What If We Live in a Superdeterministic Universe? 

Well it kinda is important. Knowing that quantum entanglement cant be independently measured if superdeterminism is true means that NOTHING can travel faster than light for real.

Isn't religion all about the quest to exist past one's mortality. Conciousness makes reality. Once you observe, you determine.

@@egggge4752 What use is there to learning anything in deterministic universe? Determinism literally means that future is set in stone and you can't do anything.

The universe only exist so that we can play half life 3.

I just want the cake

If Sabine recommends a video about superdeterminsm, it is worth watching On the other hand, I sense some spooky action here, two scientists seem to agree on something ;)

How did you DETERMINE that, Sabine?

We see what you did there. And appreciate it!

I was super determined to observe this video... we share past interactions that guarantees it.

@@pbsspacetime if the universe is deterministic then that would mean that the universe was predestined for us to come along and debate all this. That's just stupid... lol Even if it were somehow true, it implies a conscious universe which is a whole other can of worms lol. however, I think both ppl are right in this case. I hate to use the mandela effect as a real world science example. But if the reason for the mandela effect is due to natural paradox avoidance, meaning that regions of space-time get put into temporary superposition until a paradox has passed. (basically dual or more timelines concurrently running in an area of space-time but limited to a small region, not an entire universe) My point is that if we are experiencing russian doll style super positioning of space to avoid paradoxes, then determinism would be an active thing at the upper levels where light cones cross, and we would not have determinism within the regions of super position. This would mean that the universe has a deterministic flow, but regions of space have free will within them, but those regions of space are predetermined to result at a specific final destination...

This is wrong everyone in watchman’s life is determined dr.m is present for it all dr.m becomes the only being WITH TRUE FREE WILL

Why else could only HE change the future dummy!

And this pleases you? Sounds like a good reason to want to look at anything but the very encapsulating diluting unpotent maker like determinism as you explain it

I mean in a way I can see how you would appreciate this and even relate to it on many levels as I can as I read this but at the same time it's just so damn depressing. I mean he's obviously been shown the future for legit reasons and if it goes unheeded, aren't you just giving credit to some continuum as being more powerful than what is the truth?

What an incoherent story

The strong force is with Luke, the weak is with Leia... because less the Midi-chlorians...

It is exactly that, everything else is a model. The one we use is SU(2) symmetry which needs 3 gauge bosons to mediate the weak force, Z and Ws. The wikipedia article of course has it all readable for everyone.

@@aiami2695 Bro thats not even true lmfao, george lucas confirmed leia has more force potential its just luke got trained instead of her lol

at the quantum level, there are no "forces" in the classical sense, they're more like interactions between particles that exchange "force" carriers, which are particles in and of themselves. You might've heard them referred to as "the strong interaction" or "the weak interaction" since that's technically what they are (or at least as far as we know with our current understanding of the universe) so the weak force "is" just two particles exchanging W and Z bosons with each other. Of course I haven't learnt actual QFT yet, so don't take my word for it, I could be very wrong. This is just my current understanding of it though. I definitely will change as I learn QFT. I don't know any of the mathematics behind QFT, I only know basic undergraduate QM.

The word you're looking for, is "entropy" (also likely responsible for time/gravity). In short, the universe is imploding as the great void of non-universe sucks us out of existence. The weak force is basically the rate of entropy's effect on what we call matter.

Not convinced.

Reality isn't subjective but taking an observation does change a particle/wave. Doesn't need a mind or subjectivity, it's the measurement device itself which does it, something it changes when it detects a photon or whatever.

@@wingit7335 why "not anymore"?

You don't seem to understand he's not trying to convince you, just describe the theory. Don't worry dude, this is way over my head too. Some of us are just dumb.

SuperNintendism is where you playing Zelda: A Link To The Past has inescapably led to every subsequent event in your life.

humans will see the things when allah al hamd comes in thepicture, allah al hamd created everything with wormholes through everything and made it clear on his last day he is the shining light on his throne to watch everything to grow and he created us, 7000 years is 7 days for allah al hamd and 50000 years of angels travel in one day maybe he is faster when he created 3500000000 years of more the universes can be that 350 million years written in the quran allah al hamd can do more most probably if we dont existed

@@tentimesful dude I feel really bad for you

@@Hamifit dont do I'm OK

4 billion years from now, Matt is making another physics youtube video as forced by the powers of distant stars. "KILL ME! KILL ME NOW PLEASE!!!" he screams into the void.

@@IanUniacke he’s gonna be like “oh how we’ve got it all wrong”

I love Sabine. I hope that they can make a youtube video together.

sabine also heavily disses the mainstream interpretation of 'spooky action at distance' and electron entanglement

Also, gullible people don't decide for themselves; their thinking is done by other people.

@@brothermine2292 as opposed to you who apparently has never gotten an idea from anyone else and invented english by yourself.

superdeterminism does not preclude us from making decisions, it's just that those decisions are predetermined. Our brains are still the ones deciding though. Yes this gets into the semantics of what the word "decide" means but I'd argue under common usage, our brains are still deciding.

I would argue that total determinism (super or otherwise) is perfectly compatible with the concept of "choice" as conventionally used. The notion of choice as some fundamentally non-deterministic thing is a highly philosophical concept that has no application in day-to-day life. In normal conversation, one has a "choice" if they can use their faculties to analyze a scenario and pick an action based on internally held criteria. Not only does this work in a deterministic universe, it's unclear how such a thing would work in a non-deterministic universe; quantum woo proposes quantum randomness as the source of free will, but fails to explain how "random" is willful.

rubbish. philosophical rubbish...

@@badlydrawnturtle8484, I'd love to be your friend and talk about all everything.

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Well, I can buy that it isn’t clear how non-determinism (or at least specifically randomness) helps, but I don’t think having a bit of randomness causes any problems for choice?

A little bit of randomness is okay, but when there's enough randomness to cause major effects, you get things like "I chose to go right even though I know my destination is to the left because quantum fluctuations randomly influenced the choice I would make!" This is, of course, an absurdity that doesn't happen in real life. Choices aren't random, so proposing too much randomness would mess up how they work.

Well said!

lol what past? when this decisive moment happened and what was it before it? see time has no meaning in these kind of questions, the only logical conclusion is just the story is as it is.

@@anestos2180 Yes, past. The arrow of time. Fundamentally emerging from the second law of thermodynamics. There is still flow of time - as we perceive it. Deterministic or not.

That's basically David Hume's model of free will. It's a prominent early example of a position called "compatibilism". C'mon, give philosophers a little credit here.

@@thecosmickid8025 I can't, that would require me from knowing all the bullshit they came up over the centuries. I already have trouble remembering birthdays.

There's a word for that: "volition".

