or sacrifice is yet to be seen) & the intro featuring Albert was choice af (hence the afore-expressed "ooohh"); you gentlemen have my full attenti- Squirrel!!
Love the format, subject matter and guests.❤❤❤ Paired electrons, pair of Kirks, pair of gloves are "entangled"? Didnt Einstein deploy the pair of gloves metaphor to debunk superposition, spooky action at a distance? Remains a mystery? I may be illiterate in quantum mechanics, but I know when equations change adjectives to nouns, descriptions to explanations, concepts to objects. The menu is not the food, the map is not the territory... can the math model ever be a complete explanation of fundamental reality? Has Naturalism provided a physical rational mechanism for the fundamental forces? ...gravity, magnetism, electricity, time. Imagine a horse and chariot moving together with nothing physical connecting them. Now consider the earth and sun, electron and nucleus. Doesnt everything we take for granted in our common everyday present experience arising out of a mystery? I perceive Dr. Albert resists the dilution of naturalism with mathemagics. "a serious candidate for a physical theory.."😂😂😂😂 I bet he not invited to many quantum parties..😂😂 ❤❤❤ thanks for your contribution mother.
I think I know the answer, BUT! you cannot repeat this! Though, please feel free to test it out 👍 Annnyways, someone who speaks to you seriously with a lot of undulation in their voice in a deliberate tone, in what may seem condescending, does that because you will remember it much better than if you heard monotone with no effort or seriousness in sound or expression. Sean knows this psychological hack, or is actually pissed off. 🤷♂️ I'd say maybe 85% of the time, he's not pissed. 🍻
Robinson your doing a great job letting these gentlemen understand each other. I'm saying this at 64 minutes in, your engagement a couple of minutes later is hilarious, after writing that, and the point of each other's stance is really close to perfect. Not finished, still an hour to go, but thanks. 122 minutes, this has been disagreement about language and numbers, David doesn't seem to agree that language can explain numbers. This is a area of contention that has to be resolved. Tough to get through Robinson, but worth the effort. Peace
Sean's position is a pre-Pascal probability (ref. Ian Hacking book) in which probability meant approved by an accepted authority. At that it was the Roman Catholic authority, but in Sean's purview it is the authority of the subjective observer. But that is a rather arbitrary authority.
I'm trying to understand Professor Albert's Kirk example, perhaps inspired by the Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within," involving a transporter malfunction. He suggests that if probability is involved (I would say independent probability) then sometimes both Kirks should have the same color shirt. But he set up the condition of the thought experiment that the Kirks would always have different colored shirts. Let me use a different example. At the end of a manufacturing line there is a machine that packages gloves. There is a table with two boxes, labelled 'A' and 'B.' The machine always puts a left glove into one box and a right glove into the other box, and then ships them out. It is a strange way to sell gloves but ... philosophers. Am I right? Professor Albert thinks there should be the possibility that the machine could prefer left gloves 90% of the time. So suppose that the table rotates, with the boxes on it. The machine puts a left glove (90% of the time) into the nearest box, and the remaining glove into the remaining box. The 50/50 probability of the boxes hides the 90/10 probability of the gloves. The full boxes are removed from the table, empty ones are placed on, and the process repeats. I'm not sure if this example clarifies anything, but the attempt was to break the problem down into smaller pieces.
That was another truly fun episode! Both Sean Carroll and David Albert are fascinating guests. Would there ever be any possibility or interest in having them on to discuss the context and meaning of the Aharonov-Bohm effect and the way in which philosophical and physical notions of causality have been developed or have shifted from the days of Aristotle to the present? Possibly still relevant to the latter aspect of that topic, Bertrand Russell wrote in his essay "On the Notion of Cause" (1912): "To me it seems that philosophy ought not to assume such legislative functions, and that the reason why physics has ceased to look for causes is that, in fact, there are no such things. The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm." (pg. 142, Mysticism and Logic, Bertrand Russell)
A great discussion! Another very interesting person in this area is David Wallace (not the author). He might be an interesting guest, maybe in a debate with David.
Sean Carroll is simply shopping Everett's nonsense around to get attention. You can safely ignore everything he says along those lines. It's plain old fashioned trolling.
@@schmetterling4477 0:05 - Carroll’s arguments against a strictly frequentist view of probability are fairly standard and independent of his Everettian views.
I agree with David. The chances of our universe being exactly the way that it is, should be 100% because it is exactly like it is.😅 Also, 16 ads and counting during this episode.😮
@@kyoung21b Given a many worlds perspective, the world that we happen to occupy turns out to be exactly as it is. I suspect that's where he's coming from. If we study our universe, what is the probability that we will observe a different one?
