David Albert: Einstein Was Right About SPOOKY Quantum Mechanics! [Ep. 433] 

Is there "spooky action at a distance" or not?

What a wonderful guest! First, he's a clear presenter. But second, he comes across as a kind and humble soul. Thank you for bringing him on.

Fish gotta swim, bird gotta fly. Man gotta ask himself, "Why? Why? Why? From, South Pacific

Physics Fundamentalists: Philosophy is dead Also Physics Fundamentalists: Let me tell you why (in philosophical language)

I am a physicist and I would like to expleian why David Albert is wrong when he says that Bohr was wrong about the measurement problem and that we can hope to solve the measurement problem in the way we solve other scientific problems. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values ​​for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values ​​for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism. Marco Biagini

Thank you for inviting Dr. Albert. Perhaps it was your format and style (or simply being in Southern California, the weather not withstanding) that allowed Dr. Albert to appear more comfortable, relaxed, approachable and human. There wasn’t a hint of defensiveness, arrogance or stuffiness. You allowed Dr. Albert to respond without being interrupted. It was a pleasure to listen! Thank you.

Times arrow is incredibly simple to understand. Thats because Time is actually the only absolutely fundamental thing that exists - it is omni-directional self-expanding 'energy' ('energy 'as non-reducible existence). Things are ultimately just layered and interwoven spacetime. With the concept of spacetime we have 3-dimensional existence + continuous time. Does this then infer that Time might be the cause of space and thus can be classed as a physical entity, not just as an observation of change. If Time causes space and remains active, as per "spacetime" does this not indicate that its basic and sole property is expansion. If what's at the bottom is self-expanding existence this means it never can contract, thus it causes a) Times arrows always forward direction b) provides the universes energy c) explains why infinity exists d) why the irrational 'first cause' concept; is really a continuous cause. Note that this expansion is omni-directional so by default it is always creating 3-dimensional orb shaped existence; creating more space via outwards expansion and causes pressure tot exist due to the inwards expansion. Being bound by everything that already exists this creates differing rates of spatial expansion based on the age of the spatial territory it exists within, causing laws such as the speed of light (just as light travels slower in air or water than in space). As Time passes, as more inwards pressure continues to build, it becomes greater than the restraint of pre-existence in that spatial territory and the 3-dimensional 'shell' fractures and the 'existence energy' begins to flow according to the path of least resistance (just as say light flows out from nuclear fission). This process creates the required differentiation that is necessary for the evolution of things, as it allows differing energy flows to equalize, forming 'static' units, which then enables compounds to evolve.

See the name, always listen. I'll admit, at first I wasn't a fan of David, because I was uneducated and thought he was always saying a whole bunch of nothing! But As you, and I, figured out, he's an incredible explainer of the broad picture of a certain unsolved thing, subject, or theory, as it relates to logic and reason in physics. I relate him to Sean Carroll even though they explain a bit differently, they explain equally well and better than anyone. The longer the video the better when it's with David. It's enjoyable to see him milk every last ounce of thought out of an issue.

Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a probabilistic mathematical framework based on the misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of the nature of light, and the double-slit experiment. Maybe that's why it's "probabilistic"? The MATH may be useful for replicating technology and chemical reactions, but it has no bearing on reality itself, because the theory is founded on the fallacy of quantum state superposition. I'm amazed at how the physics community has been able to accept the ridiculous concept of quantum weirdness, and the wave-particle duality nonsense! There is no measurement problem. The double-slit experiment was grossly misinterpreted! Light is not a wave, and I don't believe it's made of particles either. There is no wave interference. The fringe pattern is a simple reflection pattern. What was interpreted as particles, might actually be individual 'reflected light rays' hitting the detectors, hence the HUGE confusion... There was never any "collapsing waves" to begin with. There is no wave-function. That's only a mathemagical abstraction.