@@imveryangryitsnotbutter Terrible game studio. Saints 5 was very shoddy

Ive heard somewhere that over 95 percent of our decision making is reliant on external stimuli. Idk if thats true but it sounds interesting

That is nonsensical.........free will is impossible due to casualty in determinism, and impossible due to randomness in indetermnism

you never really had a choice

For what you call a "fantastic" (which means no more and no less than the stuff of fantasy) communicator is remarkably poor when it comes to defining his terms, because you do not communicate anything unless you can define your terms clearly. Deterministic merely means has already been determined exactly as from the moment you are born or first will breath more death is determined which is to say that it is inevitable, but quite what the waffling windbag means by universe or deterministic, it simply does not trouble himself to say or defining is terms, like most men (human beings) he simply assumes that he understands what he means by the words he uses, but self-evidently he does not, because he does not trouble himself to define his terms but merely waffles at large*assuming* that he understands the meaning of the words he uses. Do you understand the word "fantastic" means the stuff of fantasy? It simply means dreamy or dreamy would do as well.To speak of a "deterministic universe without defining either deterministic or universe is simply intellectual sloppiness but if you find intellectual sloppiness fantastic - the stuff of fantasy dreamy or imaginary, then one wonders why you have that particular reaction in your functions or at least one of your functions.

Check "Beyond Cutting Edge with Bob Lazar" instead of mainstream mantra teachers.

We are all just actors on a stage...

@@badactor3440 "We" meaning or pointing to your indicating the user of the term - that is*you* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor, absent which all that is left is you being an actor on the stage which apparently is your direct immediate personal experience. Is the money any good ion the acting business?

If you like that, look into The Philosophy of Science. It's the next rabbit hole step

Half the brain perhaps - wired as the transmitting "receiver" of a destined "ordained randomness"...whilst other half of our mind/brain one of freewill god-willing ;) perhaps...

-Totally feelin it yup. But then again, this just hit me: since we only know what the smartest minds know, this modern perspective is merely that... only a snapshot of today's knowing. And OF that how much is subject to change from future facts..(that may come into better focus)? -WE ONLY know what's been found to BE. How about what always was, but has not yet been discovered? -Mysteries OF today may be solved someday. The randomness we define as such may not seem so random, once beneath numerologic scrutiny. Mathematics and prime number patterns bears it out as does the golden ratio aka the fibanacci sequence.. Gravity seems to play a role in shaping physics SO why not inside the brain?...Between the ears is neither a solid, liquid OR a gas So what IS the mind? Matter? If not of the scientific table or chart of elements, then OF WHAT is brain activity? Spirit/soul, a receiver thats transmitting the hand we were dealt in this life? Is ordained randomness, really a royal flush, or karma in need of a blow torch!? LOL PERPLEXING! Guess I left out the free will part but did our creator? freewill god-willing!

All that you touch you change All that you change changes you

The opposite belief, i.e. that quantum decoherence *doesn't happen to brains* is the real "mind-bending" (i.e. obviously false) stuff that quite frankly I'm tired of hearing on channels like this. I respect keeping an open mind of course, but this video and so many others like it feels like taking 20 minutes to explain something that many worlds can explain in about 5, and making many, many extraordinary claims along the way, even where a perfectly ordinary claim (e.g. "of course brains are effected by quantum decoherence just like anything else in the universe") would do just as well.

Like Hysterisis or Preformationism?

@@boslyporshy6553 i was thinking along the conditions where direction is dependent on the formation

I’ve come to the same exact realization, verbatim!!!… The apparent loss of free will doesn’t unnerve me at all. On the contrary, it’s like a weight lifted off my shoulders… all my past regrets, gone… I understood that everything happened exactly as it had to happen, no what ifs or would haves. My behaviors were determined by the state of my mind in every single moment in time. I’m just an observer, watching the future unfold, with curiosity, openness, and with the peace of mind that everything will happen that has to happen…

Huh? How can you be more or less productive if you didn’t have a choice in the first place? Free will is only an illusion in that your decisions are brought to your conscience mind after it’s been decided by your subconscious mind. Youre extrapolating complex reality from a simple program. Nonetheless, you should not regret your past decisions, and should use them as a guide to make better subconscious decisions through meditation.

@@bobgrinshpon It's not that your subcontious mind makes decisions hence you have no "free will", It's what ever decision you make is based upon trillions of variables in your brain and in the enviroment around you, that will produce the same exact result if you could replay the moment in time, because each of those variables are a cascading butterfly effect of cause and effect of other variables leading all the way to the big bang. Regarding the programming example, it was just to illustrate when started to think about this, it's not a direct jump to the understanding I have now. Regarding "productive" i mean that understanding determinism is not doom and apathy it's actually very useful for your psyche if you accept that free will is a useful illusion and the past is the only past you could have had.

To your first point: That's because computers are deterministic machines by design. For obtaining real random numbers (as required in, e.g., strong cryptography), one needs an extra device that exploits some unpredictable physical effect.

@@remc2 that's the point, nothing is unpredictable if you understand all the variables.

Woah

If space exists in all directions so does time

That's about right I think. It means that some interaction in the distant past will functionally determine your decisions in the future in a macroscopic way, even if the interaction in question doesn't seem remotely relevant to those choices. It's pretty weird, and kind of suggests that there is no 'arrow' of time at all, which, to be fair, is pretty much the case in a super-determistic universe. :D

@Rosetta Stoned It "is" a concept.

@Rosetta Stoned i think you are stoned

I don't know about the wrench, seems like it just throws a wrench into our species' natural view of the world. Some physicists cope hard from this and others don't, and that's really what the debate is about.

I like how we as humans have put ourselves on top of it. I mean, I get the observer aspect, but I find it cute in a way that the act of *us* observing something changes its fate. There's something innately narcissistic about it in a way... again, I get it, but I like how it needs our observation or measurement to do its thing .

@@MattExzy it's not we chose this path, it's just one of the conclusions of our experiments. Some physicist conjured a multiverse theory to try to avoid this conclusion!

I would say that quantum mechanics resolves paradoxes that exist in classical theory that cannot be resolved by classical theories. For example the ultra-violet catastrophe. Therefore quantum mechanics is not weird, it is a requirement. And as such, I would conjecture that the questions left are a result of the complexity required to resolve all the other paradoxes.

That's because the parts that leave you with unanswerable questions are the wrong parts.

I need to start some stochastic processes class. I didn't understand this, could you please try to explain it to me again?

Generate an infinite sequence of infinite length binary numbers. Construct each digit by flipping a fair coin. Put those in a database. When some one asks you for a random number, just pick one from your database. Or When someone wants a random number generate one by flipping a fair coin and returning a digit.

@@and_I_am_Life_the_fixer_of_all The set of things that just happened is the same as the set of things that were always going to happen. We can't detect any difference. In the real world, we naturally accept that the past was inevitable. There's only one way it could've gone, and that's the way it went. Right? But we think the future could go any way, because of 'free will' and fizzy quantum beverages. But when the future gets here it always turns out to have gone exactly one way. Isn't it kind of nonsensical to expect that things in the future might go differently to the way they'll end up having gone? As far as we can tell, that's never happened. Nothing has ever failed to go the way it went, so if events were really random (or affected by free will) and *not* strictly causally related, we should have evidence by now that something didn't actually happen the way it actually happened. Why do we make a distinction between the inevitable past and the uncertain future, when it always turns out there's zero difference? If we stop making that unnecessary distinction, we have superdeterminism.

This also should show that free will is just bullshit. Let’s talk about “will”, which is a very real thing.

@@DensityMatrix1 that doesn't make any sense. Numbers are finite by definition (unless you're talking about the extended reals). So there isn't any such thing as infinite binary numbers. Did you mean an infinite sequence of binary digits? Because that's allowed

100th comment like is on me!