I'm an hour in but one probability example I read was - if you throw a ball you can calculate where the ball will go easily. If you have a box of infinite N balls and you pour them out. The probability where most will go is the usable location even if all points could be calculated
I must have seen this conversation in another universe before because I swear to God I remember several years ago, David Albert talking about this Captain Kirk thought experiment while he had one leg up in front of that same book case. Sean Carroll was somehow involved as well. Am I going mad?
The Many Worlds theory strikes me a little like String theory- one has to postulate something untestable to force the math to make sense. Why not accept that the prevailing view of Quantum mechanics is incomplete or,perhaps, wrong? The attitude “shut up and calculate “ will always fall short of delivering a complete understanding.
Many worlds is the opposite of “shut up and calculate”: that phrase is associated with Bohrs Copenhagen interpretation. Many worlds just accepts the consequences of the Schrödinger equation without adding an extra process (collapse) to recover the familiar (unitary) classical world that we perceive. Mathematically these and many other interpretations are identical. The association to string theory seems tenuous at best, other than “theories at the edge of what we know are often unfamiliar and hard to experiment on”, which seems fairly self evident.
I think one problem with many worlds argument is that the probabilities does not add up. If 'a' happens with probability 40 %, 'b' with prob 35 and 'c' with probability 25, and there is a world where each of them happens, then the probability for 'a' is actually 100 %, 'b' 100 % and 'c' 100 %, because there is always a world where any of them occur. But probabilities can not add up to over 100 % and this would be 300 %, so we have a contradiction.
Every Star in our Universe is a Brain. We just don't under stand them. They are highly evolved, surely alive (in a different way then us), have a definite level of consciousness (since they are active in the metaphysical structures , the fusion activity that happens within is similar to neural activities in brains), they create life, planets, have a Life and Death period, and a lot more to be said. I look up at the sun every time it shines at me and stare at him/her/it without looking directly at it, and I assume it can read the Neural activity in brain, its very highly evolved, evolved enough to possible poke a hole in the universe one day and do who know what? I just say thank you , for letting this miracle of life be allowed on our planet, what a miracle ! All the doing of our very own Star, "The Sun" !
How is debating Boltmans brains different than debating if we live in a simulation? Also, since via argument if we are more likely to be both in a simulation and also more likely to be a Boltsman brain its it even more likely we are a Boltsman in a simulated universe where someone is just testing to see if we will exist?
David Albert's concern has more to do with the mysteries of consciousness and the illusion of self rather than quantum probabilities and splitting/branching of the wave function. I recommend using electrons or rocks rather than sentient beings I'm his thought experimenrs.
I don't get Albert's argument on the incoherence of the argument that he's likely to be a Boltzmann brain. The latter argument seems to imply: If you think the laws of physics are thus and so (our current understanding), then it's likelier that you're a Boltzmann brain who turns out to lack good reason to believe that the laws are thus and so (because your memories weren't caused the right way to give you good reason) than it is that you're a natural brain who has good reason to believe the laws are thus and so (because your memories were caused the right way). Albert seem to reason that this argument doesn't rationally require you to adopt its conclusion, because the conclusion undermines your faith in the premise. But the premise isn't that *you have good reason to think* the laws of physics are thus and so. It's that the laws *are* thus and so.
I think Albert's conclusion is this. It is incoherent to accept a physical theory that concludes that we are likely to be Boltzmann brains. The reason is this: To think that we are Boltzmann brains is to think that we never conduct any empirical research that affords us to develop any physical theory whatsoever, including the one that concludes that we are Boltzmann brains. Such a thinking is self-undermining and incoherent. Hence, we cannot rationally accept a physical theory that makes this kind of conclusion. We can infer from the claim that we cannot rationally accept such a physical theory to that such a physical theory is wrong. You may complain there is a jump between epistemological claim to a metaphysical claim. But if you accept the epistemological claim that we cannot rationally accept such a physical theory while still holding on to the metaphysical claim that such a physical theory could still be true, you again land in incoherence or in what Carroll calls the cognitive instability. For similar reasoning, you can check on a paper titled "Why we are not living in a computer simulation".
@@abrlim5597 Thanks. Why must a Boltzmann brain "never" be able to conduct empirical research that affords them good reason to believe the correct physical theory? Can't I be a Boltzmann brain that just started now, but such that I'm hooked up properly to the world going forward? Anyway, the threatened "incoherence" seems more like mere cognitive dissonance. I liked the argument Carroll spelled out later, on which the same statistical sort of argument would lead us to expect that most Boltzmann brains see a black sky. I didn't catch how the probability of "natural brain seeing a sky with CMB" compares with that of "Boltzmann brain seeing a sky with CMB".
A layman's view of fine tuning: If the physical parameters that permit life to exist could be different then they would be different but they aren't different because life does exist. Therefore the probability that the natural physical parameters are those that permit life to exist is 1.
