Surprisingly I am not satisfied with these doctors debate... I will try explain this in comment

Reality is... essentially spirit. But, of course, there are degrees of spirit. In the history of Muslim thought the idea of degrees of Reality appears in the writings of Shihabuddin Suhrawardi. - Sir Dr. Iqbal

To the institute, Get a better moderator, who not only wastes everyone's time making silly comments, but also comes across as a cringeworthy buffoon in his interactions with the lady scientist. It would be shameful if the institute does not have a stern talk with this low grade moderator.

i dont mean to be so offtopic but does any of you know a tool to log back into an instagram account..? I was dumb lost my login password. I love any help you can offer me!

@Sean Gunner instablaster :)

Ancient philosopher's already knew. Cycle of ignorance. No one will care and then care and so on and so on.

I think Timpson was very poor at explaining QBism - I have just spent an hour looking it up. Sigh, but its just another interpretation.

@@nosnibor800: Not only that. It's philosophy more than it's physics.

Both matter and forces obey the laws of nature. The laws of nature dictate the evolution of any system from it's initial conditions out into the future. Our brains are made of matter and interacts with forces. Hence the system that is our brains must evolve into the future according to the laws of nature. Our will is the result of the state of our brains. Hence our will also evolves according to the laws of nature, and in that sense is not free.

That is correct. The photon only "exists" because an irreversible transfer of that energy takes place between the electromagnetic field and an external system (e.g. an atom). This is all contained in the Copenhagen interpretation, already, we simply don't teach this trivial fact. The isolated quantum system does not have quanta, its evolution is perfectly "smooth" as described by e.g. the Schroedinger equation (or a similar relativistic field equation) and the "quantization by irreversible process" is taken care of by the Born rule.

We know science is never settled and it moves from one error to the next. It is even worse in Cosmology: "In cosmology we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120. This is the largest mismatch between theory, and experiment in the history of science." Michio Kaku

We'll not know everything.

it's a humbling experience

For all we know we could be a product of a magical turtle swimming in an ocean and having vision in some bigger realty. That's how much we don't know so it's pretty funny yes.

@@yoooyoyooo We may be like some small lives in a small pond, .....that's our universe.

At the end of the day, prizes mean far less than good arguments

Every thought in our mind is either reality or an illusion. And the greatest challenge in life is to know the difference.

@@johnellis7614 Actually every thought an is opinion of your own. Only sometime your opinion is reality, sometimes it's not. Here, that is more accurate.

Because chaos doesnt save free will. "Free will" is not refering to "unpredictable will" its refering to "free" will. The problem with "free" will is that it doesnt define what the will is, or what that will is free from. In my opinion, free will is not a physical problem, its a philosophical problem. Its a problem of unclear language. Don't even start at free will. Just define "will" and you will have a hard time just doing that.

​@@Mawa991 Yes, it seems to me that it's a semantic problem before anything else especially bearing in mind the linguistic turn in philosophy but traditionally the discussion of free will has often been centred around its contradictory status against some form of determinism be it physical or Newtonian determinism, or God's omniscience at least outside the legal context. I partially agree that free will may not be exclusively unpredictable will but I also think it has to be a major part of the discussion of free will, following the tradition. After all predict is pre+dict, or before+say, and if your will can be "said before" in accordance with determinism, is it really free in the absolute sense? But here I see an opportunity for philosophising free will based on chaos theory because it could prevent humans from accessing the unlimited predictability but still keep us within the constraints of determinism on the metaphysical level at the same time. Ultimately this would just be a form of compatibilism but arguments for compatibilism I've seen haven't been that convincing for me so I was just wondering.

Higher dimensions isn't an escape hatch. It's going to be an equivalent paradigm shift to the realization that Earth isn't the center of the cosmos. Having higher dimensions doesn't necessarily mean an infinite number of universes in a Multiverse. It might mean that quantum unsharpness dissapears in higher dimensions.