Then you would probably be able to measure it. But there isn't any information moving when entanglement happens.

From my interpretation of what I've seen and read (no source) online, the electron and other particles are not simply points of a field in space and time, but rather the entire field mediating the information exchange like a decentralized ledger. The electron is not in your hand and in the air around your hand, the electron is the entire universe including your hand which can excite other "electrons" (really it could be 1 electron sharing the entire universe's field) through a vibrational exchange on the field it floats in. The whole universe is inside the single electron, stacked on top of itself so that every interaction is recorded through itself. There is zero room for error in the physics of the universe because there is zero room for the information to go, every single thing we call matter is connected to its(matter's) core. So I think the information actually already existed so it could never be lost unless like the sky tore open and exotic elements rained through adding mass to the universe, unbalancing it in its entirety. But we are here, so, its like we always have been.

Information is not only omnipresent it’s omniscient - duality & eraser. The future is a (useful) human construct but fundamentally it’s only“Then Or There”

I mean, that in itself is a sort of hidden variable theory, which the Bell inequality's experimental violation prohibits (at least, local hidden variable theories)

@@DatPiffy thank you mark twain. Hey, is it safe to say we are already dead, like Einstein said just over the next hill?

Maybe the speed of light is the speed it is because of at least 2 opposing forces pulling on face time

(04/02/24)

We aren't, but consciousness (hive mind the early civilizations called god) is an information system and can extrapolate probable futures and easily make un noticeable adjustments that don't affect free will. It is up to all of us to be a team, and eventually we will be a global society with digital provenance that can allow us to free our minds. We have to defeat fear and ego and closed minded belief/disbelief. The only way is to choose to part of the solution and not make selfish choices, to give to humanity not play a stupid 0 sum game mentality that causes destruction. This is why we are here and why the internet has trended to where it is, why extreme politics are where they are at.. and why fear is winning for many people. Community groups are vital.. education reform.. open source and collaborative constructs.. DAO's.. digital identity and privacy, a whole new cybersecurity era and data economy, decentralized digital society.. almost here ! Decentralized.. sound familiar ? consciousness walking around in these cognition machines making choices ? Entropy is relentless when you have more data. We are the strategy, all our choices matter. Human consensus mechanism has always been the driver of our shared evolutionary strategy for consciousness. We are at the final boss of our own fear. The emergence of Bitcoin was the result of iterative work by many, and just a proof of concept. Whether it will become the new digital gold that reserve banks buy and use to partially back their paper currency with is unknown, but it seems plausible. Cryptography is not a new thing, lol.. and secure databases and distributed computing and shared state networks are not unique to blockchain systems or smart contract platforms. It's a logical consequence of complex interconnected society that has grown too large to manage and corrupted by our young minds.. self focused, fear driven.. we still dont get to have aliens because we aren't even global yet. That was just a scam lol, reglobalization seems like it has been delayed with this senseless war too.. conflict and pushback doesnt help, it only delays us all from levelling up.. but it is inevitable ! there is only trending up or down. Evolution is relentless because of entropy.. BE THE CHANGE... (choose wisely)

The events are suprising because determinism is not proven, once we get the ability of predicting everything, life will be totally empty of meaning

@@cherniaktamir612 it is absolute delusion to think we could come close to predicting everything Reality is FUNDAMENTALLY RULED BY UNCERTAINTY have people still not understood what is going on. It is the most obvious simple setup. I give up lol you'll all learn the hard way with backwards logic

@@cherniaktamir612 If we can’t build a computer larger than the universe then it is unlikely we will ever be able to just predict everything that will happen in the future. There will never be a point when living stops being a series of constant surprises. Even if we know what is coming it is weird to assume that would make the event boring. I am moving back to Japan next month. I know that in advance, and yet the experience will still be just as fun and exciting as it was the first time I moved to Japan. To assume that knowledge of the future bereaves it of excitement and rewards that please our brains is bizarre. Brains are only data-processing units anyway. Excitement and enjoyment of living are not removed from that fact. Knowing of the future data that will be fed to our brains is completely different from actually being fed that data to our brains.

Exactly! No matter what the truth is, ultimately, it was, it is & it always will be behind all the events that unfolds; either we want it or not. All we can do is seek it, we don't get to make it. It's not going to change just because we want to.

"the idea that past, present and future exist simultaneously, and that we are only characters in a pre-written narrative"

@@KendraAndTheLaw Well for one nobody really knows for sure what "consciousness" actually is to begin with. One could even argue consciousness, if nothing else, MUST be real, because of René Descartes' famous adage, "I think therefore I am." I never said I fully subscribe to the super-deterministic theory as explained in the "book" or "movie" scenario. Rather, I prefer what I like to call the "video game universe." Where, like with the other examples, the game cartridge, disk or file contains all of space, time and reality within that universe, but we the players have countless options for how to play the game; our character, our allegiance, our accessories, our techniques, our friends and our adversaries. The rules of the game may be built in and there may be a set number of possible outcomes, but like with many real games, the possibilities outnumber the particles in the observable universe. Finite, but inconceivably vast.

So that's actually a separate concept -- eternalist block space time, in contrast with presentism, growing block, melting block, and others. The eternalist block spacetime model need not be superdeterministic. Granted, it's exceptionally difficult to build an eternalist block spacetime model that isn't superdeterministic, but it is possible. Where eternalist block spacetime becomes really handy is General Relativity. Given some event and some observer, it is always possible to construct for that observer a velocity (recall that velocity is both speed and direction) such that the given event is in the observer's past light cone, in the observer's now-slice (jargon: hyperplane of simultaneity), or the observer's future light cone. Moreso, we can calculate for that event a spacetime manifold configuration where the observer's measurement of the event is in the event's past, the event's present, or the event's future. All the other main temporal models besides eternalist block spacetime have difficulty coping with this -- and even when they do, it almost always involves accepting that non-existing events can have a causal influence on existing events (a steep price if one is attempting to maintain realism, which is usually an explicit goal in such attempts). Superdeterminism is properly a metaphysical position -- it's a description of 'what is' and 'how it is'. Eternalist block space time is a position in philosophy of time (some philosophers updated the title of the subfield to philosophy of spacetime due to Einstein's work, but I prefer the traditional nomenclature), a separate field in philosophy. Like many things in philosophy, these two fields often intersect/overlap heavily, but it's worth the effort to remember which aspects hail from which field. Simulation theory is largely bunk though. It would be generally untestable, and what few models are testable, those tests have largely been done and falsified. On top of that, it doesn't actually solve any of the problems -- it just extends them to a metareality -- what are the physics and facts of THAT realm? What are its origins? How is its time structured (if it even has such a component in a meaningful sense at the very least analogous to what we mean by the term 'time')? Does that realm share the translation mapping between Boltzmann entropy and Shannon entropy (if not, there are gigantic implications for theory of physical computation in that realm -- right down to the fact it could not run on what we consider classical logic, as it would require that realm to operate on a logic where the law of non-contradiction does not hold). While it is possible that simulation's the case -- it's a pseudoscientific concept. We cannot access that realm and as far as we can tell there's no way to even test if there simply is such a realm. Until such a test is proposed, is successful (ie: the null is rejected), and is replicated by peers, it belongs in the bin with orgone and chiropractic 'medicine' (though if someone comes up with a test and their peers agree it's a sound test, hey, we can snag it outta the bin and give it its chance to show what it is worth).