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the universe is a lot of things, but it's not friendly to life. Try breathing four inches below the water surface or eight miles above. You will notice very quickly that the overwhelming part of the universe is trying to kill you in an instant. ;-)
you know i emaild professor Dr. Sean Carroll a question, “ does the many world’s branch have to happen at the intersection of differential geometry That is the universe that we should call a “moment”? and in that single frame, the question for many worlds is, does that branching happen at that intersection? Or can it happen at any intersection and so long as the the probability equation is satisfied that it does eventually happen then it satisfies many worlds?” His response was to go check quora lol. Can anyone else answer my question ?
The observer is philisophically positioned to the speed of light. If we can philisphocally extend the time of these observable wave parameters, we can access more time frames. Of the past, red, or violet, future.
What if the universe is rotatating, revolving around a center as it expands? We would see the same galaxies at different times in their lives. As we focused backward in time, the same objects would be found in different parts of the sky. That would mean the universe is less massive than we suppose. Your Welcome.
That probability discussion is key. Sean is trying to say that possibilities are only ever subjective. They're in our heads. This is unsatisfactory. This is anthropomorphising the possibility space.
The Kirk thought experiment makes no sense as stated. If the transporter creates two Kirks, each Kirk has the subjective experience of being *the* Kirk. Landing with their eyes closed or open will make no difference to how they perceive their self-identity. It doesn’t matter what the original color of Kirk’s shirt is (green or blue) either, since there will now be two Kirks, one with a green shirt and one with a blue shirt. In this scenario, what does it mean to say “there is a 90% chance Kirk will have a green shirt” when there is always a Kirk with a green shirt AND a Kirk with a blue shirt and each Kirk thinks they are *the* Kirk?
The structure of the problem means the probabilities can only be 50%. Albert really needs a bit more humility for that kind of discussion to be productive
Far too many ads. One was an hour long! I listen to as a podcast so returned twice to my tablet to skip. Now 27 mins in I’m going to skip the entire video.
Interesting talk. I wonder how there is room for "subjective uncertainty" about probability if Sean Carroll is not a dualist - in his view, the subjective consciousness of the experimenter/observer can be nothing but a part of the same physical system described by the wave function, right? So how can it be something that has this indeterminacy if the conscious "I" is just a part of the deterministic wave function?
The wave function doesn't describe one physical system. It describes an unmeasured ensemble of such systems. Of course, if you don't even know what a wave function is, then you can't use it to successfully argue any point with it. ;-)
I’d like to think that the musical intros on your and Sean’s podcasts are you guys yourselves and that you’ll jam on your intro themes one day in a super mash up.
It is me! I did the drums. Maybe if Sean wants to collab with his bass we can release a Seanbinson album
@@robinsonerhardt Do it!
In the case of Sean's podcast music, that's a college friend of his who wrote and performed it (as I understand it from Sean on said podcast). Sean has apparently let his time on the bass guitar suffer. Tsk, tsk, tsk ;)
when i saw the e-drums i knew you did it.. its very cool and also fitting@@robinsonerhardt
This was my favorite. Two of the most eloquent and intelligent physicists alive, passionately arguing about perhaps the most profound question in physics. Please arrange such a setup more often!
I'm an avid listener to Sean's podcast (btw the reason why I'm here is because he promoted your podcast), and have read his book on time. On the other hand I love David's genuine and almost stereotypical expression of wonder, confusion, and fascination regarding the various mysteries of our world, and the theories that we put forth. Brillant episode!
so glad you found it!
I might be Sean's biggest fan on the planet. I love his communication style. I really enjoyed the discussion on Boltzmann Brains. It's one of my favorite topics in physics.
i think everyone that knows about sean might be seans biggest fan lol
He's incredible. I am self taught and learning physics for fun, and Sean is my go- to guy@@timherz86.
I didnt know this podcast existed until a few weeks ago. Thank you for creating and maintaining this space!
My pleasure! Thanks for listening :)
I wish Sean carrol announced his appearances in this channel. I would have hated to miss this conversation.
There may be a world in which you did miss this one...
Awesome interview, Robinson! I really enjoyed David's point about being skeptical of a priori intuitions re the correct probability distribution of physical states.
I appreciate David more every time I hear him. Sean, of course, is probably the goat explainer of physics. But man, I love how David dissects a problem or difference! 👏Super neat-o stuff gang! 👀....😏
one of the absolutely best interviewers hands down, Thank you for your work... is absolutely ruined by all the commercials. very irritating
Can I say how fortunate we are to have Sean among us lesser minds. He is a gift
Yes, Sean Carroll is a gift...but really, if you chose to listen to this, your mind is in no way "lesser", but open and receptive, like all human minds should be.
@@jasonanderson5980 Minds are not all the same, just as bodies are not all the same; there is significant variation in both. Sean has an exceptional mind, and I deeply appreciate that he shares his thoughts with those of us who are unable to fully understand the physical universe to the depths and breadths that he is capable of attaining.
