The fun thing about determinism, is that it doesn't matter. Either we have free will or we don't and never did, yet we still act as though we do, because what else can we do? Whether or not the universe is deterministic or not, there's still only one question that matters, "How can I abuse the rules of reality to survive past the death of the stars and live to see the release of half life 3?"

Well done, Matt! I dare to say it's a super video 😁

I came to the realization of super determinism the first time I had to create a random variable in programming. The realization that there is nothing random, it has to be faked and then you have to test it that is has a probabilistic statistical distribution that corresponds to the sample size. This really hit home that everything has a cause and consequence, random is just the obscuration of perfect knowledge. This realization had a profound effect on my understanding of the universe and also I rely upon it in personal growth. I always regretted past decisions and actions decades after they happened, once I realized that it was the only action I could have possibly taken with the information I had , it was much easier to let go and be more productive for the unknown(to me) future than to regret the past . Free will is an illusion of the future but a very useful one that doesn't go away just because it's deterministic.

The most interesting depiction of determinism, to my opinion, is the character of Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen. His disintegration and subsequent reforming changed him so much that he became able to see the whole continuum of his own time. Thus, his existence became completely deterministic. It's brilliant because, while he has this incredible knowledge, he basically can't do anything with it. He just rants about events in the past and future at times, and people that are around him look at him in confusion and get angry at him because of his apparent aloofness and coldness, and don't understand that he got progressively detached from his own humanity not because of his powers, but precisely because of the perception of determinism. His mate gets into an argument with him and is pissed off at the fact he barely reacts because she thinks he doesn't care, while he's actually trying to calmly explain to her that she's gonna leave him and go out. Not because he doesn't care, but simply because that's WHAT HAPPENS, PERIOD. He can even just straight out tell people what will happen in the future, and he does, at times, but it doesn't matter, because he was simply just meant to say that thing to start with. It's fixed in the continuum.

After the Strong Force episodes, please tell us what the Weak Force *is*. I mean, yeah, it is responsible for atomic decay.... but how, what, why? Thank you!

He deserves a lot of praise in how he describes these concepts.

There was a short story (“What’s Expected of Us” by Ted Chiang) about what happened when a device called the Predictor showed there's no free will and how a big part of the society disintegrated not being able to take the notion that their choice doesn't exist. So I guess it's easier to believe we have free will, so that we can continue to play the game called life. Like a computer game - you follow the main story no matter how many side quests you take.

I view freewill as an emergent property. Something complex emerging from simple.

Honestly one of best ever channels and I hope the universe has predetermined that Matt never stops making these videos with help of the team. Thank you!

if super-determinism is how things are, you don't actually have a choice (in the conventional sense) whether to believe in it or not. Whether you believe in it or not, and whether your mind changes because of this video, has been determined since the beginning of time. It's all fractal eddies in spacetime

0:47 When I was 4 years-old I had this idea that nothing happens unless I'm there to see it. I had no idea i'd grow up to learn that physicists agree with me. 😜

To have your cutie be directly influenced by events in your common light past is a mind blowing concept to me.

11:26 "You can watch Sabine's video [on superdeterminism] to decide for yourself." Sabine would say this statement is false.🤣

Our life might be superdeterministic. Meaning, the story was already written in the past. However, it is still a book I havent read yet. Thats enough to carry on with the plot.

14:18 "When philosophers come up with a reasonable definition of the thing, we can talk." That part is gold. I read about an experiment on what ordinary people innately think free will is, and it was much less non-causal than what philosophers imply. It was more about being able to make a choice without coercion nor altered mental capabilities (unless it was your own fault, like abusing alcohol).

Under the assumption of superdeterminism, Cartesius' dualism is disproved. Furthermore, this could support the hypothesis that we live in a simulation where what appears random is, in reality, deterministic. Just like a random generator with a fixed seed.

“Space Time” is such a great channel. Matt is a fantastic communicator. If I had a physics teacher like him, I probably wouldn’t be a software engineer. I know he approaches things at a more accessible level but he’s great at breaking things down, that’s definitely a skill.

I love that you asked the question " is the observer influenced by the observation" now that's the mind bending kind of stuff I love, especially because it makes it sound like we intuit or know the answer and our other self is trying to answer it too. I'm sure there's a better way to state this though, regardless this is mind bending.

Here after the nobel price

Thanks a lot for the great effort you put into these videos..