David makes an important point when he says philosophical thinking contributed to the development of special relativity (SR). As Einstein pointed out, SR is a “principle theory” as opposed to a “constructive theory.” This philosophical distinction was key to its success, leading physicists out of the morass caused by constructive attempts (via causal mechanisms) to understand the observer-independence of the speed of light c, e.g., via the luminiferous aether. Einstein himself worked on a causal account, but gave up saying: “By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results.” Per Einstein, a principle theory is one whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. SR is a principle theory because its kinematics (Lorentz transformations) follows from an empirically discovered fact called the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for c, regardless of their relative motions (the observer-independence of c). Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames -- says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR. This same philosophical move was recently used to escape the morass in the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) caused by trying to understand it constructively. Specifically, quantum information theorists have shown that the kinematics of QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) follows from an empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity. In layman’s terms that simply means everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the “Planck postulate”). Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, and inertial reference frames are related by different spatial orientations (rotations), that empirically discovered fact can also be justified with the relativity principle. Using this philosophical maneuver, we can understand QM as a principle theory just like SR. Consequently, QM need not violate locality (as in Bohm’s pilot wave), statistical independence (as in superdeterminism or retrocausality), intersubjective agreement (as in QBism), or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes (as in Many Worlds). We spell all of this out for the "general reader" in our book, "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" Oxford UP (2024).

My theory is that time is NOT a physical phenomenon like energy or mass. Time is simply a concept or idea that exists in the mind of man. Man created the concept of time in order to deal with the inevitability of death. Life is then a line segment beginning at birth and ending at death. Time becomes a gauge that allows us to measure where we are on that line segment - this provides both psychological and practical benefits. Psychological in that it reduces the anxiety that we feel in regard to death and practical in that it allows us to order our affairs in accordance with age. For example, we normally begin college at age 18, not at age 60. So then time and death are two sides of the same coin - you cannot have one without the other.

Quantum mechanics does not attempt to "paint a realistic picture". It calculates probabilities of detections. We have yet to work out how to paint a realistic picture.

No wonder scientists are having such a hard time figuring out the next steps in physics. They used classical logic to figure out quantum mechanics it showed them that parts of their logic was wrong but they can’t accept it because that’s how they got there. It’s a impossible loop

This is the best interview I've seen in a long time. David Albert makes things so clear that even I can understand.

For me, what he is getting at is the attempt to discover what the details are beyond the sub atomic scale that lead to emergent properties we see in classical physics with gravity for example. A guess a the riddle. Humans have a decent understanding of what happens at the micro and macro scales, and we are approaching our limitations to observe any smaller or larger than we already have. It's just something we need to accept. It's ok to not know everything.

The irreversibility that belongs to thermodynamics is based on a paradigm that is fundamentally different from that of dynamically systems theory. The irreversibility that belongs to thermodynamics is about two given systems each in its own state of thermodynamic equilibrium. The usual paradigm of dynamical systems theory is about one system with its own initial specified state. Of course, the entropy of the universe is not defined for the times of the big bang.

what Einstein meant spooky action was the immediate collapse of the wave function over space and time which requires 0 time. The entanglement is a consequence of that but not the spooky action he meant. However it is spooky as well. But the so called wave function is not a function at all it is actually a section of the C line bundle over physical space for instance R3. it goes from physical space to complex numbers. if it always were the case that the C line bundle over M is a product M x C the wave function would be appropriate term, but you cannot always do MxC at least as long as you stay in cartesian coordinates in the physical space. A C line bundle is more than just attaching a line to every point. A deeper topological analogy of this with the physical reality is indeed makes it reasonable that spooky action is real, just remember that space can expand faster than speed of light and spooky action is completely makes sense if you consider the universe only as subset (sub manifold) of the C line bundle (in mathematical representation) . it is just a theory of mine I may be wrong.

Dr. Brian “Joe Rogan” Keating.