@@AceSpadeThePikachu Descartes' cogito was an excellent attempt at trying to find at least one certain fact. However, it has long been known to not hold water - it does not obtain. In its argumentative form, it assumes the consequent, and is logically fallacious. Saying "I think" pre-assumes that "I" exist. Descartes himself recognized this and tried to find ways to avoid this, but his efforts ended up taking self-existence axiomatically instead of as something that can be shown. The channel Carneades here on youtube has an excellent three-part series that deconstructs the full cogito then each half of the cogito, showing how even the two propositions fail to hold. I will try posting the link in a follow up message but I know youtube tends to not like links, even youtube links.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6ORH1dXLUx0.html

The subject really isn’t. A series easier to follow would be Sabine Hossenfelder’s. The wording is probably the most important part of quantum mechanics, and these videos do that pretty poorly…

And what has spending so much time pondering a piece of physics trivia gained for you?

@@Tdubya A great amount of satisfaction and awe at awe pondering big questions - the reward most true scholars are seeking.

@@Tdubya probably some fun times :) thinking is fun to some

even if its garbage philosophy masquerading as science? like this theory certain is!

@@stefl14 I’m like you, so I’ll chime in as well, some other benefits are: expanding your critical thinking skills, and increasing the capacity and use of your imagination.

I absolutely love this subject, it has been one of my main topics of argument with other people in my life. And I believe that super determinism is the way, but all the people whom I've encountered have told me otherwise in their own view. I'm soo happy to see this and not only know that I'm not the only one thinking that everything is most likely super-detemined but that it is touched upon and tested in real scientific labs... I wish to be a scientist on the bleeding edge of this... Proposing ideas... But I've got a long way to go... That is if I manage to ever get there

There’s no evidence for superdetermism it requires an immense conspiracy in the universe for it to be true

thought I was the only one it's a completely different view to live it imo @@PBlague an kinda depressing depending on one's "fate"

I'm a young academic (3 years post PhD) studying quantum phenomena, and I personally tend to sit more in the camp of the Many Worlds Interpretation. I'm not saying I'm correct, and how we choose to interpret quantum mechanics ultimately doesn't change what the theory can predict (for now at least). However, to me, the Many Worlds Interpretation falls more in line with the mathematics of quantum mechanics. First, it doesn't throw away parts of the wavefunction at the moment of measurement like the Copenhagen interpretation does. Second, it also doesn't add anything to the mathematics of quantum mechanics either, which I feel superdeterminism does by imposing that particles in a superpositon actually choose their final quantum state from their inception, well before any measurement is made. In Many Worlds, the wavefunction of a system in a superposition of states simply remains in such a superposition, even during measurement. A measurement of a property of that system therefore splits reality into the many different possible realities that could have occurred. It might seem like we're adding "realities" just to get around the whole collapse of the wavefunction, but in my opinion, we're not adding anything because the various realities already existed simultaneously for the particles in a superposition. The wavefunction therefore remains exactly as it did before -- in a superposition of states -- until it ceases to exist. Note that this doesn't require conscious observers performing measurements. Any measurement carried out by any particle "disturbing" a quantum system in a superposition of states splits the universe into multiple parallel realities.

@@i_booba ya I have no idea, I just watch RU-vid lol

You love a female physicist who doesn't understand that as a black body heats up, it emits more heat to space (Planck's Law)?

@@i_booba I'm no physicist and therefore I can't have an educated guess, however I would agree that the many worlds interpretation is at least a very elegant interpretation. The problem I have with it is that, as far as I know, at present there is no way to prove or falsify it. So I think I would prefer superdeterminism if it gave me an explanation even only limited to the single world I experience.

But the Zeilinger Experiment has proven that Superdeterminism can't be correct per se. So if Superdeterminism is a thing, it doesn't explain the whole situation completely. There is still a piece missing in the puzzle.

@@Craftlngo Zeilinger experiments show exactly what we would see in a superdeterministic universe, too. They simply show more strongly that Bell was correct that there are no hidden variables. The solution to the paradox is that either instamtaneous communication of quantum information is possible, or, everything is determined. On both a basic intuition level and from the perspective of a deep understanding of physics, determinism becomes the obvious answer. The reason you get the apparent "spooky action" is because YOU are an entity entirely within the universe, operating under physical laws, and therefore are wholly determined by physical laws including quantum mechanics, and as such the paradox is resolved. The only reason the paradox exists is because we use the concept of a truly independent observer, which is impossible.

@@sycodeathman I guess I got this wrong. Language Barrier is hitting hard

@@sycodeathman Superdeterminism is not the obvious answer to me. Superdeterminism is a supposed extra, invisible law of the universe, standing apart from the normal directly acting physical and local ones, that states that quantum correlations must happen, and therefore this law arranged the initial configuration of the universe in such a way as to make them happen via the interactions of the normal physical laws, over all time. Why, how, where do you go from here?! The theory literally tautologically states that because we see quantum correlations, they must happen, without any room for explanation or development of our understanding of physics. The other options Bell tests leave us with are that particles are non real, which means that they are again quite literally in an incomprehensible eldritch state until measurement. Or finally that particles can communicate instantly over any distance. The latter is not compatible with the current mathematical formulation of General Relativity, but though weird, is perfectly imaginable and understandable - Newtonian mechanics can work with instantaneity, so can Lorenz Ether Theory which is mathematically equivalent to Special Relativity. Perhaps we just need to rewrite the mathematics of GR along Aether theory lines. Further, this interpretation of quantum mechanics allows for further development of physics - how do we describe the operation of the hidden variables? How are these rules encoded? Is there another layer of reality to accommodate this? And so on.

@@chalichaligha3234 That's not what superdeterminism states, though. It literally just says everything happens because it is caused by something else, in this case a universal wave function. It's identical to determinism with the added spice that unlike in classical determinism where everything is like billiard balls fated to interact in only one possible way due to physics, everything is wavelike and fated to interact in only one possible way due to physics. Superdeterminism is really not more than determinism.

I made the same assumption you did and your logic is perfectly correct, but to my still current bewilderment the formula to measure spin up for an axis rotated a certain theta degrees away from your particle's spin axis, if the particle is spin up, is cos²(theta/2). And 1 - cos²(theta/2) for spin down. Which means your numbers aren't quite right. It's something to do with spin 1/2 particles. But your logic of splitting the probability by how far a particle's spin axis has to rotate is, I do believe, correct!

and the reverse rotation effect? distance matters not yet revolution is what dictates our perception?