The content, as always is great, but man I can’t help but also give huge props to the FX team for the parallax to keep us focused on the info. Some great attention to detail.

The way I've always thought about superdeterminism is that instead of being spooky action at a distance in space, it's actually spooky action at a distance in time, i. e. from the far past.

Superintendentism is where the superintendent of your building predetermines when they are going to fix the heat, repair the windows, and clear out the clogged drains.

its also possible that each way a universe is created can determine the prexisting conditions need for direction

First thing you learn in the lecture on stochastic processes: the class of processes that are random at each point in time and the class of processes where all the randomness happens beforehand and then you just see a predetermined record of a super dice are fully equivalent. Mathematically, it’s a distinction without a difference.

Quantum mechanics just has a way of throwing a wrench into everything. Its amazing how it can simultaneously be such an accurate description of reality but also leaves so many questions about the nature of that reality open to interpretation.

I love Sabine and superdeterminism. I'm not an academic but so far I haven't heard any reason why we shouldn't take superdeterminism seriously (or maybe I just didn't understand it). Maybe because it is a very simple theory that I identify with it, it is easy and logical conclusion. It's also useful from a psychological perspective.

"When philosophers come up with a reasonable definition of free will, then we'll talk." Love it!

One philosophical interpretation of super-determinism I commonly hear is the "time is an illusion" argument; the idea that past, present and future exist simultaneously, and that we are only characters in a pre-written narrative. For example, you can watch a movie or read a book, and from the perspective of the characters in said medium they experience things one moment, scene or frame at a time (sometimes out of order, depending on the story.) But when you close the book or pop the DVD out of the player, you'll see all the events that occur within are right there in your hands, existing simultaneously. Most ironically of all, this does NOT discount the "simulation theory" of reality, but rather reinforces it...because of the examples mentioned above. How do we know we are not all just fictional characters in a cinematic universe written explicitly for the entertainment of viewers we cannot possible comprehend? Could it be that the only way to peer behind the curtain of this fiction in which we live is to transcend continuity and start breaking the fourth wall like Deadpool?

I really like how Sabine is referenced here, and how this treats the same topics as some of her videos. When the different sources of information I consume to understand these topics - which include binge watching all the amazing content from PBS Space Time and Sabine's channel - are in conversation with each other, it provides a great opportunity for deeper levels of comprehension. Thank you!

I think I've just realised that the problem with just saying 'superdeterminism' is that it doesn't explain anything. Of course, everything is connected. But we need further explanation how.

I feel that all this realism stuff reads like the opening to a Douglas Adams novel- “A bunch of macroscopic, metabolising 3D apes tried to understand their subjective, first person experience of reality, by removing the macroscopic, metabolising apes from their equations. They became terribly confused”

I appreciate how thoroughly you cover all the various implications and interpretations of QM.

There are interpretations that preserve both realism and locality, without invoking many worlds or super-determinism. This is true for the transactional interpretation and other retro-causality theories. This could also arguably be true for Quantum Logic.

🧠 " ur mind isn't an illusion just because it's an emergent phenomenon... " 13:39 🧠 I like that statement... ' even though illusions do emerge from the mind, ... the mind doesn't emerge from an illusion...but does so from a real physical substrate'

As a Cognitive Scientist but not a Physicist I'm on the Superdeterminism side. As you eluded to at the end though, that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. Our brains make decisions all the time, it's just that those decisions are set in stone. Just because our choices are predetermined doesn't mean we aren't the ones making those choices.

Very excited for this.

5:42 What if the information is not something sent through spacetime? Rather, the information is a part of spacetime, which kind of makes sense to me as spacetime is itself information (where, when). So the information doesn’t move anywhere, it’s already there.

I think I've just realised (while also rewatching Sixty Symbols' 'Spooky Action at a Distance' video) that the problem with just saying 'superdeterminism' is that it doesn't explain anything. Of course, everything is connected. But we need further explanation how/why, beyond just saying "every electrons' future interactions are uniquely specified from the beginning such that our quantum mechanical predictions pan out".