I can solve the past hypothesis for him. It is a wonderful gateway into the physics of information as well. Simply put "As entropy increases information increases and as it is with time they can all only slow down never reverse"

41:49 When cofee cools down, it needed to be in higher temperature than the environment first. It (entropy) is not an isolated property. When on the contrary ice melts for the same reversed reason, this is the time reversal of the previous process. Would you still call that entropy??? Entropy from what condition. Why would smoke evaporate into the air from a cigaret? It moves forward in time by itself. Because the gas concentrated in the tobacco could carry the carbon particles with it. Which is the reverse of its previous position. It does not matter whether it does that. But what matters is its first position was in the past of the second.

@43:30 as I write about in my book Matter Over Mind: Cosmos, Chaos, and Curiosity (2016/2020), the clearest reason time is directional, in the way we perceive it in everyday life, is that feedback loops only go in one direction. Think of the population equation x=rx(1-x). It can only go in one direction, where each new value of x gets reapplied to the equation with each iteration. That sort of math doesn’t compute backwards. That said, it’s hard to know whether to think of it as the entire universe applying its laws to itself with each iterative “moment” as a whole. I feel more comfortable thinking of it about it as the dynamical organic nature of things being the “reality” residue of which we are a part of.

I did a happy dance seeing this to watch this evening. I've been dealing with fire alarm panel faults in a grade 1 listed building all day. ❤

Thumbs up! Enjoyed this philosophical perspective on physics and cosmology. And good to have David present in person which always adds a vibe to a podcast. The subject of philosophy should be back in vogue big time. We need much more scrutiny. If physicists after 100 years can’t resolve the same old simple questions (like the merger of GR and QP or an explanation of the double experiment) then something must be off. Instead of time and again trying and failing to get answers, we should stop and consider we may have been handed an incorrect question. You cannot find an answer if the question is intrinsically flawed to begin with. An Example? Take the infamous double slit experiment where we are taught to say ‘...we see objects (e.g. electrons) behaving both like particles and waves…’ Well no…that’s not true, is it?! We don’t see ‘electrons’ at all in the double slit experiment. What we see is the ENERGY associated with these particles (electrons) and it is this ENERGY (not ‘the particle’) that behaves in a dual way; because we see the particle’s ENERGY behaving either like the grid around the particle, piercing through both slits and interfering with itself of the screen behind it. OR we see the same Energy in the form of the point-like potential, associated with the particle when we actually measure it at one of the slits. Also, we must conclude both manifestations of ENERGY cancel each other out, like the inverse relation of Heisenberg’s dxdp>=h/2 . So then; there is no ‘particle mystery’ at all in the double slit experiment. It simply proves that ENERGY behaves like the grid in the QP world, next to its ‘potential’ function in the macro grid. A dual function thus. But it gets better; we have Sir Roger Penrose stressing likewise that MASS has the alter ego function of CLOCK in the QP world (he substitutes Planck’s E=hf into E=MC2 to reach this conclusion). So then, combined with the double slit experiment we can conclude that in the QP world the grid is defined by the ENERGYMASS, as opposed to its inversely related SPACETIME grid in our macro world. Simple. Why do physicists keep denying this obvious reality of duality of measures that the double slit experiment is presenting us. This is the ultimate answer. I hope renowned people like David can spread the word to the community. Because once you understand this, then you also understand where QP and GR meet.

the noise gate has the attack too fast, specially on the voice off the intro. Try giving it a bit more of release.

Maybe Eric Reiter’s experiments are really telling us the illusion that is happening in quantum mechanics. He goes back to Planck then traces the historical errors that happened. Planck second hypothesis is revised and theoretical counters to it addressed. Once the problem is known and accounted for in experiments then the quantum effects disappear. Is Eric right.

Advent of the internet (u tube) makes this adventure in Physics fun, I have a feeling because of your program and others like it, lots of young people will gravitate towards this subject.

Albert is trying to defend Fort Apache but from the Nobel prize of 2022 the Indians are already inside.

The arrow of time is an epi-phenomenon which arises from large groups of time independent underlying reversible processes. But philosophy is needed to answer questions like, "well, what is Sace expanding into over time?"

