SuperDeterminism Might be Real, But You Shouldn't Believe it! @SabineHossenfelder Rebuts!

Рет қаралды 143,429

Күн бұрын

Thanks to Opera for sponsoring this video. Click: opr.as/Opera-browser-ArvinAsh to upgrade your browser for FREE!
Join my Patreon for $1:
/ arvinash
REFERENCES
SUB to Sabine Hossenfelder YT channel: / sabinehossenfelder
Do we have free will? • Is Free Will WRITTEN W...
Pilot Wave Theory: • Pilot Wave theory (Boh...
Bell's Inequality: • The EPR Paradox & Bell...
Paper on Bell's Inequality; tinyurl.com/2o35btks
Rethinking Superdeterminism: tinyurl.com/2oeck8gq
Superdeterministic model: tinyurl.com/2f3356k4
CHAPTERS
0:00 Is Randomness built into the Universe?
2:33 What is Determinism?
4:03 Download Opera
5:46 Is quantum mechanics really deterministic?
6:50 How Bohmian mechanics works
8:29 What did Bell's inquality prove?
9:19 Nonlocal vs local hidden variables
10:07 What is Superdeterminism vs determinism
12:20 Merits of Superdeterminism
14:23 Problems with Superdeterminism
17:16 Sabine's rebuttal
19:05 What's your input?
SUMMARY
Some interpretations of quantum mechanics assert that the apparent randomness in the universe is due to lack of information. But if we had full knowledge of all the information available, we could predict the future as well as know the past. One such deterministic model is Bohmian mechanics, or pilot wave theory. But another model is Superdeterminism. What is Superdeterminsim? What are its benefits and drawbacks? Is it real or a fantasy? I give you my opinion and Sabine Hossenfelder rebuts.
Determinism is the idea that all events are predictable, because they are triggered by events immediately preceding them. So if we knew all the states of all the components of the universe at any moment to infinite accuracy, we could predict everything that will ever happen for all of eternity. And this applies to the past.
But Quantum mechanics doesn't seem to work this way, as identical sets of initial conditions can result in different outcomes.
This is because the outcomes of measurements cannot be predicted in advance. We can only predict their probabilities.
But Quantum mechanics is not deterministic, nor non-deterministic. It’s the interpretation of quantum mechanics where the non-determinism comes from. The Copenhagen interpretation is a non-deterministic interpretation.
But alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic. For example the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics. In it, a particle’s position is predictable in advance, if we had access to hidden variable information.
In addition to being deterministic, a superdeterministic model postulates that the measurement setting, as well as the person doing the measuring, are correlated with the system being measured. In other words, the object being measured is not independent of the measurement set up.
This still violates Bell’s inequality and makes all the predictions of quantum mechanics. In a superdeterministic theory this statistical or measurement independence is not there. This allows superdeterminism to exploit a loophole in Bell’s theorem. So a superdeterministic theory can have local hidden variables, while still violating Bell’s inequality, and reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Like Bohmian mechanics, Superdeterminism postulates real particles with real properties. But unlike Bohmian mechanics, the hidden variables can be local. Superdeterminsm says that there are hidden variables in the particles, and the detector, and even the person making the measurements, that caused the particle to have the results that we found when we measured it. So there is a correlation between the particle’s measured properties and the measurement settings, and the surroundings.
So what are some of the problems with Superdeterminism? Many physicists object to it because they say it rules out free will. But I don't think so because we don’t control quantum interactions by our decisions.
Superdeterminism requires hidden variables to exist, but no one knows what those hidden variables are, nor where they can be found.
So we don’t know what to look for, where to look for it, nor how it works. Furthermore, there is no testable prediction that
Superdeterminism makes , that we could use to verify it, since it is not a theory, but a property of a potential theory.
Some toy models have been proposed, but they are not falsifiable. So even if we could conduct the tests, we could not be certain whether the results conclusively support superdeterminism or not.
Finaly, to me superdeterminism cannot even in principle be tested, because the correlations, if true, have always existed since the beginning of the universe, and will always exist, allowing for no variability. The only way to change this is if there were a way to change the initial conditions of the Big Bang, which is not possible.
#superdeterminism
Sabine Hossenfelders has some remarks about this in the video as well.

Пікірлер: 1 900

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Thanks to Opera for sponsoring this video. Click here to upgrade your browser for FREE: opr.as/Opera-browser-ArvinAsh

@TuxedoMaskMusic Ай бұрын

Let's explore this microscopic roundworm, which has been fully mapped to the neuron and simulated using consumer-grade computers. This is strong proof of simulation theory, in my opinion. The video is called "Does This Worm Prove We're In a Computer Simulation? 🤯" and it actually correlates to your point at 3:00 into your video. While correlation is not causation, It also warrants our contemplation in this case. Food for thought my friend. If we could map the universe as we HAVE THIS WORM TO A T (or as we will humans surely in the same way) Then you can extrapolate from here what that may imply in your video's scenario.

@robhappier Ай бұрын

Hi Arvin ! Great Channel!! I agree with you, Superdeterminism is not testable, however you are making the same assumptions about free will. Just like science can't explain non-living from living matter, science can't explain free will and self-aware consciousness in the human mind. A scientific investigation wouldn't be possible without "free will". Without "free will", our minds ("brains") wouldn't know how to separate true information or usable data from influenced information or false data. The results from all scientific investigations would be corrupted. Although computers can be programmed to separate data, a computer can only process data by following a human programmer's instructions. For example, a computer can't decide on it's own to choose another way to separate data, it wasn't programmed to recognize as true information or usable data, and influence information or false data. Human beings can have unlimited creativity, like a professional master artist painting on a blank canvas (computers are limited by it's program and circuits), because of our unlimited imaginations. A human mind is more than chemical reactions reacting to the environment, or a product of the physical universe (God created us). We all have a mind ("self-aware consciousness") that is uniquely ours (including genetically identical twins). A human mind probably exist at the quantum energy level (quantum vacuum energy state of matter) that supersedes classical physics (the ordering of cause and effect of the observable physical universe). This superseding property is necessary to have free will. It allows human beings (with God's help) to overcome their emotions, biases, other preconceived ideas, and instantaneous temptations. Time is also needed to evaluate all possible choices accurately and completely, before a decision is made. Dr. Ruth Kastner PhD.; philosopher at physics department at New York State University (who believes "free will" is real and obeys the laws of quantum physics. The uncertain nature of people is not explained by randomness. Quantum phyics is not random. The positions of the subatomic particles only appear to be random, because exact measurements aren't possible (only probability measurements) with modern-day instruments. The Quantum Eraser experiment shows that quantum entangled particles, like a photon, can influence each other instantaneously across great distances in a timeless and spaceless quantum vacuum energy state of matter- "Is what really defines reality in this space-time" -PBS Space Time.

@Bill..N Ай бұрын

Super deterministic ideas, in my humble opinion, will eventually be footnotes in scientific history.. In essence, NOT taken seriously and with a tinge of amusement.. I still like Sabine, though! Good stuff..

@ZephyrusTheReal Ай бұрын

*SOMEBODY PEER REVIEW MY UNIFIED LAGRANGIAN*

@Bill..N Ай бұрын

@TuxedoMaskMusic The worm simulation you refer to is FAR from fully simulated despite suggestions it is.. It can't lay eggs with the ability to reproduce freely, right? At this point, it seems more like a mannequin or shell than a complete simulation..

@SabineHossenfelder Ай бұрын

Thanks, Arvin, for this wonderful video!

@w01dnick Ай бұрын

What I think is missing - some analogues to criticism of superdeterminism in other interpretations. Like SD problem with hidden variables is mapped to wave function collapse problem in Copenhagen interpretation, etc.

@vresportsbrasil Ай бұрын

Master Sabine! Much love from Brazil! 😍

@davismccarty6424 Ай бұрын

😊

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler Ай бұрын

10:28 Nothing is independent here in the universe everything came from The Big Bang Singularity so of course nothing is independent of the setup! If that is the ultimate conclusion then of course super determinism is real!

