Certainly Yes, the depth and directions of questions continuesly rose as the interview progressed and clearly manifested the way Tim was deeply immersed in telling and educating us the story. However, the cameras placing is weired, side pose all the time !
ssuperposition is really just two different "wavefunctions" in one, it is just a representation of possible outcomes that evolves together and only one of them will happen upon measurement. not so different from two possible microstates of a liquid, one where some grain of pollen randomly walks to the left and one where it randomly walks to the right, and you take an average to obtain a probability distribution of outcomes, it really isn't different than that at the level of the resulting probability distribution, a lot of people mystify it by talking about the mathematics of the wavefunction itself as having all these possible outcomes as part of the evolving amplitudes and so on, but at the end of the day, what the wavefunction is, is some mathematical machinery that produces an evolving probability distribution, you have a bunch of possible things that can happen that you would notice, at a detector, or some photographic plate, or maybe some molecule in a trap or whatever, where you can notice a change or some event occouring, and quantum mechanics produces a probability density for all things that can happen over time, that is it, the probability is just a real function over time, nothing fancy, and this is the case for all observable change, the complex evolution is just unitary evolution before you transform it into a real valued probability distribution. and this should not be surprising to anyone, because for all possible things that can happen it is either a finite non 1 probability or the probability is 1, in a deterministic theory the probability is always 1 or 0, for probabilistic theories it can range from 0 to one, but it is not possible to even imagine a theory that does not fall within these parameters, the result is always that something does happen, might happen or does not happen, anything other than those three options is just incoherent.
This podcast is a breath of fresh air in a world where science and academia are often censored by the interests of the powerful. I admire the courage and curiosity of Penrose, Sheldrake, Chalmers, and others who dare to explore the mysteries of reality. I share your passion for open and honest discussions. I'm working on an article and a script that show how Quantum Physics, Pantheism, and Horizontalism can offer a holistic and harmonious vision for humanity and nature for some. ❤ Capitalism has tried to act as if it’s the grand facilitator of ideas and innovation when innovation would of happened had feudalism continued albeit differently. While it was a advantage over feudalism it has ran its course and now only inhibits a free “market” of ideas. Although markets themselves are an entirely other topic. Capitalism is a system that exploits and oppresses the majority for the benefit of the few. It stifles creativity and innovation by imposing artificial limits and barriers. It undermines democracy and freedom by manipulating information and opinions. I would love to hear your thoughts on how Horizontalism, a form of social organization based on cooperation and equality, could foster a more conducive environment for scientific inquiry and discovery. How could we create a culture of sharing and collaboration, where ideas are distributed and developed by many people, rather than monopolized and suppressed by a few? Left on the video cut version of this titled about censorship. Left here as well for algorithm bump and vanity 😅
Certainly there are problems with our current socio-economic framework when it comes to who gets to express what ideas and how those people and ideas are either censored or promoted. Money plays too large a role in everything from which studies get funded in science and research to who gets hired to do those studies. One of the biggest problems I see is the way creative people are treated in today's workplace/corporate environment that is generally hostile to common personality traits of creative people. Conciencesness and reliability are valued over creativity and novelty in the workplace. Every company says they want creative people but they do not know what to do with them when they do manage to get hired, usually fire them for being late, under no circumstances do they ever actually listen to them! It wouldn't even matter except almost everyone agrees that there is a lack of truly creative people in pretty much every field and discipline.
Minor correction: I think ancient greek philosophy did survive in the Byzantine empire. Certainly, unlike the west, the theologians there (in the east) cared about responding to philosophers like Proclus.
so at the end of the day, quantum mechanics is a theory that predicts probabilities for things you can observe, and that is the extent of your empirical access. any theory replacing quantum mechanics simply has to reproduce the right probabilities where they have been checked, the unitary evolution of amplitudes is essentially irrelevant beyond the end of the calculation predictions, which is a real valued probability distribution.
Would love to see you go into Dewey Larson's Reciprocal Systems Theory Of Space and Time. The unified theory mainstream science claims to be searching for.
Scientists agree about the following: - at any point space at a given instant of time there is only one unique event - the age of the universe is same if measured from all points in space of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years - the notion of proper time i.e. the time elapsed on each world line of each point in the universe is not relative. Sure the time in frame A as measured by someone is frame B is relative. But I want to focus on proper time on each world line only for this argument. With the above statements it is clear that there is a point on each of the world lines that is farthest from the event of big bang and equals approximately 13.8 billion years. And that is the time foliation Tim is talking about. To me that is the global now or present moment. And this set of global now or preset ticks away making universe older by each tick. This is the reason why I do not understand when scientists say - there is no global now and there is the block model of the universe.
I don't agree. In current academic sociology a "point" is defined as an "undefined primitive notion". So when people say e.g. "point in space", that's by the non-definition "definition" just incomprehenesible blather. We really have no idea what the expression is supposed to mean. On the other hand, Euclid's definition of point is very clear and crisp - when you get it. PS: A node/vertex of a connected graph is not a "point". It's node/vertex.
What about a particle that has been traveling significantly faster than all average matter since the big bang? Wouldn't that particle today measure a shorter age of the universe than 13.8b years?
Nice chat. Thank you for sharing. Has anyone tried to use metamaterials with the double slit to try to manipulate the defraction gradient and patterns?
