"If they were interested in fossils, they would be geologists", like a cleanly hit smash to end a tennis rally. I really liked Markus Arndt as well, the gentle polite realist.

David's "The Fabric of Reality" changed my outlook of life. One of the top five transformative books I've ever read, I'd say...perhaps even number one

@davidbravocomas9910

2 жыл бұрын

What would be some others, if I may ask?

@aidanhall6679

Жыл бұрын

Reading The Beginning of Infinity and I’ve yet to encounter a chapter that doesn’t blow my mind.

@sqzl3969

Жыл бұрын

What are the others?

@bossgd100

Жыл бұрын

What are other ?

@somethingness

Жыл бұрын

His second book "The Beginning of Infinity" did something very similar for me.

I just love David. His books are amazing. I can only hope to meet him in person one day.

@GBY13

5 жыл бұрын

you just have not met the ground status that you meet him but you are always interfered by him according to his theory.

@bobrobertson3558

5 жыл бұрын

Just rest assured that in a parallel universe, you have already met him.

@maxlieberman578

4 жыл бұрын

We need David in more podcasts!!

@ivannogolica364

4 жыл бұрын

I don't understand why he is not in more podcasts (David)

What a mind. We probably don't even come close to understanding how amazing it must be.

5 жыл бұрын

It's not easy.

Oxford campus is wow! What brilliant discussion, Mark and David are eloquent, I wish I could understand

@ovenlovesyou

3 жыл бұрын

You can.

David is mine favourite physicist. Philosophical intellectual think work is mine reason to live for.

@ethiesm1

5 жыл бұрын

I feel exactly the same way

@ivannogolica364

4 жыл бұрын

I don't understand why he is not in more podcasts (David)

Thanks so much for this - I've been waiting for a new video to appear on your channel for a while. More philosophy and physics please!

@joeboswellphilosophy

6 жыл бұрын

Cheers Monty. Yeah, I hope to be making more soon. Got a few commissions coming up.

@dela3499

6 жыл бұрын

Deutsch is always interesting. If you’ve got more video from the conversation, it’d certainly be interested in it. :)

When I hear people like David Deutsch, I feel almost as if I had done the math to understand what they're saying. I don't think I will ever have what it takes to really understand all the underlying mathematics, however speculating like this still gives me a great image of what they're talking about. You can tell that in this dialogue, David made very concise and agreeable arguments that help you understand the conflict between different theories and methods of procedure in this field. Something that always gets me is that there seems to be a lot of potential lobying going on, which would in part be understandable due to the pressure and attention surrounding these topics. But again, I feel safe when I hear such competent, sane and well constructed arguments as David's. Gives the impression that he really knows what he's talking about although the discussion itself is about varying degrees uncertainty.

Brilliant and logical defense of the Many Worlds Interpretation. It ought not be prematurely dismissed due to a misguided sense of self-importance. Rather, the facts should be followed honestly to wherever they lead.

David's infinite wisdom. His FoR and BoI books are just amazing and most influential to me.

I wouldn't try making little of David Deutch through the use of hidden agendas and that because David is one of the smartest persons alive. He has proper knowledge of knowledge, knowledge of knowledge of reality and for sure knows what he is talking about and is more aware than anyone iv ever came across in this day of age.

We need David in more podcasts!!

Absolutely loved this.

Love this "unconference" as David put it. Facing the issues head on.

Everett’s many world theory is so counterintuitive to our everyday experience that it seems wacky. When looked at in detail it is the best explanation of reality. To me it makes the best sense of quantum theory.

@zdcyclops1lickley190

5 жыл бұрын

How far apart are they? Are they moving? How fast? Has anyone ever found evidence, in any observation? If these multiverses did exist, the whole shebang would swallow itself. Gravity sucks.

@Sharperthanu1

3 жыл бұрын

Only problem is those other versions of "me" in those other worlds are NOT ME.YOU CAN BET!