He speaks w an intonation like Canada or Australian to us lesser minds on this helltrain called America 2024.
Great guests! Two of the best communicators in the world of physics.
I disagree. In this discussion one of them isn't listening, keeps referring to earlier moments in the conversation, keeps saying 'i could get into it more' but never does and is waffling. I guarantee if you sat them down and asked them to explain what the other person just said, you would not get a coherent answer.
@polkad3v I don't completely disagree with you. David Albert, in his attempt to be accurate while still using common language, causes him to stubble around. That said, I still stick by opinion. These two are great communicators of very highly technical subjects. Just opinions, though, everyone has them. Best wishes
I always love when i see these two in discussions. They bring very good perspectives
Absolutely.
it's encouraging to see physicists keeping each other honest.
As someone who is finds MW very compelling, it was very satisfying to hear about a sane physicist in the other camp. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
The only way you can find MWI "compelling" is by not knowing anything about physics. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 😅 that seems like an overconfident assessment
@@bayesian0.0 It comes with my territory. I am a physics PhD who has spent 40 years thinking about the topic. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 haha :p Well, I am skeptical that your confidence is warranted, but still curious why you think the matter is so clear cut
Sean deserves a nobel prize. Best communicator of deep scientific concepts that break the brains of even the brightest minds trained for decades in math and physics that we have ever seen.
This is amazing! You’re interviewing really fascinating people!
The fascinatingest, imo
Can’t believe I’m just barely finding this channel. Great work, brother.
Thanks so much!!!
I enjoyed watching a few of Carroll's pandemic physics lectures. Excited to see this!
Hope you enjoy it!
Amazing to see the growth of your podcast. Keep it up brotha! ❤
Thanks so much David
"You becoming entangled with the system you're looking at."
Beautifully stated.
It’s simply put, the observer theory. When the alien/aliens collapses the observer. Beauty is no longer. Entropy has it’s position in time.
Albert is straight out of Hollywood casting for a professor. Sean rarely blinks when like my hunting he spots his prey. Love both these guys. Characters as my uncle would say:)
I must say the multiverse explanation does sound good. Wouldn’t that make this reality we inhabit stranger and more complicated than “ bang / inflation / Pink Floyd?
1:31:00 onwards, David's "that's a funny thing to say" point here is fantastic. I never thought about it like that before.
Amazing guests, love when there is disagreements with smart people.
I love how you gave them space to go on and on with their resionings. So cool!
Thanks!!!
It keeps getting better and better
That was brutal listening to David
I have been waiting for this discussion ever since Dr. Albert was invited onto Mindscape. The disagreement they have regarding self-locating uncertainties seemed so very important, and finally we have a continuation. I was very surprised to see Dr. Albert is skeptical of Bayesian interpretations of probability, and that this was his underlying hangup. During their first discussion, I had the feeling that Sean Caroll was hiding some critical flaw in his arguments from his audience, but now I feel he has properly defended his position.
I claim a 100% probability that David Albert will never bring up the Captain Kirk scenario again.
😂😂
@@piercebros it made me chuckle too
There is nowhere near enough David Albert on RUclips
I am working hard to change that
@@robinsonerhardt Thank you
To be clear. I will always side with Sean Carroll in this matchup, but I do respect how effective David is at communicating the concepts
Dude, your channel is like a youtube version of SEP or maybe even more extensive in terms of scope and accessibility. I wish I could cite your videos in my master's thesis. Guess I should spread your channel to my fellow students.
hahaha i'm so glad it's useful for you!
Great one! I'm liking the two guest format
I love it, too.
@@robinsonerhardt also adds drama to the thumbnail!
You had me at David Alb..subscribed and bell thingied (technical term) immediately.
Haha! Thanks!
Excellent content, just subscribed, but the frequency of ads is killing it😢
Great episode! Love the guests Robinson brings on!
thanks jake :)
I have never seen so many ads in a video on youtube - congrats for that
Being David Albert. Can't unhear.
Sean Carroll’s attention spam is impressive.
LMAO! If this wasn't a typo, this is the funniest thing I have heard in a long while and so true!
Great discussion. Proving that Physics needs Philosophy and vice versa.
For some unexplainable reason, David Alberts way of presenting his thoughts really catches me. I have no clue whether it's his choice of words, his pronunciation or his gestures, but whatever it is, it makes me want to listen and to understand. That is not to dismiss Sean Carrol, I even think that Sean is often more concise and straight to the point, but for me, David Albert has this gift to make the actual process of thinking visible (as opposed to merely present the outcome). Thanks for having both of 'em on your podcast.
Very thought provoking 📈
I agree...still parsing through it!
What a wholesome comment section! And they're all absolutely right, amazing episode with great people and really interesting questions and arguments:D
Thank you!!!!