PS I also tend to land in T Hoofs camp

kyaume21 thank you so much for this well formulated desciption. It breaks down the three perspectives on science in this discussion in a very accurate way. paxwallacejazz Higher dimensions are the result of extracting the nature of reality out of pure mathematics. String Theory and Supersymmetry try to explain the weakness of gravitation compared to the other 3 forces by introducing extra dimensions that fail to appear in any deterministic experiment anywhere. The multiverse ideas exit scientific realms even further. All these mathematical approaches violate the essence of science by the absence of falsify-bility: they don't contribute to science, but to religion. We learned that physics can be described by mathematics. But not every mathematical thought can be translated to physical reality. And this is where a vast number of modern ideas fail. Just multiply stuff by -1 and time will move backwards. Just add extra dimensions and equations will work fine. Where are these dimensions? Simple! Just put them ALL into Planck's scale, where they can never be found. This is not science. This is just limitless guessing.

Everett's "Many Worlds" is actually a proper formulation that is taken seriously by physicists. The brief popular explanation might sound like crazy hand-waving, but the real theory is a logical and mathematical consequence of "the wave never collapses". Also, who says the universe is finite?

​@@JohnDlugosz You're wrong. The Many World Theory is not science, but religion. You just CAN'T translate all mathematical possibilities into our cosmos. The reason behind wave behavior is tremendously accurate solved by QFT. All that 'mysterious' double slit experminents become quite normal if you start to calculate using QCD fundamentals. Don't just repeat the nonsense of that Many World priests, they're just trying to sell their String Theory that is highly undeterministic. Even the LHC didn't detect ANY evidence. It's a big difference to deviate the universe from observation or to deviate the universe from pure mathematical ideas. Mathematical possibilities are endless, but the universe's possibilities are NOT.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/abKKo7Cjkr7adWQ.html

Your comment didn't exist until I saw it.

I don't know what you mean by observer type but judging by the irrelevance of your question I think I can safely assume that you're of the suppository type.

When the cat is dead, the cat is dead whether you look inside the box or not. Schrodinger put forth that thought experiment specifically to illustrate the absurdity of the notion that it would be otherwise.

Therrs a difference between this being organic in nature or a simulation or experiment.tgat should be important to most regardless of perception or awareness

You might enjoy reading Donald Hoffman. He contends that our senses have evolved as tools to help us survive - not as tools to show us the truth. Our senses show us a filtered, processed version of the world optimized for our survival.

He's a true legend

But Chiara has quantum mechanical hair. However, many worlds? No. I don't buy that.Not in any real sense.

@@thrunsguinneabottle3066 yes.. Many worlds is just wishful thinking

Did Gerard t'Hooft thé philosopher in the groin, figuratively of course.

@@thrunsguinneabottle3066 Good thing your purchase of it has nothing to do with it being true or not. Imagine if we decided what was true based on the opinion of a single uninformed person.

No the table was created by a carpenter and it existed before you entered the world. If it did not what did the carpenter create?

@@betafoofoo270 the carpenter created a thought. He used his brain to 'see' the wood, his brain to move his arms, his brain to hear the hammer knocking on nails. All that happened in the carpenters mind, through electrical signals, thought. The eyes aren't lenses shining light into the brain. The brains only access to the outside word is through electrical signals, thought. If the table falls and lands on your head, what is it you 'feel", 'see' and 'hear'? It certainly isn't a table you see, feel and hear, its electrical sinusoidal waves in the mind that you are sensing. If there is an experiment that can be done to prove that table is material and 'real' I would love to hear it, but there isn't one that can ever be done. In fact when we look at the table we find it is a collection of wave functions, waves.

That sinusoidal electrical signal is not sinusoidal it's a longitudinal wave for a start. Moreover it carries a pattern - it has been modulated - a very distinct pattern which conveys information to the brain about what created it - the table. The information carried to the brain allows the brain to interpret that information to arrive at the conclusion " I have been hit on the head by a table". Quite distinct from the information conveyed when hit on the head by a tennis ball or a fish. So all are real , all exist in reality , the table, the tennis ball, the head , brain and the fish. Reality is very real indeed.