@@helpmechangetheworld these goddamn you screw algorithms got me here guys you realize your entire universe is based on the fact that Galileo look into a telescope that you could beat for 50 bucks at Walmart today and apparently he was able to see Venus and tell you it's size and even the weather and because Galileo was able to do that with his magical telescope you decided to apply all these rules to the rest of your known universe of course there isn't a single shred of scientific proof but I'll be the first one to admit those pictures look amazing that imagination you need to come up with this horseshit can anybody out there tell me one scientific reason why you think you live on a pretty blue ball spinning through space at an unimaginable pace and you think we're crazy

If you have two devices to measure the spin, then I guess you must keep their rotations same relative to each other, right? Meaning if I fly away with one machine on spaceship, and you stay on Earth, which is rotating, I would have to somehow line up my machine to the correct rotation relative to your machine on Earth, right? And if we did not do the meassurement at the same time, I would have to line it up like you had your machine at that time? And if I don't know when you will do or did it, then I am not able to do the meassurement in correct axis. And would we also need to somehow account for curvature of space? So many questions

@@IamMrJerrySoFU remember your Universe only works because Galileo looked into a telescope you could beat at Walmart for 50 bucks today and was able to tell you the size and the exact weather on Venus and after the world bought that you also have to remember that the world has already bought the BS that crepuscular Rays from the Sun are parallel and therefore you can somehow imagine our world to be a pretty blue ball and then once you've established the fact that Galileo spewed about Venus has to be correct they just applied it to the rest of the lights in the sky you see and then they let the NASA's graphic Department paint your entire universe just the way every little kid imagines it to be isn't that a far simpler look at your entire universe than the nonsense you need to spew just to keep a flat pizza that's non rotational spinning so fast it turns into a ball and then all you can rely on is your imagination because science has left the building

Cogito ergo sum

The processes may be real, and your mind may be real in some sense of the term, but the perception of individuality is definitely an illusion. The feeling that possess a distinct mind separate from reality is absolutely not real. Just look at split brain syndrome, or consider the simple fact that your consciousness doesn't exist in a vacuum, but emerges in the interaction between the environment. It's a system which is defined as much by its own internal processes as the external information fed to it, and its function is really only to create an internal model of reality through memory and reasoning and use this model to navigate its environment towards favorable circumstances. It evolved the traits it has because they facilitated survival in more complex niches where multicelluar organisms had to navigate both a complicated environment, but also other minds doing the same thing. It didn't do so with purpose, it was just an adaptation to environmental circumstances. On the one hand the brain carries out many tasks which aren't beneficial to survival as a byproduct of its properties. This doesn't really matter just as long as these byproducts don't inhibit survival. On the other hand, even byproducts like leisure could be seen as beneficial, since the drive for greater recreational stimulation not directly necessary for survival led humans to be curious and seek our new experiences and information and learn new things. It gave us new routes to improve our chances of survival and gave us purpose which made us more likely to persist and grow even in the face of adversity. It made us a more adaptable and resilient species. You can see everything about individuality and consciousness as being interlinked components of an evolving system driven by environmental pressures, and the experience of consciousness itself is just a heuristic, a kind of shorthand processing mechanism that forms as the brain compiles sensory information and sends it through neural pathways which create associations, filter information, and set specific goals to carry out as needed to satisfy the physiological needs. I don't know if you'd call this an illusion. Sure, consciousness itself IS a physical process, but the experience of consciousness is more like a computer program - the program doesn't represent the actual processes generating it, the program itself just a medium at the macro level which simplifies and coordinates interactions. If not an illusion, then maybe a delusion, because if nothing else the experience of consciousness itself may be a real part of reality itself, but entire experience is predicated on a false belief or judgment, which is the very assumption of individuality which underlies all our actions.

​@@professornebula6545exactly free will is the same sort of illusion as time and ego and thought itself is . It's very difficult for most people to accept that even though they may understand that ego is an illusion The experiencer doesn't have free will the same way they can't decide what their next thought emerging in their mind will be .

@@professornebula6545Consciousness is required even to say that there is "physical matter" -- and the world perceived in dream also seems to be a physical one, situated in space and time, although it is not physical. In the final analysis, there's no reason to believe that there is anything other than consciousness. Saying consciousness emerges from physical matter is putting the cart before the horse.

Sabine is my favorite science educator, and an amazing skeptic thinker.

@@naptime_riot She still makes me mad with her dismissal of free will and the multiverse yet she's willing to jump onboard the idea of superdeterminism-which seems to have even less evidence than free will or the multiverse.

​@@shadowthehedgehog3113 except that it is perfectly sensible, and doesn't require a bunch of hooplah (or infinite universes) to work. The quest for "free will" as it pertains to being "free from causality" seems nonsensical, and the argument for superdeterminism gels with everything we know about the universe: that prior events cause later events, and that everything once occupied a sub-superluminal distance together where almost ALL particles could have interacted directly or indirectly. It seems to me that it is the idea of being free from causality that must come with the proof as it defies the way nature seems to work. Superdeterminism has the unique feature among these theories of more simply and elegantly fitting what we observe to be true. At least that's how it seems to me.

Yes, from all interpretations ( or alternatives) of QM, either realist or not, this kind of superdeterministic conspiracy " theories" ( I'm not sure if it is correct to even call this interpretation) is, by far , the most implausible, as it requires both precisely fine tuned initial conditions and, moreover, it has to "mimic" the same correlations of standard QM . Both coincidences seem extremely improbable, to say the least..

But IF the universe is superdeterministic, there is a 50% possibility (if it has no end) it repeats its whole existence-history - maybe with many other evolved instances in between - endless times quantumphysically exactly the same. And every conscious being would repeat its existence also endless times exactly even.

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I think the idea is that it _doesn't_ mimic QM by pure chance or fine-tuning, but rather that there is some unknown law or factor (let's call it "fate") that dictates that the researchers will ALWAYS choose orientations that ultimately illustrate the correlations between the entangled particles as a quantum-mechanical distribution. It's not that they require some kind of conspiracy to make it such that the outcomes only _appear_ quantum-mechanical while they actually aren't, it's that through this unstated, unknown "fate" process it is somehow impossible for non-QM-aligned outcomes to occur. This isn't to say that it's any less absurd or unscientific. If it were the case, then the exact mechanisms of this "fate" factor would be literally impossible to trace by definition, since it would have to be a factor that defies observation. If we try to observe how "fate" affects our choices of observation, then those observations would be subject to "fate" too, and any attempt to track the influence of "fate" on the meta-observation would also be subject to "fate", etc. etc. etc. ad absurdum. It necessitates the existence of something that by definition we cannot observe, infer, or even guess at the properties of, because its own existence would make it literally impossible to think about. It's like a Roko's Basilisk for physicists: a memetic virus that if you obsess too much over it, the only thing it'll do is drive you crazy.

Wait, doesn't retro-causality imply backwards time travel?

@@juimymary9951 Yup. Positrons can be viewed as electrons moving backwards in time. PBS spacetimes one electron universe video is a good one for this. Or the legend Eugene himself has an excellent video about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics where he explains retro causality clearly.

A vortex is just as real as a rock

Yes, that sounds similar to the quote "consciousness is not an illusion" (because an illusion cannot be observed without the existence of a consciousness).

Yes I feel there's a physical collection of molecules for each memory we have.

And illusions are not that.

All interference is measurement, you just don't have the relevant units to describe the interaction most of the time

It's still important to understand that the superposition of particles is not just a consequence of our inability to measure accurately, but a fact inherent to the state of the particles. Particles are fundamentally expressed as waves of probability until they are observed

​@@felixmcphieif we can't measure them properly how do we define them as you have said. Probability is just lack of certainty.