@ 10:00 David starts talking about double slit experiment, the thing to note is that - if we perform the experiment with a single electron, what we find is that we see one single spot on the screen, we do not see interference pattern. The interesting thing may be that the spot may or may not be in exactly the line of source and the slit thru which it may have passed. And even if it were not, it is possible that the electron may have brushed off of the wall of the slit and lost its straight line trajectory. It is true though that when both slits are open, there are places where electrons do not end up it is said, but if one slit is closed then they do end up in those places. May be that is the strange bit. Secondly, if we perform this same single electron experiment, with say a gap of 1 day between each electron being fired, and we do this experiment with lots and lots of electrons, only then the interference band pattern appears. But how could that be interference, at least to the way I understand it. IMO interference in classical waves happens at same instant in time and crests and troughs are created at many places, not at one spot. Therefore, I never understand, then as to why scientists call this appearance of band pattern interference. Even more strange things that scientists say is that the reason the interference bands appear because each electron was interfering with itself as if it were a wave. Once again, huh? Where is my thinking going wrong?
I don't think it's correct that "if we perform the experiment with a single electron, what we find is that we see one single spot on the screen, we do not see interference pattern." It's true that you see a single spot on the screen. But so long as you don't look to see whether the electron passed through one of the slits, you still get an interference pattern. That is, if you send electrons through one at a time (however long you wait between electrons), the resulting pattern of spots on the screen will involve clustering of spots along interference lines, as if each electron was guided by a wave that passed through both slits and interfered with itself.
@@snowpants2212 I think you missed my point. My specific point was about, lets say when we do the experiment with one electron only and we stop at point in time, then we get one spot. That is all. If it were a wave passing through two slits we will not get a crest at only one point. There will be many crests and troughs right? And this happens because the wave interferes with itself at same instant in time but many different places.
And we also know that if we do not observe the electrons (plural) - ( to make the time separation I said a gap of 1 day between each electron ) - for which slit they are going through, yes we get interference pattern. Yes I know that. And if we do observe which slit the electrons are going through, then the interference pattern disappears. Yes I know that also. So if we want to send 1000 electrons then the experiment will thousand days. Which means that the interference pattern will develop over thousand days and not at one instant in time.
My key point is that a single electron by itself, because it creates a single spot on the screen, cannot be said to be a wave itself. Sure a collection of electrons behave as if they were riding a wave somehow, but as they pass thru 1 day apart it could not be same wave right?
I think you make a subtle point "was guided by a wave" and you did not say electron itself IS "a wave". And that I do not disagree. But I am trying to point out that electron itself is not a wave and thus it is wrong to say it has dual nature. I also do not understand when then you go on to say "....and interfered with itself. Here by itself you mean the electron or the WAVE that guides it? If later I do not disagree. My objection is to the statement that scientists give DSE as an example of electron being wave and particle itself.
Electron guided by a wave - sure - Bohemian or De Broglie.
Hope it makes sense.
@@SandipChitale I now think we understand each other and agree. Yes, it is as if the guiding *wave* of each electron interferes with itself. The "dual nature," on my preferred view (Bohm), does not involve the electron being both a wave and a particle. It involves the electron being a particle that moves as if guided by a wave.
@snowpants2212 Excellent. We agree.
I feel sometimes scientists are sloppy. They may understand each other what they really mean, but non-scientists but interested in physics people are misled. Because based on our discussion, one may end up with Bohmian interpretation or something else that is not it.
Thanks!
David has entered a psychological state where rambling and repetition have taken hold.
Sean, on the other hand, is precise, parsimonious, clear, and quicker to reach his point.
To be fair, I think it's more that Sean is an extremely gifted communicator. Everybody would end up in his shadow by comparison.
What are you talking about? David is incredibly clear. I don't know why you people let your irrational attachment to science figures blind you to the worth someone else brings to the conversation. I guarantee you that David has thought about the philosophical ramifications of these ideas a lot more than Sean has.
@Al-ji4gd Maybe your hearing aid malfunctioned by not picking up the innumerable "umm...umm...umm" and "aaa....aaa...aaa" meaningless filler noises in just about every sentence david uttered repeatedly; maybe it is your low IQ that failed to pick up the complete mess of david's explanation as to why it was low entropy at big bang by failing to include smoothness gravity field ( and hiding behing zeroth order approximation jargon) that, thankfully, sean caroll had to correct masterfully as our fumbling philosopher hid behind his munchies while washing it down with a big glass of hogwash. However, you have been drunk with the same hogwash that david spewed laced with his usual verbosity.
Ooohh, Prof. Carrol is the reason Algorithm Almighty sends me (emissary or sacrifice is yet to be seen) & the intro featuring Albert was choice af (hence the afore-expressed "ooohh"); you gentlemen have my full attenti- Squirrel!!
Love the format, subject matter and guests.❤❤❤
Paired electrons, pair of Kirks, pair of gloves are "entangled"?