Quantum mechanics actually isn't spooky. It has a feature we call entanglement that doesn't mesh perfectly with our intuitive notions of spacetime - that is all. It doesn't help that the popular media inevitably presents quantum theory with the deliberate intent of maximizing its "mystique." They will, without fail, eventually say that "the quantum system can be in more than one state at a time." That is 100% wrong - they're conflating the "state" with the possible results of measurements. Quantum systems always have exactly one state. It may happen that when it's in a given state and we decide to measure something, more than one outcome is possible and which one will occur is utterly unpredictable. But once we make that measurement we get one answer. You can't even talk about a system having a value for a measurement unless you MAKE the measurement. Prior to the measurement the observable doesn't HAVE a value. So, rather than saying "the system is in multiple states at once," they should say "the system is in a state that HAS NO value for the observable, until we measure it." Then the system is in one state and does have a value for the observable. In other words, the cat is never alive and dead at the same time. Rather, until you look the very question of whether the cat is alive or dead is irrelevant and meaningless. But that whole thought experiment is misrepresented - it's typically presented as the way Schrödinger explained how mysterious quantum theory is. But what it actually was was Schrödinger giving us an example of how stupid quantum theory can be if you try to over-interpret it. The proper explanation for that situation is "There is a cat in that box and WE DON'T KNOW whether it's alive or dead." Then, when we LOOK IN THE BOX, we DO know. Simple as that.

@@KipIngram the observable still exists, the value we measure refers to an observable, it isn't the observable itself. And we know the observable exists in more than one state at any time, it just isn't single values like it becomes when we measure it So for instance in the schrodingee thought experiment it can be that in half the universes the cat is alive and in half it is dead. When we open the box half the versions of you sees a dead cat, and the other half see an alive cat.

The question is: does the liar to see reality or an illusion? After all sometimes a liar mistakenly promotes the common good.

Wtf? Stay on topic

My common sense says the exact opposite

Rovelli is simply overthinking and so are you. Time is the physical quantity which the clocks show. Once you understand what a clock is, you know what time is.

@@schmetterling4477 A clock is a counter, but it does not explain the paradox or resolve it.

@@nosnibor800 You are overthinking, just like Rovelli. And, no, a physical clock is not a counter. Far from it.

"Well it's been ruled out ...(likely attempting to discuss recent loop hole free tests)..anyway."

@@eenkjet n. U hnyhy. H my h!. H n u hnyhy, hnynynh. Yn. Nyny,., N n, hjn. Yh, y!!!!!..!

it was in Klingon

Yeah... I don’t think that’s correct.

Observing requires consciousness in QBism, not in Copenhagen.

The split experiment says otherwise

The photons or electrons you use for "observing" other electrons interact with them and can change their behavior. It's like... suppose you could only "observe" a table with a sledgehammer. Is it a broken table or is it not? It's in superposition. After the hammer hits it or misses it the table wave function collapses and you know what it was. Problem is you can't SEE elementary particles without disturbing them.

@Simone De Filippo No, that's just a misunderstanding of what "observation" means. When you observe something, what "collapses the wave function"(this isn't a real thing) is the photons emitted by what you are observing becoming entangled with the object you're using to make the measurement. Observation is meant as simply the act of making a measurement, consciousness comes into play after the entanglement happens.

It might be a simulated reality, in which case it becomes not really real. It becomes simulated real, which is not real.

@@shefchenko111 So where is the simulation? Surely it must exist somewhere real, therefore it is real in a sense, so something is real somewhere. Its the similar question as "If god created the universe, what created god?".

@@StaticYonder Exactly. That's why I always say there cannot be a first thing. Because what created it? What created the creator of the first thing? What possibly CAN be the first thing ever to exist? There can't be a first thing, therefore nothing is really real. :D I know it sounds stupid at first, but it really makes sense(at least in my mind).

@@shefchenko111 it really doesn't just stop there buddy

That is so. Not only you percive senses you also percive those stories and you percive your reactions to those stories and other senses. All the perceptions could be false but some are not for sure. The seeing it self is there no doubth about that. What you see is already subject to interpretstion. Why people complicate stuff so much is beyond me.

She's got the universe reclining in her hair.

One electron

Hooft is old Dutch spelling for 'hoofd' which means 'head' . ''t Hooft is an abbreviation for 'het hoofd'=the head, 'het' being just the particle (in a linguistic sense).

Modern quantum mechanics doesn't even need interpretations. If you are looking for the "correct" interpretation, then Copenhagen is all you will ever need. It cleanly separates between the smooth evolution of isolated quantum systems and the effect of irreversible energy transfers (emission, absorption) via the Born rule that create what we call "reality".