Great interview! As one who studies the foundations of physics/mathematics and ended up with degrees in philosophy I can totally relate

Hey Brian, Thank you for the great channel you've been running on RU-vid. Big fan here. Suggestion: Would it be possible to maybe add a pic of the physicist/philosopher/equation superimposed on the video as they are being mentioned? It helps with creating some sort of a connection with whatever is being quoted/referred to once we can see what it is or who it is that's being talked about. Thank you.

David Albert does everybody a favour by reminding them that it was the Aristotelian model of the cosmos that Galileo undermined, which the Catholic church uncritically appropriated.

42:30 “The fundamental laws don’t make any distinction” about the direction of time BUT there is an → of time, ⛬ the orthodox fundamental laws must be incomplete ‽

Because of David Albert, this particular podcast episode has been a solid for me. I can just sit and listen to Albert talk all day long

It seems that the status of the background theories needed (as pointed out by Duhem/Albert), in so far as they are not yet actually falsified in a single instance, may be assumed to be valid ('true') in order to draw conclusions about the status of a proposed theory at present (as to whether it is falsifiable/falsified or not).

I always like to listen to David Albert he is so professional in reasoning and articulate in expression. Should attend more of such talks, debates

Please take a good read of the article in arXiv by Prof. Unnikrishnan, reconstructing quantum mechanics without foundational problems.

Entropy is a fundamental physical law (2nd thermodynamics) so when he and other philosophers speak “every fundamental law is time invariant”, they are meaning EXCEPT THAT ONE….so they can ignore the other laws and deal with the real problem which is explaining entropy. Also, some paper came out years ago showing a time direction based on atomic arrangement in some specific large nucleus. The idea that OTHER fundamental laws don’t need this one is, to me, a “non-problem”, philosophical nor otherwise. It is only an “entropy” problem, ie, a physical “law” that explains time direction based on initial conditions, perhaps one day to be revealed. A real simply thing to me was Penrose distinction between Big Bang singularity (low entropy) vs Black Hole Singularity (highest entropy). This “law” would explain the distinction.

I get spooked every time I listen to our current physicists when they venture into the Quantum Physics area.

Aristotle himself debated the idea that logic might genuinely be up for grabs, he thought some Heraclitean physicists and Protagoras had proposed. He confuted this position or rather, he carefully explained away this problem in Met. G 4 (see Terence Irwin _Aristotle's First Principles_ or even better, Enrico Berti).

17:29 - I like this man.

"A Guess at the Riddle" . What a great title , shows his mind his humility .

Where does he send papers with 2 equations?

There are so many adverts in this video that it's almost impossible to watch

Einstein spoke many times about the variable speed of light because neither time nor distance are constant so the speed of light cannot be constant over large distances.

Your ignoring the superposition of remote viewing. That's the access for understanding the flexibility of time.

If the universe is spherical in shape and is expanding from a singularity creating spacetime, then time has to be three dimensional. Simple logic.

Absolutely fascinating Podcast. Coffee with Dr. Albert would be such an amazing experience. Wish I could sit down and ask all the questions I have about reality with Dr. Albert. ❤

59:21 That is nonsense. When scientific laws have later been replaced by better ones (so the old ones were incomplete, or in a certain sense false) this did not mean earlier assumptions had not functioned. Like before the invention of the metric system no one knew how to handle distances, weights and content. Maybe the mile is based on a false assumption. But it still works for the purpose. Bloodletting however made no sense at all. Although perhaps people believing it would do them good, were still relieved by it. In short: one cannot state all future nondiscovered scientific laws, can be found sooner by falsifying the existing ones as quickly as possible. So, what are you left with. With nothing. This is an expression of crazyness. Being totally unrealistic. A confused mind.

Time is on my side

"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future"(2017).

Tiny changes in the coordinates of a point on the Mandelbrodt set produce radically different results. The 3 body problem may ghave been solved, and a Klemperer rosette may be stable, as are electrons "stable" within the energy values within orbitals and shells. But more than 4 bodies with interactive forces cannot be predicted, and, "the collapse of the wave function is us humans using our instruments to take a snapshot of what is ever changing and saying, Aha! Gotcha!