ProfMaud can digging into Apeiron and its explanation of time hold clues to show times “reality” in our universe . I’ll continue to research I like some of the older philosophers I feel they hold clues to our challenges today.
It seems to me the term "realism" largely just refers to "separability," what the philosopher Jocelyn Benoist calls "trackability." Einstein believed the universe is ultimately divisible into objects which always carry properties localizable to themselves at all times, like little stones bouncing around that carry around a box with them attached to them always containing all their properties, and thus in principle they could always be isolated and that box could be read out. He wrote a paper in the journal _Dialectica_ arguing that this position was necessary because if the universe was not this way, it would be impossible to isolate certain phenomena and thus impossible to formulate a theory of it. Sometimes this "realism" is incorrectly understood as determinism, that you can necessarily predict the outcome with certainty. But there are hidden variable models in the literature that are nondeterministic (in fact even variations of pilot wave theory that have nondeterministic particle creation). What makes them still "realistic" is that they contain separability in the sense that all particles are ultimately still are ultimately always described as things in themselves that always have definite properties localized to themselves. I agree the term "realism" is a bad term and should definitely be discarded, though.
I don't understand how it follows from the theorem that there can be no local theory that gives the same results as QM. The assumption that particles should have a unique definite state (i.e. either up or down) could be replaced with the assumption that states change over time and that entangled particles have equal rates of change, in other words, they have the same frequency. Therefore, particles that split could be synchronous, explaining the correlation mechanically. We then let the filters FILTER states upon interaction, which necessarily allows only particles in a particular state to go through, effectively synchronizing particles by splitting their paths according to their state upon interacting with the splitters. So we have mirrored paths, with equal lengths and filters that either reflect or let particles go through depending on their states, and if they change states at the same frequency, we effectively have a mechanism that causes a inverse correlation at the first splitter.
@LisaBlooper I should look into it (if I had time).My hunch is that Bell inequality does not apply once you let the states fluctuate in a suitable manner, or, at least, dynamic mechanisms that make compatible locality and experimental observation could be modeled, imho.
TIM MAUDLIN IS THE BEST PROFFETICKAL CLEAR MIND THINKER but i must ask - d we not need to delve deeper into bohr's philosophical insights can we not considered an entangled system one object? can we calculate the speed at which the information travels well i guess no how tf could we
Bravo Kim! They don't understand, consciousnesd Is the ontological primitive. Nothing has to be adjusted in physical laws. Consciousness exists fundamentally.
Why LOVE came? Unto my OWN can be perfect in Love. Yet was denied in front of all shared eyes to see! Gave HIS LIFE FOR A FRIEND KIND OF LOVE and specially for the little Child born "i"!
My feeling...too much time was spent answering questions that could have been better explained and defined. Proper examination of the question often simplifies and clarifies the answer.
Pop Tim remember reason I call thee pop even though I have only have 1 "AM: FATHER GOD OF THE LIVING! Pop Tim as humility stood up from HIS SEAT! And took the very lowest seat LASTS older than TREES!
he is a philosopher of physics. Seems to know his physics well, however. I cant say whether or not he has made any real advances in theoretical physics, but he appears to be well respected in the physics community
Mr Maudlin I sincerely hope that you get your pet projects done soon and get on with doing the work you were put on this Earth to accomplish. That being uncovering the foundations of Physics. The world of Physics is stuck in the Dark Ages of vacuum tube technology. By that I mean our understanding of Quantum Mechanics has not advanced since 1930. Mr Maudlin you need to bring psychology into your union of physics and philosophy in order to evaluate the so called dark force of physics. This being the evil force that is restraining the progress of Physics. This evil force can be fractured into two components, greed and ego. Your first task, Mr Maudlin is to rid yourself of this evil force inside yourself, and then you can apply that solution everywhere, like a good mathematician. A great way for you to validate the functionality of your brain Mr Maudlin is to detect yourself about to utter that stupid phrase "collapse the wavefunction" and observe yourself replacing that phrase with an intelligent phrase.
If Maudlin gets one of his pet projects done it would be a pretty big deal. Bell's theorem proves it's impossible to have a hidden variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum field theory, so you'd need to somehow construct a theory which reproduces the predictions _good enough_ that it doesn't contradict with observation yet isn't the same. There is no proof that cannot be done, but no one has ever achieved that in the over a century since pilot wave theory was first proposed. Quantum field theory has a big issue with infinities that require a difficult process of renormalization. If that process went away, there might actually be a practical mathematical to replace it. I am very skeptical Maudlin's pet theory will go anywhere, but if it does go somewhere, it'd be a huge deal.
Damnit RU-vid, stop suggesting these videos! I'm all for math being fun, but please make your physics testable! Otherwise it's just inventive play with numbers. Playing with numbers is VALID and might be useful, but there is way to much dumb shit that falls into quackery and con artist territory.
I'm curious to hear which parts you thought were untestable or quackery? This video covers a lot of empirical evidence for quantum non-locality, and there's a 20-minute segment devoted to the mathematical proof for Bell's Theorem.
Yeah all the playing with numbers that resulted in cryptography. That is just a foundation for the internet not useful at all. Also historically, mathematical formalism is usually developed first and then applied to physics theory later. You are wrong because there is no way to know which formalism would be useful to physics later. mathematicians explore "interesting" ones and somehow we find applications for surprisingly many of them.