@cosmopolitan4598 Ай бұрын

Yes, this is a very wonderful video.

@adhamr23 Ай бұрын

I am so lucky to be alive today when great physicists can teach on KZfaq for free

@nate5eplayer574 Ай бұрын

Right? 😁

@alexthompson7289 Ай бұрын

This is the true beauty and potential of the Internet.

@haydenwalton2766 Ай бұрын

if something is free, it means you are the product

@1337treats Ай бұрын

🔭 and 🎸 : 📺 👌🏼

@EzE-gd3nf Ай бұрын

I usually use KZfaq to watch dog videos.

@agpc0529 Ай бұрын

Thank you for having an intellectual debate without professorial ego

@TheNameOfJesus Ай бұрын

We need to have a vote to replace the phrase "It's not rocket science!" with "It's not quantum physics!"

@hlcepeda Ай бұрын

Why not accept both? "It's not rocket science" is just another way of saying that something is not complicated or not too difficult to understand. In that case, replacing one phrase for the other makes no sense.

@philshorten3221 Ай бұрын

for god sake just use whatever you want.... its not brain surgery😂

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). "Entropy is a measure or randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Super determinism is dual to super non determinism. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy). Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Mutual or co-information is used to make predictions -- syntropic! Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Super determinism implies absolute, objective prediction or complete certainty. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Repetition (patterns) is dual to variation (randomness) -- music is dual.

@Staroy Ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 eat your meds mate

@GlennHamblin Ай бұрын

@@TheNameOfJesus How about it's not rocket surgery?

@gabrielbarrantes6946 Ай бұрын

Reality splitting in many universes is more accepted than everything being deterministic? They just need to believe they have free will...

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

The interesting thing is that the Many Worlds interpretation does not automatically mean free will either. There is no splitting of worlds simply because a person makes a decision. The splitting of worlds occurs only when there there a quantum interaction.

@yacc1706 24 күн бұрын

@@ArvinAshbut there is a branch where the interaction do happen AND another branch where it doesn't happen

@reverend11-dmeow89 18 күн бұрын

I was presented with a 14-minute video of myself doing something completely different than my 30ish-hour contiguous memory spanning from the night prior through well past the recorded event, a full month after I had spent the full four weeks going through my recall of the whole day.. Something incredibly special happened in my recall. While the expression on my other self's visage I have not seen in my mirror for 30ish years. Which was ate the exact point in time the me then had a similar episode of an incredibly valuable situation that changed my life in a context that is the common denominator between the two. Not one mental I mean behavioral health psychiatrist allows me to speak or it. Their loss😂

@calebbrunson7120 13 күн бұрын

@gabrielbarrantes6946 and you need to believe you aren’t responsible for your choices.

@kingofmaiars 12 күн бұрын

@@calebbrunson7120that assumes determinists must be morally bankrupt to be able to object to free will. One can object to all sort of nebulous ideas without being accused with moral liability. In essence your argument is an appeal to authority whereas OP's is an observation. He does not stand to benefit from you being emotionally compromised in this debate. If you actually believe he is a determinist you have to concede the fact that he is not obligated to feel shame just because you accuse him of immorality. After all he is not responsible for his actions. Hope I was clear enough. Cheers.

@danielirwin2907 Ай бұрын

Arvin and Sabine (along w Nick Lucid) are my favorites. Much respect to you, Arvin, for having a rebuttal in your own video. That sort of civility and debate is quite uncommon in today’s world. This is beyond the level of the students in my physics and chemistry classes but you often make great stuff for them too. You help make the world better.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Thanks so much. Glad you find these videos useful!

@philochristos Ай бұрын

Nick Lucid is the man.

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

@NondescriptMammal 29 күн бұрын

Totally agree, I think it is a sign of true scientific integrity to include a rebuttal. And I really enjoyed how clearly both viewpoints were expressed.

@101Mant 15 күн бұрын

@@hyperduality2838I've seen you post your crazyness on many physics videos but now you have Star Wars quotes in there pretty sure it's just trolling.

@JaguarBST Ай бұрын

Perfect timing for a video before bed. Your soothing voice always calms my nerves.

@marcozec5019 6 күн бұрын

Thanks Arvin for your video! It's difficult to find podcasts arguing for both sides, mostly you have only one bell ringing.. and you took it seriously to propperly explain your opposing view, its so refreshing..!

@ArvinAsh 5 күн бұрын

Exactly what I was aiming for! Thanks for watching.

@kenclubb 29 күн бұрын

17:03 There is no way to verify many worlds either, and it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exist, whereas SD only requires assuming that conservation laws are valid at all scales and we just cannot grasp all the virtual particle effects at such small scales.

@varun7952 20 күн бұрын

Conservation law break at expansion of the universe

@georgerevell5643 18 күн бұрын

you say " it requires postulating additional never-observable Universes exis" no, the many worlds is a poor name as it is only locally that superpositions exist, not globally.

@kingofmaiars 12 күн бұрын

@@varun7952Cosmologists break conservation laws all the time. They're hypothesing about the big bang so I guess anything goes when inflation is magically able to create matter out of nothing. Quantum mechanics is obviously very different. They can't expect you to believe in them when their theories clearly violate laws of thermodynamics in the here and now. Because unlike the big bang, their theories are expected to be experimentally reproducible.

@HaeikeVraeik 4 күн бұрын

@@georgerevell5643 no, the many world interpretation expands entanglement and superposition onto the entire universe, so whenever a wave collapses, the entire universe is split

@georgerevell5643 4 күн бұрын

@@HaeikeVraeik NO! If two quantum particles entangle on earth, the state of a particle on the other side of the universe does not instantly split into two versions, one for each of the versions of the particle on earth. That would be stupid if it split the whole universe as it would add non locality back which is half the point of MWI is to restore locality

@marciodasb5189 Ай бұрын

The idea of bringing in Sabine was AMAZING, honestly, such a great thing to have happened.

@garysteven1343 Ай бұрын

Wanted more of her. Listening to her ideas and worldview is a treat for ears and mind ❤️

@dougaltolan3017 Ай бұрын

With all the dodgy "science" that vested interests are paying for, it's nice to see true science where ideas are strengthened not by investment, but by conversation. Maybe Sabine can find the funding to formulate a worthwhile superdeterministic theory.....

@xycap8351 Ай бұрын

If she was a man she would be considered a mediocre thinker. But she still made a whole song and dance ( LITERALLY) whining and complaining about "patriarchy". Virtuesignallist misandry isn't good science ...

@sergeyromanov5560 28 күн бұрын

No. Superdeterminism is hogwash. It is not sufficient to merely state that there are correlations. You have to explain, why and how they lead to uniform results that mimic the quantum theory.

@robadkerson Ай бұрын

Two of the best science sources on the interwebs. It was destined to happen

@JaguarBST Ай бұрын

They have collaborated before this video.

@WalayatFamily Ай бұрын

collaborated in bed.

@zeljkokuvara6145 Ай бұрын

All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again...

@robadkerson Ай бұрын

@@JaguarBST yeah but then the joke doesn't work...

@LTVoyager Ай бұрын

Just as it is inevitable that someone will confuse the internet with the World Wide Web and call it, erroneously, the interweb. 😂

@timwlake Ай бұрын

Wow, I didn't know about Superdeterminism until now. You both did a great job explaining it! So interesting

@jeffgriffith9692 Ай бұрын

Couldn't ask for a better collaboration! Of course, it was always determined to be 😉

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

@TheNexusComplex Ай бұрын

I think you may have meant to say "super determined". 😂

@ottomol5647 Ай бұрын

In this video, two minds that have my attention.... Thanks from Brazil

@NNiSYS Ай бұрын

As always Arvin my appreciation, delight and admiration. You are getting better at adding prosody to your narrative. That makes you even cooler amidst this subtle and complex topic! With my "cariño" for you, your fan from Lima, Peru

@mab932 Ай бұрын

I value videos that have alternative views. And this one has them from two of my favorite physicists. Thanks for the great work.