Didnt Einstein deploy the pair of gloves metaphor to debunk superposition, spooky action at a distance?
Remains a mystery?
I may be illiterate in quantum mechanics, but I know when equations change adjectives to nouns,
descriptions to explanations, concepts to objects.
The menu is not the food,
the map is not the territory...
can the math model ever be a complete explanation of fundamental reality?
Has Naturalism provided a physical rational mechanism for the fundamental forces? ...gravity, magnetism, electricity, time.
Imagine a horse and chariot moving together with nothing physical connecting them.
Now consider the earth and sun, electron and nucleus.
Doesnt everything we take for granted in our common everyday present experience arising out of a mystery?
I perceive Dr. Albert resists the dilution of naturalism with mathemagics. "a
serious candidate for a physical theory.."😂😂😂😂
I bet he not invited to many quantum parties..😂😂
❤❤❤ thanks for your contribution mother.
Why do I always get the impression that Sean is exasperated and pissed off, but politely not showing it?
I think I know the answer, BUT! you cannot repeat this! Though, please feel free to test it out 👍
Annnyways, someone who speaks to you seriously with a lot of undulation in their voice in a deliberate tone, in what may seem condescending, does that because you will remember it much better than if you heard monotone with no effort or seriousness in sound or expression. Sean knows this psychological hack, or is actually pissed off. 🤷♂️ I'd say maybe 85% of the time, he's not pissed.
🍻
That was fun. Love Robinson's mustache: makes him look like a friendly gay cop.
thanks ope
I like their *manner*. It's not at all that the manner is identical. Each has his own manner, and each is charming!
Robinson your doing a great job letting these gentlemen understand each other. I'm saying this at 64 minutes in, your engagement a couple of minutes later is hilarious, after writing that, and the point of each other's stance is really close to perfect. Not finished, still an hour to go, but thanks. 122 minutes, this has been disagreement about language and numbers, David doesn't seem to agree that language can explain numbers. This is a area of contention that has to be resolved. Tough to get through Robinson, but worth the effort. Peace
Thanks so much, William. I really appreciate it!
@@robinsonerhardtSorry, Billy is fine, judges, lawyers and the police call me William.
Whoa..huge episode!
:)
Clear thinking in todays world is rare.
Imagine trying to follow these guys really hard then ad interrupts every couple of minutes. Not easy!
Great video brother
you're terrible
@@robinsonerhardtwhy would you say such a thing?
@@jackwaldman9928 sneaky...
What a treat!
It certainly was for me!
What a pure love between man and a cat
Good conversation.
Sean's position is a pre-Pascal probability (ref. Ian Hacking book) in which probability meant approved by an accepted authority. At that it was the Roman Catholic authority, but in Sean's purview it is the authority of the subjective observer. But that is a rather arbitrary authority.
I'm trying to understand Professor Albert's Kirk example, perhaps inspired by the Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within," involving a transporter malfunction. He suggests that if probability is involved (I would say independent probability) then sometimes both Kirks should have the same color shirt. But he set up the condition of the thought experiment that the Kirks would always have different colored shirts. Let me use a different example.
At the end of a manufacturing line there is a machine that packages gloves. There is a table with two boxes, labelled 'A' and 'B.' The machine always puts a left glove into one box and a right glove into the other box, and then ships them out. It is a strange way to sell gloves but ... philosophers. Am I right?
Professor Albert thinks there should be the possibility that the machine could prefer left gloves 90% of the time. So suppose that the table rotates, with the boxes on it. The machine puts a left glove (90% of the time) into the nearest box, and the remaining glove into the remaining box. The 50/50 probability of the boxes hides the 90/10 probability of the gloves. The full boxes are removed from the table, empty ones are placed on, and the process repeats.
I'm not sure if this example clarifies anything, but the attempt was to break the problem down into smaller pieces.
My head hurts
Cool video thank you for sharing! Big fan of Sean
That was another truly fun episode! Both Sean Carroll and David Albert are fascinating guests. Would there ever be any possibility or interest in having them on to discuss the context and meaning of the Aharonov-Bohm effect and the way in which philosophical and physical notions of causality have been developed or have shifted from the days of Aristotle to the present? Possibly still relevant to the latter aspect of that topic, Bertrand Russell wrote in his essay "On the Notion of Cause" (1912): "To me it seems that philosophy ought not to assume such legislative functions, and that the reason why physics has ceased to look for causes is that, in fact, there are no such things. The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm." (pg. 142, Mysticism and Logic, Bertrand Russell)
A great discussion! Another very interesting person in this area is David Wallace (not the author). He might be an interesting guest, maybe in a debate with David.
On soon!
Great discussion 👍
David Albert is so great. Talk about clarity of thought and communication. Plus he seems like a fun guy to hang out with.
David and Sean had this discussion 15 years ago on Science Saturday and it's an echo of the same argument, with no apparent movement on either side.