Superdetermenism makes the most sense to me. That doesn’t mean to me I’m not making a “choice”. It just changes what most people define as a choice. What we decide to do is always based on our current surroundings, situation, and past experience. You can’t possibly change that. You may look back at decisions you’ve made and think you could have made a difference decision, but that’s only because we have a new frame of reference, with new data of past experience to draw upon. Also we can’t even be sure time only flows forward like we experience it. It might as easily flow either way, or not at all. If time is part of space and space is already fully defined, then so is time. If you’re on one corner of the universe, the other corner is still there, right now somewhere. So shouldn’t that meant just just because we’re here in this corner of time, another point in the future also is there, right now. So it’s already happened even if we haven’t experienced it yet. But that doesn’t mean we’re not making choices, it just means we’ve already made them.

Yay for the shoutout to Sabine! I've only been watching her videos for a short time, but she's so great at parsing and explaining research science!

Glad you mentioned Sabine she is an amazing Scientist😊😇

Zeilinger's experiments are truly beautiful and inspiring.

Your channel is one among the most accurate. Indeed, the loophole in Bell's theorem not often underlined in popular media resides in the hypothetical statistical independence of measurements. There is yet another way to bypass this...

I've probably spent more time thinking about the implications of Bell's theorem in my life than anything else... and I'm not a physicist. Any interpretation of Bell's theorem is crazy, and that's why it's so beautiful.

It really doesn’t matter if we are following a path that was already set out for us; events are still surprising to us as they occur and we are in for the same ride of enjoyment either way.

This series is spooky at any distance. Way over my head. 🙃

For those who don't know: There is definitely a definable axis of spin on each particle, where it would either be clockwise or counterclockwise; positive or negative. If you measure it along the current axis, you are 100% guaranteed to measure the spin from that axis as positive. The further away you measure from an axis, the less likely it is to measure it as positive from that direction. Also, when you measure not along the current axis, the axis moves to the direction you are measuring at. So if you are 1/4th away from one axis and 3/4ths away from the other, then you have a 75% chance to measure positive and a 25% chance to measure negative. If you are equally distant from each axis, then it's 50% to measure positive or negative. It is never possible to have more than a 50% chance to measure negative. If you think of the results 180 degrees away from your measurement, though, then technically the reading could have up to 100% chance to be negative. To put it more simply: the further an axis would have to move in order to reach your measurement, the lower its chances of being possible. So if you move like literally a plank length degree away from one axis, then to receive positive you would only need the axis that is right there to move like 0.00001 degrees, while to measure negative the opposite axis would have to move nearly 180 degrees, making it almost impossible.

you know the episode is going to be good when Matt announces a space time diagram

Superdeterminism can be understood as: 1) the result of the measurment in quantum mechanics is (pre)determined so there is no collapse of the wavefunction AND 2) my will to perform the measurement is also (pre)determined

As a french person, I was lucky to hear Alain Aspect twice in conferences. What a great experimentalist and a wonderful vulgarisator.

That double slit electron experiment always tripped me out.

Great video, only issue I had it near the end, when you say we gave the choice to believe in superdeterminism, technically we don't choose our beliefs, we only believe what we are convinced is real. Hence belief isn't a choice but rather a consequence of our knowledge, which in turn is a matter of our education. And so on and so forth. So determinism already is looking good. And superdeterminism could be possible.

I love these talks! Amazing !

Even in a fully deterministic Universe, the computational resources to allow flawless prediction should roughly equal the Universe itself. The one computer that could predict the Universe is the Universe itself. Therefore, for entities which are a tiny, tiny fraction of the Universe, determinism doesn't matter much, to them the future is not predictable without serious corner cutting.

I wish I could do more to support you and the channel because you individually and as the channel have provided information to us for years. Thank you for your commitment to science

This video was so awesome that it made me like and subscribe to the channel. By far the best explication of the phenomenon I've seen on youtube

I was worried this video was going to induce extreme existential terror, as these sorts of topics sometimes do for me, but I actually found all the possible implications of these tests quite comforting. Quantum entanglement is such a fascinating and quasi-mystical property to me; it really helps my critical, suspicious mind be open to entertaining the idea that there are phenomena that are truly beyond our scientific comprehension (so far) that have been observed and addressed historically through spiritual or metaphysical traditions (It also makes me hate the end of Interstellar less, so that’s nice too). Superdeterminism too is almost comforting, because in the moment-to-moment nothing changes for me, yet there feels like a little less pressure to “get things right” if everything was determined essentially from the start. Those middle of the night stress thoughts about what I’ve done and what to do have a little less power if I can tell my anxiety that whatever will happen is the only thing that could have happened. I imagine that is the same comfort religious people get from the idea of “god’s plan”. And even the lack of an objective, realist universe is neat, because it reminds me in my moments of existential dread at my cosmic irrelevance, that I am an inextricable part of everything that participates in the creation of the the world around me through my existence. That’s pretty beautiful to me. Fantastic video as always. Thank you for such incredible, accessible content.