@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle Ай бұрын

What an amazing collab!

@WahookaTheGoblinKing Ай бұрын

Do we have a satisfactory definition of randomness? Without it we cannot even know if nondeterminism and determinism are valid distinctions.

@robertbutsch1802 Ай бұрын

This is a great question. Gets to the heart of the issue.

@michaelrose93 Ай бұрын

I thought it just meant "completely unpredictable," perhaps with the caveat "within a set of parameters."

@robertbutsch1802 Ай бұрын

@@michaelrose93 Pseudorandom numbers from a computer can meet all the mathematical requirements for randomness but they are still the result of a deterministic process. I think the OP was referring to “real” randomness (if it exists).

@michaelrose93 Ай бұрын

@@robertbutsch1802 Isn't the sequence of the pseudorandom numbers based upon the seed value? If you know that value then it's not entirely random. I would think that randomness would imply unpredictability based upon the starting conditions as well.

@CircuitrinosOfficial Ай бұрын

@@michaelrose93Pseudorandom numbers having a seed just makes them repeatable. If you were given two lists of "random numbers," one from a pseudorandom generator and one from a "true random" source. There is no test you could do to determine which is which. Without already knowing the seed, pseudorandom numbers are indistinguishable from "true randomness" if it exists. For all we know, the randomness of quantum mechanics could actually be pseudorandom and we just don't know what the seed is.

@m1haun Ай бұрын

Loved to watch this amazing collaboration! ❤

@AzaGameplay Ай бұрын

Thanks for the video Mr. Ash! Another good one!

@Jiki-chang Ай бұрын

It's funny how when you go down the wormhole of science, that you end up back at philosophy. I love Arvin for taking totally dry subjects and bringing them to life, and I love Sabine's dry humor. They both rock!

@cosmopolitan4598 Ай бұрын

Agreed 1000%! they both rock!

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

@uwekonnigsstaddt524 Ай бұрын

Philosophy/Science……2 different disciplines.

@Z3ROWOLFHD Ай бұрын

Yet both try to explain our world so they are two different trains of thought in the same school @@uwekonnigsstaddt524

@victorecho2 Ай бұрын

I think that the real interpretation is a superposition of all possible interpretations

@sinajamil306 27 күн бұрын

exactly

@Deez-Master Ай бұрын

Super cool to have you two on one video! I enjoyed.

@user-er4wd5qk3x 2 күн бұрын

Omg am i really gonna watch Arvin and Sabine? Wow wow 🎉❤

@ericroodhouse3994 Ай бұрын

Even if everything is predetermined, the system is so complex that our ability to reconize it as such is impossible at this point. For all practical purposes it is percieved as having choice.

@robsquared2 Ай бұрын

But the social outcomes are important. If we accept we have no free will then we can talk about how to handle things like criminal justice. If the people doing crimes are not at fault, we can focus on restorative justice and behavior modification, not simply punitive punishments.

@corrineagnello4584 Ай бұрын

@@robsquared2You’re opening a whole other rabbit hole.!

@renzo3939 Ай бұрын

@@robsquared2 I disagree. Even if our choices are predetermined, the consequences or lack thereof are still used to make our decisions, using your logic nobody can be blamed for anything. The possibility of punishment is pre-emptive behavior modification

@jriosvz Ай бұрын

now you have all the answers

@andreasrumpf9012 Ай бұрын

@@robsquared2 Your whole argument assumes that people can "decide" to accept not to have free will. Which would only be possible if they have free will...

@djayjp Ай бұрын

The universe's ultimate conspiracy theory 😂

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Haha...not a bad take!

@binbots Ай бұрын

We observe the universe in the present moment (wave function collapse) surrounded by the observable therefore, predictable past (general relativity) moving towards the unobserved therefore, probabilistic future (quantum mechanics).

@DrVictorVasconcelos Ай бұрын

Frankly the probabilistic interpretation is the conspiracy theory. And it was pushed under actual violence. Bohr was not nice.

@anywallsocket Ай бұрын

@@binbots you really out here spamming your idea on irrelevant posts? you've more pride than that :P

@binbots Ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket lol that was an accident. Didn’t realize it was in a response section. Thanks for being on top of it.

@Comboman70 Ай бұрын

fantastic topic! Loved Sabine's participation! Cheers

@bentationfunkiloglio Ай бұрын

Great video! More than one perspective in Super D same discussion was super informative.

@CaptainPeterRMiller Ай бұрын

Very illustrative video and excellent content. Thanks Arvin.

@Faustobellissimo Ай бұрын

Brillian video. Please make more collaborations with Sabine.

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

She´s marvolous.

@windfoil1000 Ай бұрын

The description of pilot wave theory was enlightening. Thanks.

@TherevTBone Ай бұрын

Love the great info!

@danielpaulson8838 Ай бұрын

You can predict where that isolated particle will go with certainty, depending how you view it. That particle that gets isolated to fire through a slit is never outside of the field that carries it. Like isolating a drop of water in the ocean to look at. It's still in the ocean and will move in accordance with the motion of the waves. This is just energy we don't interact with till we isolate a particle to look at. A particle is a tiny tiny piece of wave, that never is outside of its carrier wave. You know when you fire it, it will appear with complete certainty in one of the normal wave impact zones on the other side of the slit.

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

@aicguy Ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838You're gonna have to break that down for me again 🤔

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

@@aicguy Rational, analytic (a priori) is dual to empirical, synthetic (a posteriori) -- Immanuel Kant. Before measurement (mathematics, a priori) is dual to after measurement (physics, a posteriori) -- knowledge is dual. Deductive reasoning (mathematics) is dual to inductive reasoning (physics) -- Immanuel Kant. Duality creates reality! If you read some Immanuel Kant then this should become obvious but you will have to do some work.

@FiLo-nb3pr Ай бұрын

There is one additional problem with the pilot theory not mentioned here. Namely, that if the pilot wave carries a particle, the particle should exert a force (or some kind of interaction) on the wave as well (action-reaction principle), and this is not accounted for. If one allows for this back-interaction, then since all particles are guided by the wave, you effectively introduce an additional effective force between particles and this can create all sorts of problems in the theory. To the best of my knowledge this has not been resolved yet (but I might be wrong of course).

@QuicksilverSG 12 күн бұрын

This is a common misperception of Pilot Wave Theory. Pilot waves do not manifest in physical space, where they would be subject to relativistic interaction with physical particles and would be restricted to propagating at the speed of light. Pilot waves instead manifest in non-local Configuration Space, the complex-valued realm of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the quantum wave function is defined. Born's Rule describes how the deterministic evolution of pilot waves in Configuration Space guides the probabilistic motion of particles in physical space. The reason pilot waves are not in turn influenced by the motion of particles is because there is no comparable mechanism in quantum mechanics that could project a force exerted by particle motion from physical space into Configuration Space.

@dennistucker1153 Ай бұрын

Love your channel and Sabine's too. VERY good video!

@Megan.eco-Instinct Ай бұрын

This was so cool!! I'm still on the fence about this one. I will just have to keep listening to the arguments coming from both of you. But then... I'm used to doing that - I've been listening to the both of you for years now :)

@davidclark682 Ай бұрын

Next, Arvin discusses the similarities between Calvinism and determinism. 😂

@karapetrov-ic Ай бұрын

There is a discussion in law theory that we don’t need prisons or other kinds of criminal justice because of super determinism. Some argue that it’s not someone’s fault to be a criminal because the universe had already decided how the person would act.

@schawo2 Ай бұрын

But with SD, it is also determined, that the person HAS TO GO to prison.