Did they get entangled in the past, without a way forward?
Nice discussion and though not an Everettian I have to say I particularly enjoyed Sean’s takedown of David’s frequentist fundamentalism.
Sean Carroll is simply shopping Everett's nonsense around to get attention. You can safely ignore everything he says along those lines. It's plain old fashioned trolling.
@@schmetterling4477 0:05 - Carroll’s arguments against a strictly frequentist view of probability are fairly standard and independent of his Everettian views.
@@kyoung21b Ah, so you believe in probability waves. You and absolutely nobody who actually understands the structure of quantum mechanics. ;-)
I’m an empiricist, i.e. don’t believe in anything.
Great stuff - super engaging!
good discussion. Lovely watch
thanks!!!
I agree with David.
The chances of our universe being exactly the way that it is, should be 100%
because it is exactly like it is.😅
Also, 16 ads and counting during this episode.😮
The problem is that David is an ardent frequentist so you’d need many worlds (so to speak !) to evaluate those chances.
@@kyoung21b
Given a many worlds perspective, the world that we happen to occupy turns out to be exactly as it is. I suspect that's where he's coming from. If we study our universe, what is the probability that we will observe a different one?
@@bryandraughn9830 But then it seems like there’s a consistency problem given that as far as I know he’s not a fan of many worlds.
I'm not even a fan of MWI, and I find Sean Carroll's perspectives fascinating. Please provide timestamps for the segments where Carroll is speaking.
I needed this.
stimulating and gratifying.
I'm an hour in but one probability example I read was - if you throw a ball you can calculate where the ball will go easily. If you have a box of infinite N balls and you pour them out. The probability where most will go is the usable location even if all points could be calculated
Two of my favourites. Plus a cute kitty 😊 great 👍
Thanks!
I must have seen this conversation in another universe before because I swear to God I remember several years ago, David Albert talking about this Captain Kirk thought experiment while he had one leg up in front of that same book case. Sean Carroll was somehow involved as well. Am I going mad?
Why is Palpatine talking astrophysics?
I'm always having trouble following David's train of thought till the end. He always loses me somewhere
Interesting podcast and Schroediger's cat is certainly no problem.
Odd thing they missed that the Higgs boson actually was discovered.
Heads up-- the link to David Albert's book tole me "page not found"
Thank you!!!
Many worlds just punts the dice into the soul.
lol
Awesome discussion man. 🙌🏽 high level. Pod cat 🐈 is cute.
Glad you enjoyed it! And yes she is :)
very interesting ty!
The Many Worlds theory strikes me a little like String theory- one has to postulate something untestable to force the math to make sense. Why not accept that the prevailing view of Quantum mechanics is incomplete or,perhaps, wrong? The attitude “shut up and calculate “ will always fall short of delivering a complete understanding.
Many worlds is the opposite of “shut up and calculate”: that phrase is associated with Bohrs Copenhagen interpretation. Many worlds just accepts the consequences of the Schrödinger equation without adding an extra process (collapse) to recover the familiar (unitary) classical world that we perceive. Mathematically these and many other interpretations are identical. The association to string theory seems tenuous at best, other than “theories at the edge of what we know are often unfamiliar and hard to experiment on”, which seems fairly self evident.
I think one problem with many worlds argument is that the probabilities does not add up. If 'a' happens with probability 40 %, 'b' with prob 35 and 'c' with probability 25, and there is a world where each of them happens, then the probability for 'a' is actually 100 %, 'b' 100 % and 'c' 100 %, because there is always a world where any of them occur. But probabilities can not add up to over 100 % and this would be 300 %, so we have a contradiction.
Every Star in our Universe is a Brain. We just don't under stand them. They are highly evolved, surely alive (in a different way then us), have a definite level of consciousness (since they are active in the metaphysical structures , the fusion activity that happens within is similar to neural activities in brains), they create life, planets, have a Life and Death period, and a lot more to be said. I look up at the sun every time it shines at me and stare at him/her/it without looking directly at it, and I assume it can read the Neural activity in brain, its very highly evolved, evolved enough to possible poke a hole in the universe one day and do who know what? I just say thank you , for letting this miracle of life be allowed on our planet, what a miracle ! All the doing of our very own Star, "The Sun" !
How is debating Boltmans brains different than debating if we live in a simulation? Also, since via argument if we are more likely to be both in a simulation and also more likely to be a Boltsman brain its it even more likely we are a Boltsman in a simulated universe where someone is just testing to see if we will exist?
David Albert's concern has more to do with the mysteries of consciousness and the illusion of self rather than quantum probabilities and splitting/branching of the wave function. I recommend using electrons or rocks rather than sentient beings I'm his thought experimenrs.