The universe may be a solid and we and everything in it mere vibrations rippling through it. (despite "solid" being an incomprehensible concept in a way analogous to the unthinkability of absolute nothing and the infinite).

The problem has always been it is not a full fledged theory you are looking for It is a meta theory,, and everything balances The many worlds is describing the future of an observer

Its really not. If that were true there would be so many measureable inconsistencies

There are reports of worlds or planes of consciousness, where each spirit can change it.

We all experience a different, subjective reality though. Mine is the real one. Lol.

@Gribbo9999 - This is a little too quick. Merely because you have an experience doesn't make it an experience of reality; for example, you could be dreaming, hallucinating, or otherwise misrepresenting the way the world really is. Also, your comment fails to appreciate the possibilty of a shared illusion: perhaps, when we both face a table and have a visual experience of a table, the experience is a result of the way our brains are structured and is merely a mental event.

I think you are being over simplistic.

Bergson, who was Einstein's friend, proposed a vital force, although sadly, he did not win the general public's acclaim after his own death.

Dark Energy Auv (a physical energy field of space) evolved the capacity to regenerate itself (field-synthesis) It achieves this by exploiting a naturally available energy potential of the void ( process unknown). Step 1. So now we have an energy field inhabiting space DE. step 2. Now we take another step, and assume that DE is not only an exploiter of an energy potential, but it becomes an energy potential which something else can come to exploit. Like algae exploits suns rays, then algae is exploited by krill. So DE field possesses an energy potential, which atoms evolve to exploit for the purpose of driving atomic processes, explicitly atomic forces. Do you feel you follow that? Baryon matter, atoms metabolize DE field to generate atomic forces! Guv represents the field of space which is converted into atomic forces Tuv. A reason why space curvature Guv shares an equality with sum value of atomic forces Guv = Tuv. Its a simple energy conversion, a simple scenario of cause and effect. A scenario whereby atoms metabolize as DE as fuel to run their atomic machinery. Analogous to an animals need for sugars to energize their metabolism and molecular machinery. Natures solution, animals rob sugars from plants. Baryons, atoms rob energy from DE. This is why, on a universal scale the value of Auv closely matches sum total of universal atomic forces Tuv. Auv = Tuv because space possesses a regenerating field DE Auv, which Baryon systems have evolved within and to exploit. Evolution providing the means to explain complexity and finetuning of universal structures and processes. DE had evolved to exploit a natural energy potential of void, and in turn DE had become a natural energy potential which another entity (Baryon fields) evolved to exploit. What connects all living things within Earths ecology is either the ability to create sugar, or steel sugar. Baryons steel sugar from DE. Ask yourself the question, "what drives atomic activity/forces?" Is it fair that we assume them causeless, while we observe their capacity for perpetual work/force/activity? So the common theme of both Baryon system and lifes system will be summarized as................ Form/structure and behavior/agency evolved optimized for exploiting the natural available energy potential that enables its existence. This draws attention to the physical processes of the world that possess the agencies to build and maintain ridged persistent structure. Rocks for example and the physical processes (geo-chemistry) that form rocks. Or perhaps we might look at fusion rates and heat process as an evolved system and finely tuned to enable stable stellar process and form. Or the property of mass which evolved the agencies that respond to gravitational fields in such a way, that enable stable galactic and celestial bodies to form and maintain. Mass is a property of matter generated by Gluons, and Gluons are a type of light, a force carrier. Light has the capacity to propel through void, and so does Gluon mass. And mass directs Gluon force/mass to build and maintain universal form/structure and behaviors/agencies that are evolved and optimized for exploiting the natural energy potential which enables its existence. Namely, the efficient harvest of a naturally occurring energy potential of space Dark Energy Field Auv. Galaxies being like jellyfish, drifting on the cosmological currents while harvesting a process giving energy. So the metabolism of DE and its conversion to atomic forces occurs on the individual atomic scale (akin to lifes individual cells metabolism of sugar). However the individual atomic systems evolved the agencies necessary to form collective bodies, conceivably for the same general reason cells benefit from participating as collective bodies. For entities that exist within a habitat while competing for resource, there are benefits from being sophisticated, large and powerful. If space itself is an energy giving habitat, within which a baryon systems evolutionary cascade is taking place, then it is of vast stage and energies for the unfolding of an evolutionary progression. An example of Darwinian progression of truly awesome scale and potential. Recapping just to make sure I get the message across. Fish eat the krill to rob it of its sugars. (Baryons eat Dark Energy to rob it of its energy) Algae exploit the naturally available energy potential of the sun to create the sugars. (Dark Energy exploit the naturally available energy potential of the void "unknown process" to re-generate itself.) The ecosystem and (universal system) are energy grabs, whereby entities are either creating energy, or they're steeling energy. Each entity has an evolved and optimized form and agency suited to exploiting a natural energy resource. The ecosystem and wider universal systems are a series of grand thefts, which sees links in the chain paying a price for being exploited by another. I'll close with the statement. Nature given a natural energy potential will invent a novel circumstance of Darwinian emergence, of which we now know of two examples. One modest of Earths life, and one universally grand. Summarized as Baryon forms and agencies evolved optimized for exploiting an energy potential which enables existence and proliferation. Highly articulated, complex and fine tuned forms have but one method of creation. Darwinian processes are the only natural organisational principle capable of such a task, fitting as Cinderellas foot for the glass slipper.