@@HummingShaman The most famous experiment in quantum physics is the double slit experiment because it shows that particles are expressed as waves of probability until observed.

@@felixmcphieuntil they interact.

Yeah that's what I like about this interpretation. And "The entire entangled universe acting upon me at all moments" has some profound implications. Like if you get a sufficiently complex and sensitive system, it takes the entire universe to know its state. Something about that reminds me of "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself". It might be a tad too "new-age spirity", but I like the idea conscious experience is essentially the universe experiencing itself from a limited perspective. Also, I've never really seen determinism as being in conflict with free will, per se. You are 100% free to make whatever decision you want. Determinism just says it's already known which choice you'll WANT to make.

This to me sounds a lot more like the realist nonlocal position (like Bohmian mechanics or objective collapse) though? As in all points in the universe are constantly influencing each other through quantum interactions. Superdeterminism from what I understand is the idea that the universe is like a story that has already been written, with it's own internal rules - the laws of physics. One of it's rules are quantum correlations, so they must happen, to avoid "plot holes". Thus to any character in the story, all the local laws of classical physics apply, and the seemingly instantaneously causal quantum measurements are just a result of the story being written without plot holes so that the classical interactions create situations that produce the illusion of locality violation. I was just wondering which one you were going for or if you disagree with my explanations?

Well said. I don't understand why people still resist it. What's the difference between deciding on having a beer and going 'haha' at the last moment and reaching for a coke? Who do you think you're fooling? The universe? Lol. You're still on the only possible path that lays ahead of you.

Nicely said ... and you're okay with reading this response and knowing it's only the universe or the simulation keeping you interested? :). For now anyway! The only thing I'd add is if the universe is entirely super-deterministic, ultimately it only exists to determine itself, but that's a bit pointless as it already knows that it knows itself and hence there's nothing to determine! A quantum computer simulation however can run with an immense amount of data compression. It only needs to tesselate my individual experience around the perceived reality of me as I see it. Observed quantum mechanical effects in my meatspace are perhaps artefacts of the simulation as it runs out of available resolution in which to compute, so the underlying architecture leaks into my almost entirely classical physics perception of the world. So our experience of QM might be analogous to a side-channel attack on a deeply cached and pipelined processor.

@@AndyGraceMedia Well said, However I would argue, The universe at it's ultimate extents has no ability to determine anything for it can only be "everything" Essentially to it self nothing more then an unchanged crystal structure... To Contemplate or determine would require extra substance outside itself . It may be possible that at the moment Time and Space is created all quantum possibilities are tested at which point the Superdeterministic universes path is determined likely related to the path of least resistance that works as per what ever natural selection defines as "works" on the universal evolutionary time scales (Further determined by additional quantum entanglements with a see of endless other universes bubbling into and out of existence around it . Maybe? lol

But that wouldn’t account for the fact that when observed they pick a spin direction opposite of one another. If, to their perspective, they are still at the same point then we have to throw away the idea that they are conserving angular momentum as they are essentially the same particle (yea can’t have that) and the observed spin should be the same. P.S. I can be very wrong I’m still trying to get my head around quantum Mechanics

@@adeyemi120 true they will have the same spin until they are measured, because the spin will still remain undetermined until they strike a detector and lose their velocity. As long as they're not interfered with they'll remain coupled and act as a single object, spin being superposition of both up/down, until one gets measured. Then that action determines the spin of both. It's hard to wrap your mind around it because it violates our conventional Ida of causation. But one you accept that our macro scale ideas of causation are built up from simpler things at the quantum scale, it's not so bad. Quantum field theory even points to the idea that there really are no such things as particles per se, just points of action within a field of energy. So if that's true then nonlocality is the normal state of things, and our idea of local causation is what's really unusual. :-)

Debunked in one sentence: use electron spin instead of photon polarization.

@user-fc8xw4fi5v that doesn't change anything. Electron entanglement effects are mathematically no different. And debunked means you have disproven something that was fake or false, but presented as true. That's not what is happening here.

They experience no time, therefore they have experienced no movement? No. Spacetime is four orthogonal dimensions.

Yes. Voluntary action of moving a body part is different than believing a concept by being convinced by evidence. I think there is no free will so there is no choice for either, but there is certainly no choice for believing in something

But in a total deterministic universe determines your character, life circumstances, experience, knowledge, upbringing etc in turn determining your beliefs I like the idea of completely deterministic world because, for me, it actually provides REAL free will If the universe is deterministic I am the universe and I determine everything Real free will Idk if u get me xd

@@gnidarap A deterministic brain is no more free than is a marble rolling down a mountain.

Faith is believe that isn't really convincing, so much so that people often scream over the oddities and outcomes despite their faith. It is absurd that every brain is constructed and populated and harmed/aged so that all actions are determined in advance. It goes 100% against our reality.

There are plenty of mental conditions that contradict the idea that you have to be convinced to believe something. It would be nice if logic and evidence were more broadly correlated to belief.

Exactly! Some explanations show as though I'm watching a photon pass through a slit, but if I can see the photon, then it's in my eye and not part of the diffraction pattern. Then that misconception is used to start saying all kinds of BS about consciousness.

We are part of universe not something else in it. Instrument, human, not so diff thing.

@@NotHumant8727 Exactly. No consciousness required.

Wrong. Von Neumann chains are at the very least a consideration against your point. At the end of the day, there is a human cognizing the measurement.

@@shawniscoolerthanyou imo consciousness is loosely defined ascientific term. It should not even be regarded.

Superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will. It’s about arbitrarily letting go of statistical independence and assuming spooky hidden variables. I think it’s a fantasy, possibly woo

@@pandawandas superdeterminism implies no freewill at human scales...

This actually does matter. This knowledge is used every day in various forms of technology. Quantum computers function on precisely this and thats why they are so hard to make. When a quantum computer is running it uses entangled particles in superpositions to do its calculations and the only thing stopping them from being good enough to fundamentally change large parts of the computer industry such as how encryption works is that the entanglement breaks after measurement and the computer has to spend a bunch of time setting it back up before running a new calculation. Some breakthroughs may have solved this problem but haven't yet been applied to an existing quantum computer. Not that anyone should actively worry about this but a fully functioning quantum computer can crack all modern RSA encryptions in minutes to seconds. So every secure online transaction you make would no longer be secure. This won't happen there are quantum encryptions to replace RSA but it shows how fundamental and drastic and effect this stuff can have on your life. This has very little to do with philosophy; that is a confusion with what the term observer means. By definition any particle/waveform interacting with another is an observation and will cause the waveform to collapse and so doesn't really on a conscious mind in any way. The debate is not philosophical one but a scientific one about the nature of reality. If we could answer for certain weather the universe is random or deterministic we might for instance gain new insights into the theory of quantum gravity which has so far eluded humanity.

Science used to be called "natural philosophy". I think our culture made a mistake in separating the two as much as we did. Quantum mechanics has been gradually bringing them back together over the last 60 years or so. I think much of what is discussed here matters deeply, but I agree it may be more "philosophy" than "science".

@@bxdanny That would just be inaccurate. As someone with degrees in both subjects, I can tell you they are vastly, irreconcilably different.