The Earth is flat = The Holographic Principle

21:30 Great guest. One side remark: when Galileo offered the scientific solution for the first time to the world, to just observe the world and note how it reacted objectively, in stead of founding it on a believe assumption. Like religion usually did/ although it based itself on philosophy, which also related to observations creating a well balanced reasoning outcome. The problem was the bible never stated anything about a flat earth. The clergy just assumed that would be the case. So Galileo was prosecuted for nothing - and your assumption philosophy is based on fantasized assumptions, as if Galileo proved this (no he advised to observe first without biases/ not that having theories about the observed was false, otherwise Newton would never have come to his explanation of gravity, just observing does not answer all questions), is incorrect as well.

@44:55 I agree that all the wildly different dynamical processes are all related. And I’m curious to learn how initial conditions can dictate the directional flow of time as we perceive it, more than the feedback loops themselves. 🤔

Time can only flow in before to after event flow. The use of forward and backward for flow of time is meaningless. Microphysics is velocity reversible not time reversible because reverse time is a meaningless concept. Just like 3 apples or positive 3 apples is OK to say it that way, does not mean negative 3 apples is physically meaningless concept. Even after the ultimate equilibrium is reached with constant/maximum entropy but there is change in configuration in some sense time will flow (by definition because there is change in configuration). Sure there will be no entities who can feel that time in psychological terms. But the time of physics will be flowing, because time is basically change. Existence is static time. Change is flowing time. If there is a cyclical subsystem of universe then and only then the rate of flow of time can be measured. Why we can remember the past? We can only remember the past if events in the past leave traces that can be recovered in the present. If none of the traces can be recovered we cannot remember the past. If the footstep on the wet sand beach are washed away we cannot know/remember that someone walked on the beach last night. Causality as dictated by light cones, prevents future events from leaving traces that can be recovered in the present. That is why we do not remember the future. BFD.

When some particle splits into 2 particless with a property called spin that takes values of either +1 or -1 that travel off in opposite directions are their spins already determined?

Is Albert implying that quantum field theory is not Lozentz invariant and/or that the states of its amplitude can not be ordered by the 'proper time' (or 'tau') as an ordering parameter?

Physics is limited to the measurable/countable, philosophy. the infinite. We count/measure within the infinite but we cannot count/measure the infinite-

So glad that David concludes that human mind will be able to understand everything. However, he should check this with Chomsky for validation. Not sure how this will hold.

Its a nice having to communicate both of you, my highest respect both of you

Being persecuted for investigating the foundations of quantum mechanics? That makes no sense. Maybe they wanted your doctoral thesis to be on a different subject matter, but to be maligned by the physics community over this does not compute.

11:15 David Albert, "I was interested, when I was in graduate school, in working on issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics." It would seem that Academia would use coercion to prevent students from so much as to question the fundamental assumptions of the prior generations? (What history records are Published Conclusions based on their fallacious reasoning.) His point about when the Church leaders toured Galileo through the dungeons, showing him various means of torture? They forced Galileo to publicly renounce that the Earth moved. Humanity, (academia) better our grow this childish behavior before emergent General-AI passes out-smarts them -- passing judgement on their obsolete education system. Just as the criminal element of society hijacked health care and perverted it into a sick-care system. So too, the systems of "indoctrination" MUST be replaced by impowering the next generation with critical thinking that questions everything. Elon is right when he says, "AI must seek truth above all else."

In "Laws of Form" G. Spencer-Brown was able to show that most of logic flows from the simple act of drawing a distinction. That seems to imply that the laws of logic would be the same in any alternate universe, unless that universe were an undifferentiated blob in which one could not draw any distinctions and therefore could not perform any analysis.

42:22 When a law is abandoned, you have changed the past. Because it travels with you. Had you not abandoned it, you would not have changed the future.