I'm all in for Superdeterminism from way back (haha). I'm totally okay knowing that this isn't just me writing this right now... But the entire entangled universe acting upon me at all moments. It just makes the most sense... It would be pure vanity to think we are outside of it's influence at any scale.

Love seeing Sabine shouted out here, I have loved her content for a long time now and she deserves more viewers for sure.

Superdeterministic will: You are predetermined, but the universe (including you) have no way to predict in advance what your choice will be as a result of the universe being a non-linear system. So there we are: you don't have free choice, but nobody knows or can know what you'll choose from the start variables.

Bravo to the animators for this series of videos.

Superdeterminism makes perfect sense, it solves all the weirdness of spooky action at a distance by stating that there simply isn't any spooky action at a distance and manages it without invoking hidden information.

I love Sabine's videos on this topic. Superdeterminism makes so much more sense than "freewill". I like that this video added some more background on this topic.

On a personal or philosophical level, the supposed conflict between free-will and determinism has always seemed pointless to me. We already recognize that there are numerous factors affecting our choices outside of our conscious desires and are largely at peace with that. At the same time, if we live in a deterministic universe, the fact that it's indistinguishable from one with free-will means that it's a kind of determinism that's so aligned with our desires (or more accurately our desires are so aligned with it) that we'd almost certainly make all the same decisions in a world with free will anyway. The many-worlds interpretation does complicate things slightly, but really not that much. I t's a worthwhile question as a thought experiment or for scientific purposes, but it's really not worth getting worried over.

"trace light cones back far enough and everything is connected" 🤯

Another great video, however Nathen Rosen's year of death is listed incorrectly at 2:06. He lived 1909-1995, not 1909-1955.

Thank you for plugging Sabine Hossenfelder's work. I love to see my favorite science publishers reference each other.

If you had a computer that could map every event through the past back to the big bang, down to the quantum level, it would also be able to accurately predict every event in the future, for the rest of existence. This would include every decision every person will ever make - thus, superdeterminism.

14:00 you missed an option. the bells tests tell us all these options you listed as well as the possibility that the test is flawed. Its probably correct, lots of physicist much smarter than I have stared at it. But its still one of the plausible options that the results from the bell tests give us that should not be forgotten :)

I really love the idea that the abstract is not an illusion since it is an emergent properties of the concrete.

Finally! Been waiting for PBS Spacetime to cover this. Love the content!

I feel we might get better ideas on uncertainty if we stopped referring to "interfering" with a particle as "measuring" it. If someone hits me in the head with a bowling ball to detect my position, then it's going to interfere with what I do next.

spooky action at a distance hahaha. Albert EInstein is awesome! His famous head shot is like being silly during a photo when everyone never smiled and had to pose proper.

I understood virtually none of this, and oddly I find that somehow comforting. I understood just enough to realise that none of it matters, at least as far as my own existence is concerned, and that this is a perfect example of how theoretical physics has slipped across the line from science into philosophy.

I've been thinking about determinism since I was very young. By then I didn't even know it was a thing. Basically thinking about my own decisions were influenced by my surroundings. Do I really choose? Later on I became a programmer and it was even more clear. The only way to make something change its output was to add pseudorandomness, because even those rand libraries aren't actually random. So if we had the same exact distribution and position of atoms (and everything below) with the exact start moving, everything should happen exactly the same, including what we think it's our conscious decissions because it's influenced by everything else. We think we are free but we are just a bag of chemicals that interact with each other and make choices based on those. A simple different mood would make me be here or go take a walk, and what's happening in my body is determined by the past state of the universe. The problem here is the massive amount of data needed, but otherwise you could calculate the future state of everything. Since it's impossible to prove that, you can't prove if life can make any difference, so it's something you gotta believe or not. Any experiment you tried with life would be different, even if just repeating it would have the subject include the previous experience, not exactly the same anymore. With inert things it's easier. If I got a ball hitting another one at a specific angle and speed the other one would always bounce at the same speed and angle in the same conditions every single time. If we did it with 2 more balls making the result of each collide we could still calculate the result with basic maths. Now make it 1 trillion. Why would it be different? Because it'd take too many things to calculate? Same with the universe, at least that's what I think.