@mawnkey Ай бұрын

Yeah that's pure academic stupidity used to justify a particular political view. The bottom line is that even with super determinism at play, you _still_ need to isolate them from society to prevent them from harming others in the future. It's just that now you're destined to do it or not rather than making a choice about it.

@jeffbguarino Ай бұрын

It is still their fault, even if they can't control it. The same way you lock up a lion that you know will eat you. The lion eats other animals by its nature. So by locking up a thief, they brain of the thief will remember what it is like to serve time and not commit more crimes. In other words there is a built in behavior that has to be modified , that behavior is what we call the fault. It is a fault because most people think it is very undesirable in society.

@FelenzoGara Ай бұрын

Justice is a concept for maintaining order.

@philshorten3221 Ай бұрын

so when it comes to sending a convicted criminal to prison... SORRY we don't have a choice! 😂

@daviddelgado6090 29 күн бұрын

From this exposition Superdeterminism sides with Einstein in his objection to Bohr's 'spooky action at a distance ', and supports his instinctual response that the glove was already right-handed before the box was opened. Very refreshing, I've always been partial to Einstein v Bohr on entanglement.

@FisicaModerna Ай бұрын

Thank you for the video, it has been inspiring and very clear ! I guess that conservation of information and reversibility would strongly imply superdeterminism.

@daviddayag 3 күн бұрын

Would love to see more of you collaborating together. ❤

@harryseldon362 Ай бұрын

I've been an OPERA user for years! Haven't found anything better yet.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

I agree. It's darn good.

@Azupiru Ай бұрын

Superdeterminism is absolutely my cup of tea. But I also add in an epistemological argument against the Copenhagen-etc.-interpretations, and their perpetuation of the status quo of Western Metaphysics. That's all they serve to do. Instead of taking an epistemically agnostic position, so many physicists rush to defend the last hope for 'free will,' while sacrificing all those who suffer by it to their undeserved fates. Is that fair?

@Azupiru Ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket maybe for idiots

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

I think you make a good point. Scientists in general do potentially sacrifice good ideas in an effort to save Free Will...because after all, without Free Will, I'm not sure any scientific endeavor has meaning.

@anywallsocket Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh you should not get meaning from a weird idea of freedom or lack there of, how you act is who you are.

@Azupiru Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh I just think the existential dread of some scientists and religious people is a really bad reason to sacrifice the rest of humanity. Your fear conecessitates with all manner of contemporary politics (all wrong), along with the sort of interreligious and international conflict (all in vain) that will result in nuclear annihilation anyway. Why not take a revolutionary stance against what amounts to an anti-episteme?

@stekons 28 күн бұрын

There is no free will , but there are different wills that should be equally respected ... Or not , doesn't really matter ;)

@wideeyewanderer1785 Ай бұрын

This is what I call science. The continuous conversation between people with different interpretations of the evidences at hand! Bravo for be so amazing sir

@djayjp Ай бұрын

Correction: Actually Copenhagen is agnostic and doesn't attempt to state what is or isn't real prior to observation ("collapse"). Its presumed probabilistic nature is likely the single most frequently misstated feature by physicists about it.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Sure, but Bohr et al essentially tried to avoid the elephant in the room, i.e., issue of what is real, leaving it up to us to interpret what "superposition" means.

@anywallsocket Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh what is "real" is for philosophers not scientists to ask. science is exclusively in the business of evolving more useful models for predicting empirical data.

@yziib3578 Ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket That is a definition of the function of science. And many scientist will agree, but many will disagree, including Einstein. A lot of scientist disagree with your philosophy of science.

@gonavygonavy1193 Ай бұрын

@@yziib3578Einstein kvetched a lot about QM. He was proven wrong in the end.

@yziib3578 Ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 Proven? Do you understand that Einstein won his Nobel prize for his paper on QM. He was one of the founding fathers and had a great understanding of QM. He thought that the Copenhagen Interpretation had problems. And at the time most of the other physicist thought that it was perfect. If he was proven wrong, why are you commenting in a video that is about an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation?

@DanteGabriel-lx9bq Ай бұрын

If superdeteminism is real, couldn't emergence save free will? If everything was determined, though, what implications would it have on philosophical matters like free will or ethical questions? That's what interests me the most.

Ай бұрын

If everything is determined and there's no free will in the universe, there's no will at all, no "knowledge" or discovery, no justification behind science or the scientific method, no justification for epistemology since your starting point defeats the possibility of you "obtaining" "knowledge". Things would just be, and there would be no oughts, everything would be a mechanistic soup of molecules... which makes it silly to even entertain, how is a soup of meaningless molecules ever gonna know or justify that claim logically. People need to start looking into philosophy of science and leaving physics where needs to be.

@anywallsocket Ай бұрын

weak emergence means the dynamics of a system of a given level become decoupled with the dynamics of the system at a lower level -- you can imagine it as simply when the higher level dynamics are functions of the *average* of the lower dynamics. strong determinism therefore doesn't lose its consistency, rather it loses its relevance, and indeed, while the universe itself may be taken to 'compute' every nuance and detail of its dynamics, each hierarchical layer distinguishing subsystems needs only 'compute' itself.

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

The free will discussion is not connected with QM. How does the copenhagen interpretation allow you t have free will?

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

Yes, free will is a feeling like love, an emergent property of our brain so far.

@litsci4690 26 күн бұрын

"Free will"--in the only meaningful sense--is consistent with superdeterminism. Random behavior is neither rational nor moral.

@mahershtat6029 20 күн бұрын

Well done, Mr. Irwin. A wonderful explanation that is easy to understand for non-physicists

@MWSCologne Ай бұрын

Great collaboration!

@ministerofjoy Ай бұрын

Thank you both, what an starry appearance 🌌👁️🙌✨👏🏽👏🏼👏🏼

@Soooooooooooonicable Ай бұрын

The idea that the universe is unfolding as it was always destined to is a very comforting thought.

@jackieow 29 күн бұрын

Until you get mugged.

@racookster 27 күн бұрын

Not if you talk to a Calvinist.

@litsci4690 26 күн бұрын

@@racookster Indeed. The distinction between determinism and predestination or fatalism is too subtle for many.

@sunaglarecrim Ай бұрын

Many things seem random until you find the pattern that connects them. In due time we will come to the understanding that the universe is superdeterministic.

@dewaard3301 Ай бұрын

I love these occasional collabs between channels I follow. Makes me feel 'part of the team'.

@jmcsquared18 Ай бұрын

Whatever the answer, I doubt we will solve the measurement problem until we find out how quantum mechanics interacts with gravity. Some of the most beautiful proposals solve both the measurement problem and quantum gravity with the same idea (e.g., Penose's objective collapse, ER = EPR, Oppenheim's postquantum theory).

@Iiochilios1756 Ай бұрын

Beauty is not a criterion. Theory has to predict experiment, it has no obligations to be beautiful.

@jmcsquared18 Ай бұрын

@@Iiochilios1756 I didn't say it has to be beautiful. I said these ideas were beautiful imo, for several reasons. They also happen to be all be motivated extremely well.

@Mentaculus42 Ай бұрын

At least they are thinking outside the box and not slaves to orthodoxy. But things seem to be moving slowly or not at all.

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

@mawnkey Ай бұрын

I honestly kind of wonder if superdeterminism will escape disprovability by simply being subject to Gödel's Incompleteness. Hidden variables might exist outside of the system they have an effect in (i.e. outside the universe as we can perceive it) and therefore only be subject to formal proof if we could escape our own universe. We might just be forced to accept their existence as an axiomatic fact once all other alternatives have been exhausted and leave it at that.

@franciscovalenzuela4152 Ай бұрын

Such a great video

@PhilMoskowitz Ай бұрын

Given the relative simplicity of Superdeterminism (compared to QM) I'd accept it more than I do the Copenhagen Interpretation. I'm also not bothered with the thought of giving up free will, so it's easier for me to accept Superdeterminism.