Beautiful discussion

A remarkable and most fascinating interpretation of quantum mechanics that boggles the mind I love it

Thanks so much JOE🔴🔸️🔥

I cannot get enough of David Deutsch, particularly concerning the multiverse theory, which for me has been proven by quantum computing at DWave, whose calculations bring back a small surplus of energy, which I consider quantum pollution in the form of parallel reality fragments that juxtapose reality itself.

I wish David could live forever.

@Avaunt_K

4 ай бұрын

Not in this universe, bro😢

Love David Deutsch!

With the dinosaur example, Deutsch is saying the effects come from mechanisms....calculations are not the mechanisms, they are just notations and rules to predict some limited aspects of the outcomes from those mechanisms.

Great comeback

I agree with David.

The begining of infinity is fantastic

We're all cosmologists now. My own guess: ours is an Arlesian Universe (in which Bizet's Arlesienne suite is encountered with inexplicable frequency). My thesis would explain many other absurdities.

Would a quantum computer AI become entangled with us such that we'd only see one particular instance of it, or vice versa? or rather, if what we see/experience as "decoherence" is actually just the process of "us" becoming entangled with the particles we interact with, then wouldn't a conscious AI running on a quantum computer also have the same experience, and thus face the same problem of explaining quantum effects it observes while "it" (each instance of it?) experiences only one universe...? hope I explained that ok... Not expecting an answer - I guess I'm just curious in what way would a quantum computer AI's experience be any different to ours...

Personally I have no problems with the many worlds interpretation. We only experience a small part of reality. Life sculpts something out of information rich chaos.

David.Whats your opinión about the arrival of planetoids to kuiper belt predicted by the French Jean Pierre Garnier Malet in his theory: decoupling of space and time?

We can't see it, NOT because of some magic but because we can't see it! Glad that Deutsch put his silly questions back to reality.

Isn’t a simple way to hold Everettian branching worlds as conservation of energy? Perhaps we are not measuring an object like a particle but the energy of a system we give a name to? Not the guitar but the sound?

I like this Arndt guy, he seems to have some grasp of reality, Deutsch just sort of blathers out a word salad of speculations and conjecture in answer to every question

the question at approx 3 minutes by Mark seems profound.

I envision the many-worlds interpretation as a unified 5-dimensional space-time-causality. A proliferation of outcomes is then equivalent to expansion in this 5th physical dimension. What if the unidirectional tendency of total entropy is another facet of the same phenomenon underlying both cosmological expansion and time's arrow? 5-space curvature

So, take something too complex for us to understand so we propose "many worlds" and make it infinitely more complex? That is just kicking the can down the road.

Arndt keeps dodging the issue; this issue arises because we have experimental results that, as Deutsch puts it, "cannot be explained by the events that we see." Instead Arndt, the "experimentalist," seems to want to discuss pointless philosophical questions. This is exactly Deutsch's point; the Copenhagen interpretation is what he calls "bad philosophy." Indeed, that seems laid bare here.

@DanielZajic

5 жыл бұрын

@@joeboswellphilosophy And I think David would be the first to agree. Philosophy is inescapable when doing science. There's no such thing as pure objectivity. His argument about explanation is powerful and the right one, I think. We should not judge an explanation by how likely we think it is true given our own experience of the world. If the explanation works, we should go with it, until we find something better.

@frederickj.7136

5 жыл бұрын

Funny that Deutsch himself did not appear to share your sense of annoyance and personal offense at all, Mr. Bull.... Only some sort of (hyper-?)authoritarian tribalism would lead a sober observer to characterize topics under discussion and inquiry here as "pointless philosophical questions". And it is ironic that you allude to experimental results while broadly characterizing "experimentalist(s)" pejoratively! In case you haven't heard, genuine science done well does not appeal to Authority -- Einstein despised this, even after ruefully noting that he himself had become one by his early forties -- because nature itself is the only final authority for science; and it is not always giving up its secrets easily. Furthermore, few respectable philosophers (whom you also seem to rather despise, I infer) *or* physical scientists agree with your implication that other interpretations are somehow incompatible with experimental results. You may not like these, I may not like them; but I, for one, do not care to close my mind with a slam and follow any particular authority guru or set of gurus as a 'true believer'... not the sort of people with a great track record for turning out to right about how nature works. I have defended previously in YT Comments, for its plusses, the Everettian interpretation -- the "pure quantum mechanics interpretation" as Sean Carroll has recently suggested referring to it -- but I won't be joining *your* sort of dismissive, insular little club, Taurus Londoño, anytime soon.