It depends how you look at it. If you measure a future event from the present you have a subjective reality. If you measure from the future to the past (like the distant cosmic object) the you have superdeterminism.

Good thing I happened to watch a video about EPR yesterday, since you didn’t explain what that acronym means. EPR = The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO! I was kinda losing faith that I'll ever see superdeterminism on this show. I made a request and I see that I coudn't be the only one to do so which makes me super happy. I love that people take interest in this hard to understand but necessary subject! You brought me back here and I love it!!

Maybe it's because I'm a layman, but superdeterminism makes sense to me. We can't really test for something that seems random to tell if it's truly random or not if we don't have access to the underlying mechanism. So I think it's plausible that even the seemingly bizarre occurrences in quantum mechanics are deterministic, we just don't have a proper model to make predictions (and we might never be able to establish one)

If anyone is struggling with infinity, multiverses, or determinism - try this one out. There are these possibilities: 1. You are the best you there is. 2. You are the worst you there is. 3. You are the only you there is. 4. You are somewhere in between any of these options.

Super position is chaos. Measuring your superposition is setting the fractal in motion with determination. Ie: You have free will only within your degree of fractal.

I've got no problem with the idea of my actions being totally deterministic, but I do take exception to the suggestion that I can choose my beliefs. Whether I have free will or not, I can still only believe what I'm convinced of.

"Observer" in quantim physics doesn't mean a human. It mean any measurement instrument which collapses the quantum state. Most of the times the neighbouring atoms/molecules are enough to cause the collapse of the wave function and thus perform a "measurement".

*Aaah, Dangit!!* You got me with your closing Space Time. Again...

Amazing Video, great work!

Determinism always made the most sense to me in philosophy, but I had never thought through what the implications of that were for quantum mechanics. Really interesting and eye opening. Thank you!

I still strongly think that locality in this sense is fine to be violated because information theroy seems to make the most logical sense, at no point is it possible actually to transfer information to another party faster than light which feels like it should be the fundamental of locality

Great video. I think it's possible that there might be a simple answer to the EPR paradox, which preserves local realism but still permits Alice's choices to instantly influence Bob's observation. It goes like this: consider the perspective of the photon being split in this experiment. According to relativity, the photon experiences no time from the moment it is projected until the moment it is detected by Alice, regardless of how long it takes from our perspective to get there. If it experiences zero time, then form the photon's perspective there is no intervening space between the two points. The point where it is projected from to the points where Alice and Bob receive the split photon (or electron) appears to the photon as a single point. So if we look at the situation from the point of view of the photon or subatomic particle being used, then there is no paradox because there doesn't seem to be any intervening space. So from our perspective it seems crazy to think that Alice's choice of measurement can affect Bob's observation, but from the point of view of the photon it's not even in two places at once. All the places seem to it as being one point. To me this seems the simplest explanation for it. Could be simply because of the speed of the particles going light speed or close to it that causes them to be connected over vast distances like that. If so then we can have our cake and eat it too. Local realism is preserved while retaining quantum entanglement effects for subatomic particles and photons, though we might see similar effects on large scale objects if we were able to accelerate them close to light speed.

This whole concept requires that you choose to believe you don't have the ability to choose.

One of the problems with "free will" seems like the fact people don't have a formal definition of what it means, just non-falsifiable intuitions. I agree with Sabine.

