👌

I live in OC maybe one day I hop into your bus and talk about Nima, he is very enjoyable. I agree with you 💯

I like it!

+Ralph Clark There is no possible way of adequately describing anything 'quantum' without introducing its mathematical formalism, thus i'd go with neither

+Ma Te I have been shown the mathematical formulism. any fool can do that. That's not what I meant by "mean".

Ralph Clark Do you think he is a genius ? I like him, when he talk he makes everything so easy to understand.

Yes, NAH easily qualifies as a genius. Another guy to watch is Erik Verlinde who is working in the same field, although he tends to speak to a more mathematical audience. Sean Carroll is the best at explaining abstruse theoretical physics concepts to non mathematicians. I also want to mention that Roger Penrose is thrilling and easy to follow. Look up his mindblowing lectures on Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.

Ralph Clark thanks for your suggestions.

Nima's enthusiasm and personality make the topic fascinating.

LOL Well said Shirley.

Why, are they better than him?

He's a lecturer by profession

Entropy is the causation of time, that is understood, you obviously don't understand what this talk is about.

Ever heard of Minkowski space? I suggest you start from there

@@ProxyAuthenticationRequired Haha yes, very likely. But Bostrom would make no distinction. The simulated Bostrom would simply be all the Bostrom there ever was.

Well, I'm just curious about connecting connecting the theory to the human personality. Just curious about the connections.......

@@ANGEL-eh6pd yes. Game theory Stanford experiments Decentralisation of economic relationships.

It provides a tractable of "mirror symmetry"

I would trust Nima Arkani-Hamed over Einstein in this case because Einstein was wrong about QM since 1905.

@@schmetterling4477 Einstein allowed himself to disrespect QM in his debates with Neils Bohr while Bohr never disrespected GR even though all of physics starts from assumptions. I really wish EPR had been resolved during Einstein's and Bohr's lifetimes if only to tone down Einstein's baseless cockiness. The trouble with physicists is they repeatedly allow themselves to fall into a rut of blinkered thinking, especially when promising new physics theories arrive. That's why Arkani Hamed is so exciting, in the same way that Feynman was, they are the few that seem least tied down by the consensus of the day. Physics needs more lateral thinkers like them.

@@motherofallemails What makes you believe that EPR is a problem, in the first place? And why do you put the false opinions of two old men who were far past their career primes and no longer informed about the actual level of physical knowledge over the facts dictated to us by nature? This isn't religion and saint veneration has no place in it.

@@schmetterling4477 You didn't understand what I wrote, EPR was a problem until it was resolved, vindicating Bohr, it's just a pity that neither of them were alive to see it. Also, they were not old when they were debating, they were fully "informed" in their time, in fact they literally WERE the source of the information at Copenhagen, so you really sounds ridiculous. And nobody talked about religion.

which work?

@@numbstuffpeoplesay9309 Kant say

If you mean determinism by saying materialism then yes . Matter is not fundamental.

It's completely unnecessary.

There is no known edge. The 92 billion light years is due to the universe expanding faster than the speed of light so overall size in the macro universe is not an accurate representation of age strictly speaking.

Then you were told wrong. You would be correct that the age of the universe is, more or less, the only physically somewhat meaningful number if we apply a reasonable level of physical realism to the situation. The distances are not actually measurable, but the local cosmological time is. Be that as it may, the observable universe is finite both in space and time and always will be.

Oh, please do explain.

Ah yes, I see what you're saying. I never thought about it that way. You make a great point, I don't know what I was thinking. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

An observer in a super-deterministic system is a limited observer. It is obvious that they cannot know all information about the system. This is like saying a black hole can observe & know itself, which it cannot do. Super-determinism is as much speculation as is non-super-determinism. This is obviously a fundamental and as of yet unanswered question. I am free to speculate that he is wrong and that super-determinism will be measured. There is an experiment devised to test for this using distant cosmological objects. Bell mentioned that his experiment would be impacted if the observer had no choice about setting up the EPR experiment. Arguably, the laws of thermodynamics are evidential support for it. That we cannot predict specific quantum outcome beyond probability is indirect experimental data that we love to suggest deterministic is false because we're in love with the illusion of free will. Despite clear experimental data of human choice being determined by initial conditions that show we have no free will, we continue to reject this. So why would determinism be different? Assuming they successfully performed the cosmological experiment and it showed determinism is true, people would still reject it.

Jonathan Langdale I am feeling annoyed that the universe decreed that I would be annoyed by reading your comment about a totally speculative concept.

I'm not at all annoyed because it could not have been any other way.

He did say something about superdeterminism- around 9:00 he said : we would never be able to measure the observables unless we have a God-like view to the outside of the Universe.

his point was: The abstraction called space-time may in fact be what is hindering efforts to reconcile gravity with quantum physics. His suggestion was to maybe look for an abstraction that reduces to space-time under some simplifying assumptions and one that hopefully is obviously related to quantum physics. His point was to suggest a possible path forward to people working towards a solution. I agree that it would be useless to someone like you just waiting to see what them people looking for a solution can come up.

I suppose he never went to Toastmasters to become a perfect professional speaker - he focuses on content.

@Stephen Crowley you are pathetic

Ed Parachini .......WOW ! I can't believe you said that ! You let your petty annoyance focus on delivery, rather than hear/feel his spontaneity, and his brilliance in arranging thoughts so others, not on his level, will gain something. You try that !

Ed Parachini ........the man is not a twit nervous.

Shirley, please don't let Ed waste YOUR time. As it also did mine! :P

Just F*** off Trumper !!