@nsacockroach4099 Ай бұрын

Plus, the free will discussion doesn't even have much to do with superdeterminism. Regular determinism already is incompatible with the existance of free will, depending on how one defines the prefix "free" in free will.

@user-je3sk8cj6g 24 күн бұрын

Copenhagen's interpretation is basically witchcraft. Instead of the "God of the gaps", it's the "QM of the gaps". And add some Jedi mind bending reality nonsense to the mix. That's not science, that's superstition.

@aaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa7276 20 күн бұрын

@@user-je3sk8cj6g "Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors." Wow, so superstitious.

@kitsurubami Ай бұрын

With no scientific basis, I have a strong desire for all things to be deterministic.

@SRIHARIS-zi1ng Ай бұрын

imagine when banks dont give u loan when u r determined to be homeless in future.

@DKonigsbach Ай бұрын

It's not your desire. You were predetermined to feel that way. 😁

@cygnustsp Ай бұрын

Same here. I think of the old dying dude in the hospital with Tony Soprano. Everything is everything and free will is an illusion.

@famailiaanima Ай бұрын

It's a good heuristic, has worked well so far

@custos3249 Ай бұрын

Almost like the two go hand in hand

@dekhrahahoon Ай бұрын

Thanks for this wonderful video! When I was a graduate student, long ago, I tried to solve the measurement problem, not knowing that the correct answer (decoherence) was being developed elsewhere. That led to the many worlds interpretation, in which all possible futures exist somewhere in some pattern of the wave function. The common interpretation of that interpretation is that therefore the world is deterministic because if every pattern of waves in the wave function keeps on rolling on, and we are unaware of them solely because "our" wave pattern no longer interferes with the others, then there is a "them" equally unaware of "us" in their wave pattern. If every outcome happens "somewhere", then the only thing we can say about ourselves is that we are the version of "us" that just happens to be in this particular part of the wave function. Ergo, no free will. I came to the conclusion that there is a mistake - not in the theory, but in the way of looking at it - that not only rescues free will but makes it, if anything, more likely than determinism, even if one accepts every assumption behind many worlds. It is a long story to explain, but I am close to completing two novels (yes, novels!) that explain why. Hopefully the first will be out before the end of the year, so if you are interested, look for "For Selenya" and its sequel, "For Katenya" Now your excellent video has given us a neat summary by Sabine (clearer than her longer versions, imho) of superdeterminism. And it became clear that the same oversight is happening here. IOW, even if all the assumptions behind superdeterminism are correct, it still doesn't say anything about whether free will exists. I'll now have to bung that in somewhere! :-) Very best wishes for your future research! Cheers Ron House.

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

"...it still doesn't say anything about whether free will exists." - exactly 💯! That's what all those half-intelligent philosophy-guys don't get, and it's what Sabine constantly explained a hundred times. U admire her patience.

@kalancag 28 күн бұрын

Thank you for the great video. It was a pleasant surprise to see Sabine commenting here. SD sounds like a discussion of, if there is a God with the entire knowledge of the universe, is he able to predict everything or is he subject to the same probabilistic universe? That's pretty much a philosophical discussion, rather than a scientific one. I believe the most important part of the discussion is, in your own words, "You can make any non-deterministic theory a deterministic one by introducing hidden variables." I think SD will just be a philosophical interpretation seeking the comfort of getting rid of the "spooky action at a distance" and in my opinion, this search for comfort is indeed a side effect of our fear of a non-deterministic universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some argue that weather events are also non-deterministic and inherently unpredictable. Similarly, one could counter-argue that there is actually superdeterminism at play, governed by hidden variables that no one is aware of yet. That doesn’t change anything except for providing the comfort and belief that we are not completely helpless in explaining and predicting the weather. Besides, not only the quantum events but any ordinary life event, such as whether I will be the first person on Jupiter, is quite unpredictable. I can still argue that the universe was aligned at the Big Bang in such a way that will make me the first one landing on Jupiter . It is unfalsifiable, yet such a discussion would just be a waste of time until I come up with some of those variables

@albertorasa6220 Ай бұрын

I don't like superdeterminism, but like a lot your comparison with Sabine's ideas in a video, because I like you both.

@Google_Censored_Commenter Ай бұрын

Sabine's rebuttal is shockingly bad. She desperately needs to read some Karl Popper if this is her take on falsifiability. The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory *that we have tried to falsify, but failed!* - this crucial distinction is the entire crux of the scientific enterprise. It's a process afterall, not some deductive property. What makes falsifiability valuable is precisely the power that lies in carrying out the falsification attempt. Because once we try to falsify a theory, and fail, then we're closer to being correct than we were before, by definition. Sabine brings up the example of coming up with 20 falsifiable theories, and falsifying them immediately, and concluding falsifiability is overrated, well, duh. Of course when your example is structured that way, it's the conclusion you reach. Look, I can do the same thing with repeatability. "I have come up with 20 different theories to test, and all of them are repeatable - they all fail the tests every time! Look how overrated repeatability is, it's practically worthless!" - is what Sabine would say. Disappointed. But good video from Arvin overall. I never had a clear picture of local hidden variables prior to this video. Though I do feel like there's some explaining to do when it comes to bohmian mechanics, we have countless QM experiments of conditions changing after we've made a measurement, and the particle somehow taking a different path that should be impossible given our prior measurement.

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

Did you even listen to her or did you just want to make a self presentation? She´s a leading mathematician and thinker and you are megalomaniac enough to explain her Popper, that´s ridiculous.

@alexanderkohler6439 Ай бұрын

"The crucial part she's missing is that it isn't simply falsifiability that's desirable in a theory, it's a falsifiable theory that we have tried to falsify, but failed!" I think you should watch her statement again, because she is essentially saying the very same @18:28 : Having a "falsifiable theory" is not enough, because it is easy to come up with one. It is difficult, however, to come up with "good falsifiable theory" (i.e. one we can and have tried to falsify but failed).

@Google_Censored_Commenter Ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 How is it ridiculous? Most mathematicians are platonists, they've never read a lick of philosophy. I don't expect Sabine to have read much either. Course I expect her to have heard of Popper, but her presentation made it clear she doesn't understand the value of falsifiability properly.

@Google_Censored_Commenter Ай бұрын

@@alexanderkohler6439 You're retrofitting her "good falsifiable theory" statement into what I said because it's convenient, but the likelihood that is what she means, given what she said the few sentences prior to it, is negligble. "good falsifiable theory" can mean anything in the world. Just like "good politics" or "good philosophy" or "good science" is a vague term. But nice try.

@alexanderkohler6439 Ай бұрын

@@Google_Censored_Commenter I am not retrofitting, because it is convenient, but because it is a fact based on what she started her argument with @18:00 : She argues that the criticism most often comes from physicists which don't keep in mind that falsifiability alone is NOT enough. You need to have some additional properties in order to get a "good falisifiable theory". Yes, she doesn't go into further details by explicitly stating what those additional properties precisely would have to be in order to get the quality mark "good". Instead, she gives an indirect indication by pointing to a ton of "bad falsifiable theories" in particle physics as counterexamples. I think, that is fair enough for a short appearance in someone else's video.

@turaniatok Ай бұрын

Great video🎉

@cosmopolitan4598 Ай бұрын

Oh my God, Arvin and Sabine in one video!! It's deterministic very, very interesting video!.

@nziom Ай бұрын

Nice

@davisbest Ай бұрын

I'm with Sabine on this one, I believe as measurements get more refined, predicable outcomes will increase revealing an underlying super-determinism of the universe. Either way, super exciting stuff.

@benoitgendron8880 Ай бұрын

Not easy to fully understand but well done and super interesting. Thanks

@andreasmaaan Ай бұрын

Finally, a youtube video on this topic that is accurate and clear. Well done :) Can anyone speculate as to what Dr Hossenfelder means at the end when she says "...as measurement devices become smaller and smaller, physicists will eventually notice that the outcomes are more predictable than they ought to be"? What is the supposed correlation between measurement-device size and outcome predictability, and why does it exist?