Interestingly what has convinced me of the necessity for super determinism comes from the context of a metamathematical proof constraining the valid domain of all possible solutions to the Einstien field equations of general relativity. In particular the proof of the "no big crunch theorem" in "Inhomogeneous and asymmetric cosmology"(Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022) shows that in looking at the unconstrained behavior of the full inhomogeneous and anisotropic range of the full Einstein field equations at least in the case for any nontrivial flat or open universe general relativity as it has been conventionally formulated is not generally internally self consistent mathematically. If you look at the implications for what is needed to ensure the Einstein field equations remain internally consistent for all possible initial conditions things get interesting. In particular the results of the theorem show that the concentration of matter around over densities locally always creates more underdensities such that in an initially accelerating universe the rate of expansion will always increase, but this ultimately links the total global spatial volume of the universe at any time-slice of spacetime with an irreversible arrow of time else the metric of spacetime must violate internal consistency i.e. the metric tensor of spacetime must nonlocally conserve asymmetries everywhere else the initial conditions of the universe must be lost. Particularly the assumption that we can neglect small deviations from isotropy becomes increasingly poor at both large and small scales as if you conserve information and continue to apply the speed of causality limit the natural implication leads to a quantization of the metric tensor in such a way that you converge to the gravitational path integral and hawking radiation suggesting there is a non local quantization of gravity that is significant at small scales but also doesn't drop off with distance like its classical analog tough this is loosely constrained by limit analysis. The path integral in this context comes from every component of the metric tensor being unique and featuring a term for every bit or Qbit of information in the universe in the same manner that all possible quantum states must be integrated over within the Feynman path integral. If yo don't enforce this then you will be left with a logically indeterminate or invalid metric somewhere in spacetime meaning paradoxes and singularities are inescapable rather than impossible. The information paradox thus becomes a trivial consequence of initial assumptions for GR, with dark energy likewise being another artifact which will appear as consequence of invalid axioms. (In this case the invalid axiom is that the metric tensor can ever be simplified for any universe which contains nonzero information i.e. the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker metric can only ever apply within a perfectly homogenous and isotropic universe which in the definition of information based on what is needed to describe the state of the system means such a universe contains no information. (any deviation from perfect isotropy will rapidly grow without bounds i.e. entering the inflationary domain for the Einstien field equations according to the paper Inhomogeneous and asymmetric cosmology Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022. Given the importance of logical internal consistency in every other field of physics and area of mathematics as the conditions for logical validity, this mind bindingly shows that mathematically any valid solution to the Einstein field equations *must* demonstrate nonlocality and obey information theory else irreducible singularities must be real and unavoidable and information theory can not apply within general relativity. In essence because the mathematics of general relativity are inherently deterministic and the conservation of information in Information theory requires any informational system to be fundamentally either nonlocal or logically invalid, the only way for both to be true is if the universe is superdeterministic. Either the Einstein field equations are mathematically invalid or they are superdeterministic with the total information content of the Universe acting as a nonlocal hidden variable via what we call entropy. If we take logical analysis of the underlying axioms of quantum mechanics namely information theory and general relativity which is deterministic the metamathematical implications are that the only way to construct a theory of quantum gravity is if gravity obeys bells inequality i.e. exhibits quantum entanglement or rather potentially fundamentally is quantum entanglement itself. Thus either way gravity as defined in the context of the metric tensor of the Einstein field equations, assuming it can be represented mathematically, has the same bell inequality constraints as quantum mechanics. Well that or our universe is logically invalid and information isn't conserved, but given how you can directly derive Hawking radiation from the constraint of information conservation and the gravitational path integral emerges naturally from this informational formalism thus eliminating the information paradox, the crisis of cosmology, the origin of the arrow of time and the need for dark energy I frankly find it absurd to doubt super determinism as it very naturally results in a system which appears to self quantize. Its is even quite plausible we could eliminate the need for dark matter too in which case applying the conservation of information to the Einstein field equations themselves and thus reformulating them into a pure informational formulation would be able to solve most if not all of modern physics unsolved questions or observational discrepancies without complex parameterizations and data fitting. It literally is just forcing GR to obey Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Super position is just code for “I have no idea what spin this particle has because it’s so damn small’

This is great stuff by the way, thank you.. : )

I had the honour of meeting Prof. Zeilinger once. He is not just a great physicist but also a very friendly person

Finally my favourite channel posts a vid. Thanks Matt, because of you, many of my problems in physics are now dispelled. Keep posting these infintely perplexing videos about "Space Time" 😊😊😊

One of the things that gets me going everyday is the existence of this channel

Every time you feel smart enough, PBS Space Time has the cure

It's important to remember two things: 1) In reality, what humans call "decisions" are complex sequences of events, not simple events; 2) Free will only requires that a decision not be _completely_ predetermined. As long as there is room for any spontaneity at all, free will still exists. For example, you don't get to decide whether a flipped coin will land heads or tails, but you do get to decide whether to ignore the result.

Would we get the same Alice/Bob results if when Alice performs here experiment, the consequences travel both forward AND BACKWARD in time? The light cones always assume a solely forward direction. But what if certain quantum things like entangled spin don't follow the arrow of time the same way everything else does? Would this not look a lot like superdeterminism?