59:53 It seems to me that you don't have to assume other theories are true. You just need to say the assumptions you're using are the most predictive theories that haven't yet been falsified. You're not proving something is false. You're showing it's more likely that it is false.

Great interview, this guy is great. Host your argument against falsifiability is your misunderstanding of it; it's not that everything that is falsifiable is science, it's that anything that isn't falsifiable isn't science. That's a distinction that matters, falsifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition to call something science.

We can also affect the past because we can change memories. When we heal past experiences, our relationship to the past experience changes, and our actual memory of the experience changes as well. I’ve proven this with myself and many others in the last two decades, and other people have proven it as well. By changing memories, we change the past, because in reality, the past doesn’t exist anymore, but as a memory.

...one thing is for sure: he did say it in German! ( He was German not american no matter how hard you try he will never be american.

Isn’t it the consciousness and and its associated memory of the past that gives us a feeling of time moving in only one direction. As you yourself stated that if one did not know where the smoke started ( from cigarette or elsewhere) , both processes will be seemed possible

How is inflational cosmology considered a science? With JWST Finding the age of the universe to be much older inflation is just not valid, right? It was just a patchwork solution to get from a singularity to forming everything.

Back to the double slit again. The results look like wave interference but that does not mean particles are waves. The schroedinger equation gives probabilities if u graph looks like a wave but they are probabilities not waves in any physical sense. QM gives u tools which work but give zero insight on the physical reality. The problem with “modern” physics is u seen an anology like angular momentum in an electron and u use the term spin when electrons dont spin. Time we revisted QM as it is an incomplete theory. Or just give up and say the math works and focus on Applications.

If the degrees of freedom at the start of the big bang was 0 or very low, does it not automatically mean the entropy would be minimum. What is the big deal about past hypothesis?

Why are there so many Fn bots in the comments? I think physics is lazy if concludes, "This is just how subatomic particles work".

Leonard Susskind defined entropy as hidden information and Stephen Wolfram has likened entropy to encrypted information. My guess is that what looks like entropy is actually complexity. And an increase of complexity explains the arrow of time and evolution into more complex systems. As an analogy, to simulate a glass of water falling on the floor and shattering is more complex than a 3D simulation of the glass standing still on a table.

What is impossible unto HIM? Aren't ye all IN FRONT! Through HIM, by HIM, and for HIM.

Great interview! Regarding the arrow of time, the radiation of an isolated classical or quantum charged particle that is undergoing acceleration is broadcast into the future and not the past. We don't hear a radio program before it's scheduled time. This time asymmetry is enforced by requiring that the retarded potential be used to calculate the fields from the moving charge. I know that Wheeler and Feynman proposed a time-symmetric version of electromagnetism that had the fantastic property that the advanced potential could be cancelled by an absorbing universe in the the future. How would you explain the radiation asymmetry by adjusting the initial conditions in the distant past, rather than a perfect absorber in the future?

I deffo agree that the philosophical freedom based around a rigid foundation of ideas could be a hinderance, the example about Quantum Mechanics sums it up well. The freedom helped it blossom. However it would be worth noting that those great minds of the blooming QM started with a base themselves. So perhaps what was foundational for them Is exactly the best route for philosophical minimum in Our Understanding in the modern day, as well. That was also amazing question to ask Dr. Keating because it’s almost too subtle to a consideration, on the surface of Scientific discussion, not to take for granted the true significance behind that philosophy itself.

Great to hear from someone who knows the difference between a mathematical model and an understanding. Unfortunately, philosophies which descend from the Aristotelian misunderstanding which got us into this mess are not much help. Good to be thinking about these things though ;)

1:20: Bohm's theory of a pilot wave gives up the classical view of reality, too. It is non local. So what?