No need to understand. Quantum mechanics is correct even if it bothers our classical intuition

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Vastly irreconcilably different. That's laughable at best. Remember, there are multiple men you read about during your schooling who were at the apex of their profession and were dead wrong. Much like Einstein and spooky action at a distance.

I still don't get many's obsession with defending free will. It's almost among the most religious traits that modern science retains.

Call me reductive but that's just a pedantic way of redefining what a 'decision' is, so that it fits in with your belief in Superdeterminism.

Paradoxical statements aren’t particularly helpful, but you were, of course, always bound to see things this way.

@@santiagonicolasarellano6239 You don't understand peoples obsession with defending free will? It is simple dude. It is predetermined. As if you logically know that there is no free will and that everything is predetermined, including people defending it, but intuitively you think that people actually do have a choice to change their opinion, so you are trying to change it and get frustrated when you fail

​@@santiagonicolasarellano6239 I had the same grievance but at some point you just have to recognize that people don't really want "free will". A completely free will would mean a betrayal of their identity which no identity wants. In other words, it is our will to do some things which drives forward decision making. Free will in this context would only make things worse since right now our mental faculties are literally doing the best possible job in making decisions. Its hard to explain but basically it would mean either inneficient expresion of the will or a change of the will which would negate identity. I wrote a short paper about this but it is not english, if you want I can answer any other questions.

Maybe their was more then 1 big bang that overlapped as they expanded

it was for sure - anyhow :-)

Same, so in the Macro world Keeping it simple bare with me if we decided to do a Cat experiment it was already determined ? Because we already decided the parameters ? An automated cat farm one is alive or dead no observation. FYI love cats just trying to wrap my head around this. Are we not just local Sensors on earth ? Changing all observations, you get a photon I did not...?

It's really interesting watching Sabine's take. She's highly dismissive of the results from confusing experiments like the delayed choice Quantum eraser, and that confused me until I saw her views on Determinism. I guess she believes that quantum probabalism is actually an illusion, which seems a bold take.. but it does seem to resolve these mysteries (I'll take the word of qualified scientists on that front). Both Determinism and many-worlds seem quite hard pills to swallow. As a layman I've wondered whether maybe 1. the waveform operates separately somehow to the 4d universe we can observe, and isn't bound by the laws of relativity, or 2. that many worlds is only true for very limited examples where decoherence can exist, and that the other worlds resolve to a single logically-coherent reality in the same way the waveform appears to. Such a fascinating topic

I feel theres a bit of irony... saying "finally" and "waiting" regarding a video on superdeterministic universe. There's gotta be a joke here...

Just being conscious and being able to make choices. Why overcomplicate it?

@@tomarsandbeyond because that's literally what arbitraryconstant means by non-falsifiable intuition. You can be 'aware' of a choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream at a single point in time. If that point could be repeated an infinite number of times we might find that you always pick chocolate. But we can't do that. The fact that you can pick vanilla at _another_ point in time is irrelevant. That you are aware that there is a choice is irrelevant. You are still picking from two options presented to you by forces outside of your control. You could choose to go to another store to have another set of choices, that is under your control, but again the options available to you are still eventually the product of forces outside your control. You can't choose flavors that can't exist, just like you can't choose to fly into space by flapping your gills. Basically the decision tree for any possible thing you can do at any possible moment has been infinitely trimmed by things completely out of your control since the beginning of time. The funny thing is it literally doesn't matter if free will exists or not, you would do and say and experience the exact same life regardless. I really don't know why people claw so hard at a concept they can't reasonably define.

@@MinaciousGrace How you can not understand why people prefer to have free will points to a huge deficiency in you, not me. I did not say that everything is possible and someone could fly if they wanted to. You seem to be deficient in understanding people and willing to make up straw-man falsehoods to prove your supposed "point." I know exactky what the video is saying. But it is all theoretical. Surely you will reply with more smarmy, superior attitude and lies.

That doesn't logically follow then that Sabine's dismissal of free will as untrue is the correct answer either. If its non-falsifiable then Sabine's idea that there is NO free will is also untrue. BTW, the idea of free will being unfalsifiable is dubious. You could effectively disprove free will-but nobody has-despite many people's adamant belief that it isn't real. Their arguments are inconsistent and rely on an outdated and presumptuous view of how the universe works.

@@MinaciousGrace But the existence of consciousness is a direct blow to the idea to the hypermaterialist arguments against free will. If we are no more than chemical reactions and particles-how does consciousness exist? Calling it an illusion is also a cop out. How would a bunch of hypermaterialist chemical reactions and particles perceive an illusion? The anti-free will side is just as reliant on intuition as the free will side.

No, because that computer must be part of its own measurement, computation and especialy of the deterministic consequences itself. This would be a theory with no falsification, thus no science at all. And the mapping must be at least as big as the universe. This is an infinite regress.

It’s just a way of praising Nathen Rosen by using Einstein’s expiration date

It's the only serious possibility, all the rest "realism" is just a mere repeated tentative to save religion, imputability, etc.

An excellent analysis and overview Daniel. Perhaps yet another mathematical equation can one day be formulated to prove Superdeterminism, or demonstrate that determinism and realism function in parallel. From a theological standpoint, this video may help explain how a pre-existent Divine Entity is able to engage in prophecies of the future; and with each prophetic fulfillment, human freewill is challenged by predestination. Albeit purely hypothetical, I nonetheless see a scientific connection. By all means feel free to disagree.

Well, determinism was the "default" worldview among scientists for a long time. And then quantum physics ruined it, as experiments showed there is a randomness to everything. Now there is a chance that we live in super-deterministic world, but there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Thing is: you can't be sure until you've got a proof. And there is yet no experimental proof for both deterministic and non-deterministic worldviews. You can "believe" in whatever you want (or whatever you are determined to believe in), but that's not a scientific method. That's why modern physics is so fascinating. It really came close to answering - or at least, asking - questions that was previously only answered in religion. And those answers were just hypothesis' unfortunately, even though some people choose to believe in them. Right now we are on the brink on turning those into theories. Maybe one day we'll be able to find the real answer.

Yup. Our minds are far too… primative to actually see the strings. We can just conclude they exist. To understand it all would be to have a full understanding of the universe and thats technically impossible except for the universe itself. And Its pretty mum on that subject.

@@UchihaOokami2596 Correct. This is why I have chosen to employ scientific method, deductive reasoning, and Divine revelation in my search for truth. Knowledge can be gained through the observations of science and mathematics; the separation of fact from fiction can be achieved through philosophy and the testing of hypothesis; and wisdom can be attained by a careful reading of the sacred texts.

So right on. It parallels the day, today, and how every undermorrow and tomorrow makes every time a prescription for the new day , then, overmorrow, which is the new day birthed to every undermorrow and tomorrow. So for every 2 days is born a new day, a 3rd day. This is today's tomorrow rewritten for our yesterday that we did wrong. And it's only by observing the wrong way that we might accept and receive the prescription handed us , is in contrast to the wrong way we did . Another chance to move on into perfection always.

I THINK u can be separated, mark results, and then join up again.

@@noahway13 the point is that you can only know the answer by comparing the results, qt which point both experiments would be in the comparisons light cone

I agree. It doesn't seem feasible to separate the cones of influence if both must be accessed from a central testing ground. I applaud the longtime development of the experiment, assume that these issues have been taken into consideration, & the result of this scientific research are published - ready to be disputed. As long as the scientific method is applied the facts will be exposed - along with the non-factual assumptions.

it doesn't exist is a pretty reasonable definition.