@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Ай бұрын

A large classical thing interacting with a quantum system is described by the collapse of the wave function and the Born rule (an instantaneous very simple random collapse process). Very small things interacting with a quantum system are described by the Schrödinger equation. A deterministic process (not so simple process). So somewhere between "large classical" and "very small" these things must morph into each other. Abs the randomness must disappear more and more into determinism. Things like: 1. Objective collapse: It only partially collapsed and the collapse rate is determined by quantities like the strength of the gravitational field difference (Diósi-Penrose model) or the number or particles that are entangled (Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory). 2. Superdeterminism ...

@andreasmaaan Ай бұрын

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos thanks for the explanation. I see what she's alluding to now. For what it's worth, although I think the idea that there may be a gradual/incremental shift from QM to classical in the mesoscopic range is an interesting one (and of course I hope it produces new physics), I'm more inclined to imagine that, at least on the level of individual particles, the shift between the two regimes will not prove to be a gradual one.

@dennistucker1153 Ай бұрын

Super determinism to me sounds much more plausible than the Copenhagen interpretation.

@kas8131 Ай бұрын

Exactly what I was thinking. Seems like Copenhagen advocates have had 100 years to give an explanation of measurement and they don’t have one. The characteristics of superdeterminism seem much easier to swallow.

@schokolade1735 29 күн бұрын

@@kas8131 Currently this boils down to either preferring to not have a satisfactory explanation of the measurement process or the hidden variables. I prefer not to choose at all for now...

@tbayley6 28 күн бұрын

@@kas8131AIUI superdeterminism requires that particles at the quantum level are correlated with macroscopic objects such as measurement devices. That makes very little sense to me. It's not just that an observer has no choice of what measurement to make, but also that the whole configuration of the device including any human intervention is pre-determined according to the PARTICULAR particle being measured. If it was the particle next door, the settings would have been different. Except of course it was impossible to measure any particle other than the one measured, just as it's impossible that we would NOT have the power to imagine otherwise. And yet that power of imagination and apparent free choice has delivered so much order in our part of the universe. Mulling over what might be, or what might have been, is how thought itself is constituted. In other words total delusion proves to be the basis of enlightenment. Such a setup is so wild, I think it's almost the perfect proof of theism. Except of course that theists typically require God to have given mankind free will.

@sergeyromanov5560 28 күн бұрын

Superdeterminism is hogwash. It is not sufficient to merely state that there are correlations. You have to explain, why and how they lead to uniform results that mimic the quantum theory.

@vikkris Ай бұрын

If the hidden variable is at higher dimension, we are probably simply looking at the wrong place for clues

@Mentaculus42 Ай бұрын

Arvin once mentioned “Super-dimensional Branes or Membranes” in a video. So …

@metanoia7217 Ай бұрын

YUP! You've got it!

@sabbathguy1 Ай бұрын

Super-determinism and holographic universe were meant for eachother!

@metanoia7217 Ай бұрын

@sabbathguy1 Super-Determinism and the COMPUTER SIMULATION hypothesis were "meant for each other." The "Holographic" aspect being one interesting (albeit not defining) characteristic of the model I am currently working on... Stay tuned :)

@dimitriosfromgreece4227 Ай бұрын

BRAVO!!!!!!! I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!!!!!❤️🙏🏻❤️🙏🏻❤️🙏🏻❤️

@sirdiealot53 Ай бұрын

Thanks for the great video :)

@AveratisArmada Ай бұрын

Right away I'll say that I prefer Sabine's approach to SD. On that note, I also think it is "better" than Copenhagen and many worlds. In Copenhagen the measurement is equivalent to the "and then a miracle happens" of those science jokes. It's completely mysterious and taken on faith. Similarly, many worlds depends on "just trust me, there are other universes but we can't ever prove it" because the math somehow allows it. Why would any of these two alternatives be better than simply allowing for all causes and correlations to have been fixed since the beginning? The alternative is some kind of acausal motion, not even probabilistic, but without any reference to the past.

@ForwardSynthesis Ай бұрын

It's why the argument that superdeterminism is unfalsifiable doesn't hold up, since it applies just as much to wave function collapse. If there's no mechanism behind it, how can you prove that's what's happening in the first place? How do you undergrid your interpretation without a mechanism that proves your interpretation correct? Of course, if we did know the mechanism of wave function collapse, then it would cease to be probabilistic in the first place and would render the theory deterministic. It seems paradoxical.

@tristanmills4948 Ай бұрын

People prefer these because they allow for free will in some way. Superdeterminism strips that away and exposes the illusion of free will (although we still tend to act as if we have it, because it is a great psychological tool to survive without a complete existential crisis).

@Necris-ql2py Ай бұрын

Where is all this heap of hidden parameters stored? Outside the physical universe on a computer that simulates Elon Musk?

@AbsentMinded619 11 күн бұрын

The massive leap in logic to “you don’t have free will!” from an unfalsifiable model involving quantum interactions is just another example of how so much of science is driven by competing politics and worldview. We don’t even know how the brain makes a thought. We do know that decisions are made based on external information and that we experience and exercise free will by any reasonable definition; including the ability to alter our choices on a whim just to demonstrate that we have free will. Rather than free will being preserved by people “afraid” that nothing matters, there seem to be too many nihilists terrified that everything matters.

@Desertphile Ай бұрын

If there was an inflatron field that condensed while decaying, the rapid oscillation that created all of the subatomic particles would have correlated all particles before the reheating of the universe. It makes no sense to reject "super determinism" when we observe determinism.

@dudicrous Ай бұрын

You and Sabine having a cup of tea is my cup of tea! On topic: the outlandishness of many worlds and wave collapse theories seem about equivalent to pilot wave theory and the superdeterminism property. Is there a measure for outlandishness?

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

For me the measure is the degree of magic vs. objectivity. SD has no magic in it, it´s just a property of the universe, we can observe. Believing in stuff like collapse of the wave function by observing it is like riding the unicorn.

@adb012 Ай бұрын

Superdeterminism has been my cup of tea since the dawn of time. I just didn't know it until today.

@user-je3sk8cj6g 24 күн бұрын

Me too. That's how I always imagined the Universe to operate ever since I was at least 7 years old, simply because I understood that everything affects and is affected by everything else in the universe. Therefore, the universe MUST be Superdeterministic. I just didn't know that it would have this name.

@NyteRazor Ай бұрын

I agree with Sabine as superdetermined. Let's sing it! 🎶Que sera, sera. 🎶

@mawnkey Ай бұрын

Her argument consisted of a hand wave and a "just trust me, bro". Rather unconvincing for me.

@Takyodor2 Ай бұрын

@@mawnkey non-determinism gang, let's go!

@mawnkey Ай бұрын

@@Takyodor2 I'm not necessarily saying that either. I remain thoroughly agnostic on the subject. It's entirely possible that the real answer will forever elude us if the evidence exists on whatever layer of reality exists outside our perception of our universe. Godel's Incompleteness is a thing, and this subject starts to bump up against it being the possible answer.

@Takyodor2 Ай бұрын

@@mawnkey I don't see a reason to be agnostic. If you accept that some things (properties that can be in a superposition) are truly impossible to predict based on earlier state (truly random), there's a whole lot excuses, hand-waving, "trust me bro" etc which are simply not needed. It's absolutely wild to me that some people prefer "every particle's every interaction, over billions of years, have been pre-programmed to _seem_ like there's randomness and cause/effect" over "some things are truly random". As far as I'm aware, the incompleteness theorem is a pure math thing (as opposed to reality)?

@mawnkey Ай бұрын

@@Takyodor2 Set theory very much operates within reality. That's how Godel formulated his theorem. Math certainly appears to be at the root of reality itself or at the very least describe it. The only question in this case is if determinism is axiomatic within our universe or if it is in fact possible to describe it with a mathematical proof. This is why her hand wave annoys me. We simply don't have anywhere near the answer yet.