Life provides a model demonstrating how nature achieves highly ordered complex systems Algae and other early plants evolved the capacity (photosynthesis) to exploit a naturally available and abundant energy potential ( suns rays). The suns rays power a chemical process that generates (sugars), which cells metabolize as fuel to run their molecular machinery. However, animals need sugars to energize their metabolisms and molecular machinery as well, but animals cant photosynthesize light. Natures solution, animals rob sugars from plants and or each other. Plants had evolved to exploit a natural energy potential, and in turn plants had become a natural energy potential which other organisms evolved to exploit. What connects all living things within Earths ecology is either the ability to create sugar, or steel sugar. Now let us focus on a particular organism within this connected web of life, sugar creators and sugar thieves. Let us select a dolphin. A dolphins body/form and behavior/agency is evolved optimized for collecting the food source which enables its existence. Swims fast and cooperates within a social group to effectively hunt fish, which the dolphin's digestive system will break down to constituent sugars that its cells can metabolize. And so the individual cell benefits from being a part of a larger body (multi-cellular organism) because a body can form limbs (tail and fins) which greatly improve its mobility/agency to acquire life giving energy/sugar resources. That is to say fish. And the fish eat the krill for the same reason, to rob it of its sugars. And the krill eat the algae, to rob it of its sugars. And the algae exploited the naturally available energy potential of the sun to create the sugars. The ecosystem is an energy grab, whereby organisms are either creating sugars or they're stealing sugars. Each organism has an evolved and optimized form and agency suited to exploiting an energy resource. The ecosystem is a series of grand thefts, which sees links in the chain paying an ultimate price for being exploited by another. On a side note. Sugar is for the ecology, what money is for the economy. Thats why the business world is such a cut throat jungle. So it can all be summarized as biological forms and agencies evolved optimized for exploiting an energy potential which enables existence and proliferation.

I'm still trying to find out why the electron orbits so far away from an atoms' nucleus. Most of us think of it as orbiting the subatomic nucleus but apparently that's "old school physics 101"and is not correct. Who proved this reality? How can you measure something that is mostly empty space? Our realities then are only as good as the theories that need an observer to make it real. I don't know, I'm no physicist but I'm curious about this reality quandry They say the atom is measured by its 1.. Mass 2. position 3. Its momentum. Good enough for me.

@@craigroberts1670 I dont think we know whats inside and Atom at all, we ony think we do. Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons, are but guesses. As for the Quarks, that are supposed to be what Electrons etc are made of, well now they are really being silly. The Standard Model used by Particle Physics is insanity. They have no idea what they are looking at with those claimed collisions of sub atomic particles, and the idea that from collisions, new types particles are made is just stupid. If I crash my Toyota into a Ford, I dont get 30 new little cars, just the mess of 2 wrecked cars.

@@xiaoxiao-kg5np I couldn't agree more. Quantum physics is a bottomless rabbit hole that continuously reminds us how little we know about the subatomic world.