I’ll do it right now- “libertarian freewill is the idea that we can have done otherwise in any given situation. It essentially implies that we are able to suddenly no longer be atomic systems interacting with other atomic systems, and can somehow step outside of reality itself in order to make a decision that isn’t directly informed by it” It’s clearly anthropocentric arrogance about our own sense of magical self importance. We are a piece of software running on an apes brain and we are governed by the same laws of reality as everything else

@@brennanlable No…? What is the “it” that doesn’t exist in that scenario? That’s not a definition, that’s like starting that “nothing” “doesn’t” “exist”. Or something equally absurd.

@@tetronym4549 Anything that cannot be measured, does not exist. Therein your brain is a biological computer not unlike a digital computer, simply more complex and far more efficient. Though our advantage is dwindling quickly. The speed of evolution is so slow, it might as well be no improvement at all, while AI is catching up at near the speed of light. And who is making AI? A better question is: "Who is growing AI?" as we are now copying nature.

Free will according to most people is basically being able to go against your biological programming. Which is absurd. If you make a decision, it's always a result of your brain making that decision. There is no way you can rebel against your own brain.

Wow. How about you actually just use 'Layperson,' instead of using that boggeted engendered language. "LayMAN." How about you wake up and realize the harm you're enacting

yes you feel like you don’t have free will when you test the boundaries of your free will, it may just be compulsion though.

I know the box I open will have the glove I'm not looking for.

@@DazedSpy2 relativity is so underrated, there is far more to this, it can be applied to so many other things All Einstein missed was the information age, it would have been blatantly obvious to him that this is a probabilistic virtual computer created by our shared consciousness and energy/matter has to be quantized - you can't store HALF of a bit in memory. Quantum mechanics is actually ridiculously easy you just have to be a gamer and understand data is not information. Buddha said it best. This world is an illusion. We are one !

Also it's not a paradox it's just not wasting bits on things that aren't necessary. Computed realities are always constrained by resources and doing things the hard way is just dumb. When you simulate a virtual world you don't program a clockwork universe of atoms and subatomic particles those only exist because we looked. VM's present results to avatars. If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around does it make a sound ? THERE IS NO TREE that data is not being rendered because noone is around sigh.. one day we'll all be digital natives and this will be childs play.. you can literally explain it to a 10 year old that we live in a computer game that we make as we experience life, quantum mechanics isn't hard at all. The standard model lacks logic for a superset computing the reality and bingo you're done DICHOTOMY and duality is inescapable ! QM and relativity are just the pair of facets of how this universe of "physical" seeable touchable stuff is rendered if you look. We like looking.

@@goldnutter412 on a side note, if a tree falls in a forest and no one was around to hear it, it in fact does NOT make a sound. It may make sonic waves and vibrations, but without a brain to translate those vibrations, they are not a "sound". Just ripple in the air

That's essentially what he's describing at 8:57. But then he explains why that's wrong, and I couldn't understand that part. LOL

I agree. It's not like one thing is causing another thing, there's just a correlation, and how often do we like to say that correlation is not causation?

Exactly. Even with instantaneous state change across the universe, there still isn't any useful information exchanged. It's still weird, but like Matt says, 100 years of this stuff should have taught us by now not to expect things to make us feel comfortable!

There is no distance when it comes to the quantum level, cause all particles everywhere in the universe have a baseline quantum frequency, the only local area is the particular universe you are observing.

@@onidaaitsubasa4177 So would you say that space is created when we make an observation?

If I am understanding you correctly, I'm not sure that being able to send messages back in time is a "better" resolution the the paradoxes implicated here.

Retrocausality (what you're suggesting) _is_ another, albeit slightly different, valid EPR solution. It's counterintuitive, but given the idea that the arrow of time might only seem to move forward because of the general increase in entropy since the big bang, causality _could_ theoretically go both ways. I personally don't think so, since I think of entropy as like a record of causality: entropy increases over time because information about prior interactions between objects builds up over time, carrying that information into the future so that causes can follow effects. It's my opinion that causality cannot work in a direction of decreasing universal entropy, which is what the idea of retrocausality needs in order to function. But I'm not an actual physicist, and the math as we know it seems to work just as well backwards as it does forwards.

Yes, it would; retrocausality can be considered a form of superdeterminism. In fact, if you read between the lines in Sabine's videos, you can see this is the kind of mechanism she believes is behind quantum measurements

@@pgp1558 I don't think that's what Sabine is suggesting happens. It has been a while since I've watched her video on the topic, but from memory her interpretation is that the interactions which influence the measurement choices travel forwards in time from the particle creation to the time of the measurement, as opposed to the time of the measurement having a retrocausal influence on the time of partical creation. The maths is probably mostly the same, particularly for simple scenarios, but I think where entropy gets involved they might diverge.

What if the Big Crunch theory holds and entropy will decrease when universe starts to shrink? Particles will get fused(created) again, and nothing will prevent another intelligent civilisation to measure time in opposite direction (queue TENET the movie:)

To be completely honest, I think it would be a very stupid test and I would question the aliens' advanced-ness: to give out a test with a 50% possibility of being successful by sheer luck, doesn't weed out the dumb, just the unlucky.

@@DarioCastellarin keep the ones interested in science and technology and weed out the ones without a heart or without a decent brain

@@DarioCastellarin a bit short sighted in my opinion. It isn't just make it or don't, what about using something, and how or why? If I give you a rare space metal, and then watch to see how you utilize it, or if you even run tests to see (edit: how) it may best be utilized... well that's beyond sheer luck isn't it? Maybe the process in determining what to do with this metal is the test, not just what is made with it. My two cents anyhow

@@nicholascurran1734 the episode referred here was about how it would be impossible to deduce an alien's notation standard for certain physical qualities, like charge. There's no axiom-free way to deduce what is a positive or negative charge in an alien's standard model. But once you figure that out, you can easily derive all other values, like color, spin, etc. My comment was about this: you could flip a coin and have a 50% possibility of being right. It's not an intelligence test.

@@DarioCastellarin then we're not talking about the same thing. The test of giving technology, in concept or material, and what is done with such, is what I'm talking about. It's at the very end of the episode, and it's a tangent off the main topic of the episode. So while your argument may have merit, I don't see why it came in response to my post. Cheers

That's what my intuition always told me too. But what do I know..

Then you will accept that I will sell you a bridge in Florida swampland for a ridiculously inflated price, and we will look at each other, shrug, and say, "superdetermism". I around this weekend.

@@markdwyer5301 The fact that you wrote was superdetermined.

What if I told you that your existence, your sense of time, your memories, and the entire universe as you know it is just a computer program and it only went live three minutes ago.

@ohroonoko the universe gone live 3 minutes ago is a very good, mind blowing way of showing a point. @wade throw some computer theory to the argument and it's easy to see that it's probably impossible to compute a N particle universe inside a N particle universe. That said, inner universes would have to resort to simplifications, shortcuts to be able to compute a similar number of particles than their mother universe. All that only to agree that we'd never be able to calculate nor outpace our own universe in the computation it's performing.