@John_Mack Ай бұрын

Adding hidden, unknown variables is like saying "I don't know". This is fine, as we know much less than we don't know.

@lesalmin Ай бұрын

We don't know and may never know, but we may still have a theory as to why this is so.

@AndrewMilesMurphy Ай бұрын

I feel that Bell is a good point of departure into ignoring weather something is deterministic or non-deterministic. As we move forward into various forms of optical computing, it will be necessary to hold both ideas to be true, or else we won't be able to both see things as they are, and influence them, at the same time. While the universe isn't locally real, we can induce a more pleasant experience for ourselves just as the locally unreal universe induces an unpleasant experience in us.

@taylanhoca Ай бұрын

2 Distinguished science communicators in one video. What a day🎉

@binbots Ай бұрын

@anywallsocket Ай бұрын

lmao so super determinism or no ?

@binbots Ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket lol. In an infinite universe it’s fundamentally unknowable.

@binbots Ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket also unknowable because we are inside the universe. A system is only knowable if one is outside of it.

@anywallsocket Ай бұрын

@@binbots yes i agree. even if we came up with a set of equations to simulate our own universe, we'd have to run the simulation to find out, and we could never do so completely -- for many reasons, namely we'd forever lack the sufficient resources, and also because we'd have to simulate ourselves simulating ourselves, which would require the simulation to know how it will run before it finishes running, which it cannot do lol.

@anywallsocket Ай бұрын

@@binbots note that is true even in a finite universe *

@vhfarrell81 Ай бұрын

Most interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to be fantasies. Copenhagen, many worlds, many histories, super determinism, ghost branches, etc., etc. Pilot waves seem to make the most sense, but they have all kinds of problems too.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Yep. I don't think Bohmian mechanics makes much sense. The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of a "guiding wave" that somehow pushes a particle around without itself being affected, and how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle.

@Mentaculus42 Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh A great video! It seems that Bohemian Pilot-Wave Theory as is usually portrayed in videos that compare it to other interpretations is rather problematic and dated. I wish that “someone” would do a video on more modern variants on this “theme” that have a historical connection to Bohemian Mechanics but are inspired by more modern “Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs” that are talked about at the “International Conference on Advances in PilotWave Theory & HQA” and other places. Love the Yves Couder and John Bush research for inspiration. Tho it seems that the “pilot-wave” is going to require some sort of “new field” that will be a huge departure in thinking.

@alexanderkohler6439 Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh "The biggest problem I have with it is the idea of ... how variables can be hidden all over the universe but communicate instantly with a given particle." Your problem goes away by choosing the labels for the hidden variables appropriately. If you choose the initial positions of the particles as hidden variables, the hidden variables would essentially be a part of the defining inital conditions. Initial conditions don't change and hence don't communicate. They are just inital conditions and thus fixed. Apart from that: I really liked your video. It gave a very good explanation of the subtle differences between determinism and superdeterminism that made it easy to follow for me. Thanks.

@TheNexusComplex Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAshExactly put. Approved. 😊

@kurte5006 21 күн бұрын

I would like to see discussions around a pilot wave model where the non-locality between entangled particles is minimized to their last localized interaction so as to preserve the property of locality as much as possible, but still have the non-local behavior we observe between locally prepared entangled particles we see in experiments. Maybe there is something wrong with this approach, but I think it is the simplest and keeps with the intuition that the universe is for all practical purposes local.

@GugaBFigueiredo Ай бұрын

A colab between Arvin and Sabine!!! YES!!!!!

@alanhyland5697 11 күн бұрын

I can't help but believe it.

@fikretyet Ай бұрын

My opinion is, Superdeterminism is the grandchild of the "all-knowing god" in theology. It rejects randomness and describes time as a predetermined emergent block of incidents. While there is still no method that offers a universal, closed-form solution applicable to all scenarios to even three-body problems, considering the whole universe to be strictly emergent without any non-predictable randomness and throwing probability out of the window might be excessively pretentious.

@ocno Ай бұрын

Scientific arguments deserve better than to just be called "might be pretentious". Fundamentally, superdeterminism is about rejecting arguments based on measurement independence and seeing if it can lead you to new predictions. The implications about randomness are secondary and frankly not very interesting.

@rynther Ай бұрын

As it happens, the concept of sin is based on the idea of free will, determinism precludes the concept of free will, which would be a very critical theological problem. "All knowing god" would have to know the starting position, direction of travel, speed, charge, and spin, of every single elemental particle as it condensed from energy early in the expansion of the universe. That could maybe get you to Deism, the universe is god, but that is not what the churches are selling. The most generous description of "free will" is a cone of potential, looks a bit like a gravity well, it expresses the available freedom of motion (change) for a given object or person. The likelyhood that you will significantly change relative velocity or location much in the next 5 milliseconds is pretty low, where you could be any number of locations a year from now. This is greatly constrained by where you were born, who you were born to, and the circumstances that led up to it. Statistically these factors have an overwhelming impact on wealth and wellbeing, yet it isn't an iron clad indicator for any given individual, the uncertainty principle still applies. (hidden variables) What makes us truly unique is our experiences, which are by nature biased, the lack of free will isn't the same as a lack of agency, but you aren't likely to radically change your outlook on the world without some cause for that change. This dialog is far shorter than the internal dialog that created it, so just in the first step of communication there is significant data loss, we don't think and reason in a vacuum, our world view colors how we see information, and that colored information shapes our world.

@AbsentMinded619 11 күн бұрын

You’re not thinking like a scientist there. God knowing everything about every elemental particle is only a problem if you commit a category error, and assume that a being couldn’t know such things because you couldn’t. No theologian would assume that, nor even the Bible writers. What do you think it means that God is “past our understanding?” If God was aware of all outcomes upon creation of the universe/the Big Bang, then both humans and God can be in different senses responsible for human actions. Allowing for free will while also knowing all outcomes at conception can reconcile the older theological issue of Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s fascinating stuff, if you aren’t just looking to dunk on churches as if you learned about science from Rick and Morty episodes.

@scene2much Ай бұрын

Arvin and Sabina? That combo has the power of 9,000 Suns!

@helenamcginty4920 9 күн бұрын

Physics channels fascinate me in my dotage. I dont know why but your comment re your sponsor Opera offering you info via AI in the sidebar so saving you time made me wonder. Why is that so good? From childhood searches in physical dictionaries which led me all over the place as a synonym or a new word or a weird looking word caught my eye. I turned pages and read with delight. The dictionary introduced me to etymology. i love my big paper dictionary. My Spanish/English falling to bits paper one is far more informative than most apps online. But maybe this love of wandering through words is why I ended up studying Graphic design then nursing and horticulture with side helpings of silversmithing, wood carving archaeology and history but not physics. But I found physics in the end. And it is also endlessly fascinating. Like maths. Thank you.

@SPACECOWBOY_Hej Ай бұрын

Love this collab, Sabine is great people.

@aresaurelian Ай бұрын

Reality is more than a few specific equations, and thus hard to calculate. But it is not within absolute impossibility if we can access all parameters in real time. Hidden variables from non-locality is just delayed in a continuum spectrum.

@johnmcwilliams379 Ай бұрын

I think the problem stems from the fact that we’re 4D creatures, part of a 4D block universe, with a perception of 3D objects (with change and motion provided by the unseen 4th dimension), and we have evolved in a manner that allows only ‘seeing’ the past, not the future. So, the future seems mutable and the past immutable… and to us that’s true and real. But from a view outside our virtual 3D reality, looking at 4D space-time, all is not just deterministic, but determined. Could those hidden variables mentioned simply exist as the shape of space-time…as in general relativity’s explanation of gravity?