My guess at the riddle is to say that we know for sure that we need a nonlocal theory. Just playing round with the Minkowski formalism, we can see that there are two ways to travel faster than light. I suggest wavelike behaviour is in one of the ways, and there is orthogonal tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way. TBM comes into action during the nonlinear interaction between the wave function, the electromagnetic field and any propensity towards unstable or chaotic dynamics. The simplest system I can think of to exhibit this is an alpha particle colliding with two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. Unfortunately any computer simulation of this will need to run in dozens of dimensions of configuration space. We just don’t have a computer which can cope with exponential-time algorithms. Quantum mechanics is comprehensible and imaginable, but we are beaten by the numbers. I would suggest that the collapse of the wave function is indeed a real physical process, but it is a nonlinear collective phenomenon requiring computer simulation in exponential time. David Albert’s professors were right with hindsight to constrain him from work on the foundations of quantum mechanics. He would have needed some big new idea like TBM which I date to 1979 by my memory. He would have needed proficiency in computer simulation. He would have needed to know how to publish his simulation. It’s not easy, and then the configuration space issue could make it impossible.

Love listening to people like David and Tim. Thank you for this interview.

By designing the future by our design at the time from being part of time in a design you can design

"You may have something there Greg,* was Einstein's message to me, as my advisor, on a NY dock.

55:03 Falsifiable IMO is a mispronounced concept. Maybe due to the old English use of wording at the time. What it actually means is veryfiable, based on supportive proof or not. I can imagine the discussion at the time went like this. "So you want this concept to be veryfiable. If it is true or not?" Popper was a sceptic. So he replied in denial. "No. It should be falsifiable. Be able to be proven wrong first. If you cannot do that, it is not true." How do you mean. Disprove gravity? Or prove it exists under certain conditions. And not under others. That is not exactly falsifying it. But testing it for its conditions. Which is veryfying. They were using the wrong vocabulary. But driven by the disussion with a sceptic (there probably was a lot he did not agree upon at the time), they landed in falsifiable as an agreement on the subject. They had not been thinking through carefully. Because testing on conditions and properties, could support the theory, or not. Verify or falsify.

Theoretical physics isn't. Physics is a branch of science which deals in empirical observation. String Theory is a twin sibling to scientology and pastafarianism.

Yes, preserve! Unto all Whom belongs? Can be trusted with confidence!

Hi, very interesting commentary, and the respect shown by you both shows me the integrity and genuine interest in what the other has to say.

No one has explained how entanglement happens. Is the Wavefunction a real thing, or just a tool for calculation. Neither say what makes things get entangled.

What about the position of a particle retrocausality. It seems a simple test of the speed would be to add perform an experimental setup with the mirror left on the moon, a remote quantum experiment. Perhaps for the next mission.

Quantum mechanics derived out of collapsible waves brings out new truth towards discovery of new TV technic as a result of spooky actuon at a distance. Even the the color can be changed by providing relative motion as observed by a camera becoming an observer.

Think about all the things we will never know, it's crazy 😁

Brian, you seem to push comments you don’t like under the carpet. Which tells me Eric was right about you.

When talking about the direction of time, the analogy is often used of a movie. The trouble is that we can't be outside the story. If you rewind the film, we the characters unlearn our experiences. It would only be a problem if parts of the story could be reversed while other parts weren't.

My Host Brian HOW'S MY BOOK?

And thank u for that situation that u defending me about that matter

I love the microwave background globe. Where did they get it? Couldn’t find one that size shopping on google…

I don’t know enuf to do algebra. That being said I get a sense that physics is crawling along. They have been trying to figure out string theory for nearly half a decade. Now we have this debate. Perhaps a Newton or Einstein only comes along every two hundred years or so, not surprising. It seems to me we have people pursuing dead ends and refusing to give up. Some freedom of thought and a few nonconformists are needed to get physics some revolutionary progress?

Complexity puts an end to going back. Eddies of space/time along a continual straight path in a sea of waves.

Shepherd will say, step forward. While thy eyes are close. Now HIS VOICE WILL GUIDE THEE!

Isn’t the Mandela effect prof that the present effects the past. If anyone claims the Mandela effect isn’t real then simply finish this line “if you build it ….blank blank blank, then go find out how it changed (you should sit down while doing it)