I don't get Albert's argument on the incoherence of the argument that he's likely to be a Boltzmann brain. The latter argument seems to imply: If you think the laws of physics are thus and so (our current understanding), then it's likelier that you're a Boltzmann brain who turns out to lack good reason to believe that the laws are thus and so (because your memories weren't caused the right way to give you good reason) than it is that you're a natural brain who has good reason to believe the laws are thus and so (because your memories were caused the right way). Albert seem to reason that this argument doesn't rationally require you to adopt its conclusion, because the conclusion undermines your faith in the premise. But the premise isn't that *you have good reason to think* the laws of physics are thus and so. It's that the laws *are* thus and so.
I think Albert's conclusion is this. It is incoherent to accept a physical theory that concludes that we are likely to be Boltzmann brains.
The reason is this: To think that we are Boltzmann brains is to think that we never conduct any empirical research that affords us to develop any physical theory whatsoever, including the one that concludes that we are Boltzmann brains. Such a thinking is self-undermining and incoherent. Hence, we cannot rationally accept a physical theory that makes this kind of conclusion.
We can infer from the claim that we cannot rationally accept such a physical theory to that such a physical theory is wrong. You may complain there is a jump between epistemological claim to a metaphysical claim. But if you accept the epistemological claim that we cannot rationally accept such a physical theory while still holding on to the metaphysical claim that such a physical theory could still be true, you again land in incoherence or in what Carroll calls the cognitive instability.
For similar reasoning, you can check on a paper titled "Why we are not living in a computer simulation".
@@abrlim5597 Thanks. Why must a Boltzmann brain "never" be able to conduct empirical research that affords them good reason to believe the correct physical theory? Can't I be a Boltzmann brain that just started now, but such that I'm hooked up properly to the world going forward? Anyway, the threatened "incoherence" seems more like mere cognitive dissonance. I liked the argument Carroll spelled out later, on which the same statistical sort of argument would lead us to expect that most Boltzmann brains see a black sky. I didn't catch how the probability of "natural brain seeing a sky with CMB" compares with that of "Boltzmann brain seeing a sky with CMB".
Sean lets David talk for 5 minutes then David interrupts Sean in 10 seconds.
A layman's view of fine tuning: If the physical parameters that permit life to exist could be different then they would be different but they aren't different because life does exist. Therefore the probability that the natural physical parameters are those that permit life to exist is 1.
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the universe is a lot of things, but it's not friendly to life. Try breathing four inches below the water surface or eight miles above. You will notice very quickly that the overwhelming part of the universe is trying to kill you in an instant. ;-)
you know i emaild professor Dr. Sean Carroll a question, “ does the many world’s branch have to happen at the intersection of differential geometry That is the universe that we should call a “moment”?
and in that single frame, the question for many worlds is, does that branching happen at that intersection? Or can it happen at any intersection and so long as the the probability equation is satisfied that it does eventually happen then it satisfies many worlds?”
His response was to go check quora lol.
Can anyone else answer my question ?
The observer is philisophically positioned to the speed of light. If we can philisphocally extend the time of these observable wave parameters, we can access more time frames. Of the past, red, or violet, future.
the new thumbnails look better rob
phew…thanks!
What if the universe is rotatating, revolving around a center as it expands? We would see the same galaxies at different times in their lives. As we focused backward in time, the same objects would be found in different parts of the sky. That would mean the universe is less massive than we suppose. Your Welcome.
That probability discussion is key. Sean is trying to say that possibilities are only ever subjective. They're in our heads. This is unsatisfactory. This is anthropomorphising the possibility space.
The Kirk thought experiment makes no sense as stated. If the transporter creates two Kirks, each Kirk has the subjective experience of being *the* Kirk. Landing with their eyes closed or open will make no difference to how they perceive their self-identity. It doesn’t matter what the original color of Kirk’s shirt is (green or blue) either, since there will now be two Kirks, one with a green shirt and one with a blue shirt. In this scenario, what does it mean to say “there is a 90% chance Kirk will have a green shirt” when there is always a Kirk with a green shirt AND a Kirk with a blue shirt and each Kirk thinks they are *the* Kirk?
The structure of the problem means the probabilities can only be 50%. Albert really needs a bit more humility for that kind of discussion to be productive
Or… thats kind of his whole point about probabilities in quantum branching many worlds not making sense either.
The interruptions from ads are horrendous
Far too many ads. One was an hour long!
I listen to as a podcast so returned twice to my tablet to skip. Now 27 mins in I’m going to skip the entire video.
Interesting talk. I wonder how there is room for "subjective uncertainty" about probability if Sean Carroll is not a dualist - in his view, the subjective consciousness of the experimenter/observer can be nothing but a part of the same physical system described by the wave function, right? So how can it be something that has this indeterminacy if the conscious "I" is just a part of the deterministic wave function?
The wave function doesn't describe one physical system. It describes an unmeasured ensemble of such systems. Of course, if you don't even know what a wave function is, then you can't use it to successfully argue any point with it. ;-)