@getziie Ай бұрын

I was thinking about that! Time perception and free will could be illusions like colors or taste. These concepts might not exist outside of human brain

@JodattisLoeschblatt Ай бұрын

The question is, whether our universe is a determined shape within this 4D space you speak of, or not. To simplify it by looking at a 2D-creature with the shape of a point that can move and that experiences the z-axis as time: Does the creature look like one continuous line through 3D space, or would we see lines branching into multiple possible positions that could be reached by the creature and the manifestation of the "actual position" at z=currently is found by observing which branch it moves along, as we move up along the z-axis. In that case, the outside observer still wouldn't know what happens in "the future"(higher z-axis points), as the actual shape is "rendering" while we move along the z-axis. If a particle can go left or right, without it making a difference in the energy potential, why must we assume, that a hidden variable must make the decision for it? If it is possible for such a situation to arise, then two branches should be equally likely and only the rendering of the present moment can show, which branch our observation is on. I am not saying, that this is the truth, I am just saying, that it is not clear, that the description as a 4D space would force our experienced reality to be a determined object for an outside observer.

@halfnattyboomer354 Ай бұрын

@@getziie So we're just characters playing a role and the jokes on us because we actually believe we can determine our fates. But to a true higher dimensional observer watching us on their TV it would be just as absurd as us thinking a prerecorded shows characters can suddenly to something differently. Man maybe Buddhists have it right, just accept everything that happens because it can't unhappen. Just try adapt as best we can with what we currently understand and know because that's all we can do.

@ninabar4359 Ай бұрын

Without accepting multidimensionality in all of the objects, any theory is dormant.

@johnmcwilliams379 Ай бұрын

@@JodattisLoeschblatt I see what you’re saying. I was imagining the outside observer as outside of time. As able to see the past, the present, and future as one 4D block (as one might hold a cube in one’s hand). To the observer the block would contain only 4D space. Nothing like time (i.e.: no change, no motion). And, in that way, the probability is entirely a perception (or conception) of the creature (us) from within that 4D block. So, yes, you’re right… it comes down to whether there exists a ‘View’ from the outside from which space and time are fixed and immutable. I suppose that’s really what determines the question of determinism.

@Curious112233 Ай бұрын

If super determinism is true, it still does not eliminate the possibility of free will. If free will exists it must come from something outside the known physical universe. And the initial conditions of a super deterministic universe still come from an unknown source. Therefor it may be that quantum retro causality carries our freewill choices all the way back to the initial conditions in order to fine tune those conditions such that the choice you want to make at this time is made. It may also be that time is simply irrelevant in the realm where free will choices are made. In other words, our free will choices may be the source of the initial conditions of the universe.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Interesting ideas! Could the initial conditions set in motion the precise sequence of events necessary to create the universe in the first place?

@m.t.9482 Ай бұрын

I also think that consciousness is not algorithmizable and therefore cannot be deterministic. Moreover, a hypothesis that is by definition unconfirmable and at the same time irrefutable is absolutely worthless.

@Mentaculus42 Ай бұрын

Obviously an avid fan of that youtube channel that seems to have an interview every other day on this exact topic. It gets too far from “science” to be … Also Penrose’s “retro-activity” seems to have something to say about this topic.

@hyperduality2838 Ай бұрын

@Curious112233 Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh Good Question. Who knows. But can't rule out the possibility that the creation of the universe was the first act of free will.

@frankmalenfant2828 Ай бұрын

From a layperson's pov, I pretty much side with the idea that an idea such a Superdeterminism cannot be experimentally proven or disproven, because it seems to postulate that it controls the conditions and the result of the experiment anyway. If the whole universe is like a train moving on superdeterminstic tracks, then we'd have to get out of our universe to see if there really are tracks. Otherwise, I can't see how any experiment we do within our universe would prove the existence of these tracks. But I'm no theoretical physicist, and I'd be happy to learn what I might have gotten wrong here.

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

Well, SD is basicely a scientific approach to solve the measurement problem, which mainstream QM has given up to solve, since Schrödinger put a cat into a box hundred years ago. It doesn´t make any statements about philosophy, psychology or religion, that´s a misunderstanding. It also doesn´t make predictions about "the whole universe", like classical determinsm does in classical physics. Dr. Sabine has written different papers in the last decade with proposals to test/prove/falsify superdeterministic predictions on entangeled particles. As she says here in the vid, nothing was funded, though this are just table experiments. It´s a shame.

@litsci4690 26 күн бұрын

Correct.

@Thomas-gk42 25 күн бұрын

@@litsci4690 Is it really "correct", what the first commenter said here? Sabine (and others) refers here (and in other statements in other places) to the possibility, that more precise observations could show us stronger correlations and more measurement predictions, as standard QM gives us. That´s what her unfunded research proposal is about, and that would indeed prove/falsify SD.

@joyboricua3721 Ай бұрын

Good collaboration... kudos!

@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch Ай бұрын

It is pretty obvious there is at least ONE variable we are not accounting for because we have not discovered it yet. That is what is causing the illusion of superposition.

@gonavygonavy1193 Ай бұрын

Superposition is not an illusion. It is the way things fundamentally are.

@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch Ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 Our perception of it is an illusion. I am not denying its reality as a concept. The same way gravity is an illusion. It is really just the curvature of space time, not an attractive force.

@gonavygonavy1193 Ай бұрын

@@Dr.HowieFeltersnatchOur perception of it is real. It's the only thing about it that can be called real. There's nothing underlying superposition. It's not like touching an elephant blindfolded,which implies the existence of an objective elephant independent of our touch. There is no elephant. What you touch is what it is. .

@gonavygonavy1193 Ай бұрын

non-local hidden variables violate locality, which is backed by special relativity. What scientific theory backs objective reality? Nothing. Only philosophical ones like marxist materialism

@tristanmills4948 Ай бұрын

I like superdeterminism. I think people don't like it because its uncomfortable. The issue of measurement is overlooked too readily, probably because its a very difficult one to reason about. I think it's a hangover from classical physics, but is an assumption which cannot be made at quantum levels. The issue is, fundamentals of physics research is not seen as needed when the calculations work so well, you can just 'shut up and calculate'.

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

Exactly!

@gonavygonavy1193 Ай бұрын

fundamentals of physics are non-classical and non-deterministic

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 And fairies ride on unicorns...

@tristanmills4948 Ай бұрын

@@gonavygonavy1193 they are non-classical I agree, but I don't see anything that says they're necessarily non-deterministic. Super-determinism is as valid an interpretation as Copenhagen, or many worlds at this point. I prefer it, but as with all the others, we have no way to show which is the best model.

@nathanlingle5552 Ай бұрын

One of my favorite channels

@authenticallysuperficial9874 29 күн бұрын

What are some previous examples in physics through the ages where we thought an idea was unfalsifiable but we later made discoveries that allowed us to test the idea and possibly falsify it?

@zukodude487987 Ай бұрын

When i tell fitness folks that what you put in your mouth is not your choice then they get upset at me.

@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle Ай бұрын

😂 As a fitness person this makes me laugh

@BondJFK 28 күн бұрын

That's what she said

@AbsentMinded619 11 күн бұрын

Does it upset you when people get unhappy with their weight and successfully change their diet?

@zukodude487987 11 күн бұрын

@@AbsentMinded619 I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly.

@carlossoares712 Ай бұрын

i think it makes more sense than conpenhagem interpretation

@litsci4690 26 күн бұрын

Certainly ASSUMES much less . . . Occam's razor.

@alexkubiesa9073 20 күн бұрын

Really interesting, I hope we will see some superdeterministic theories in the future and have a clearer idea of how to perform experiments that address the lack of measurement independence.

@lemondemerveilleuxdechrist6515 Ай бұрын

Finally a new video explaining the concept of SUPERDETERMINISM! This new paradigm, even if it may be counterintuitive, seems to me more simple and realistic than the other interpretations because it does not postulate new exotic elements. It also has the advantage of being completely in line with the Einsteinian eternalist block universe!

@Thomas-gk42 Ай бұрын

That´s right.