@jakeinfactsaid8637

3 жыл бұрын

I think you’d be interested to listen to David’s recent appearance on The “Conversations with Tyler” podcast to see him saying quite explicitly what “Mr. Bull” alludes to.

can you imagine instruments that 'see' into parallel worlds? somehow detect variables we have not imagined yet, a physics that is not so heavily skewed towards the way our evolved senses 'see' ... maybe this is a question about what deutch was alluding to re. when quantum computers are available.

@Avaunt_K

4 ай бұрын

If it weren't for Deutsch, no quantum computers would be available. He believes that if Turing and Everett had been taken seriously, quantum computers would have appeared 30 years earlier

THEY'RE BOTH INFORMATION AND PHYSICAL WORLDS.

@joshspeed7794

5 жыл бұрын

Most definitely physical, something which I refer to as 3d stills, as if plucked from a movie reel. Completely static and virtually identical to their neighbors, these parallels are strung together by consciousness itself as if a movie projector was coming on to give the illusion of movement and life in a static reality..

Markus is looking at David like, "Dieser Mann ist veruckt !"

Maybe we could just shut up and calculate if in a computer simulation we add some tachyonic Brownian motion to microscopic entities like electrons, and some classical Brownian motion to macroscopic entities like potential wells. The tachyonic Brownian motion would be added in equal measure to the matter and radiation fields, like a nonlocal Vernam cipher, and consists of making a random choice between a timelike and a spacelike integration of the governing differential equations. The classical Brownian motion would suppress any hint of Many Worlds, I am afraid. The computer simulation would need access to a random number generator. I think this is what your intelligent quantum computer would say, though I am merely human.

Information, the functional definition of positioning a vanishing point of zero timing difference in time duration, ie it's the notion of quantization of spacing in a field of relative timing connection rates, and like a mathematical disproof, is defined by absence. (Roughly speaking) So a universe of interference positioning Imagery is the natural occurring field cause-effect e-Pi-i, phys-chem resonance environment of probability in potential possibility, and forms the unique in uniqueness aspects of the superimposed multi-phase locked Superposition-point Singularity positioning projection that is the holographic image projection drawing of virtual spacing in time duration timing->Spacetime.., constant creation of unitary Quantum Operator Fields Modulation Mechanism of QM-Time Principle In-form-ation Calculus / calculation. "Spacing", expance of duration without difference superconducts probability occurrence dominance as the properties of Phys-Chem multi-phase resonance and phase-locked Geometry, the implied Superspin Modulation Mechanism of QM-Time sync-harmonics of focused functional modulation demodulation balanced in coherent sync states of universal bonding construction. Each of us, and everything else is a unique arrangement of metastable substantiation duration rates in the universal sum-of-all-histories wave-package.., ie although the Universe and QM-Time Principle is eternal, no sub structure can be because it's a focused condensation of information in the holistic conditions of Eternity-now, not separate and not forming quantum copies of the suggested Multiverse. (It must be so) QM-Timing-Spacing is the natural occurring format of constant creation and superimposed condition for imagining how to arrange observable abstractions in theories of optimization and perceptions. Very good "sciencing" discussion, thank you.

🏃🏽‍♀️🚶🏻‍♀️🏃🏽‍♀️🚶🏻‍♀️🏃🏽‍♀️🏃🏽‍♀️

"If paleontologists were only interested in fossils they'd be geologists."

No debate that 'God' brings everything into a single reality.

The continuos wondering in the woods.

I don't want to state the obvious, but David Deutsch says (or argues) a hell of a lot more than Markus Arndt. This is the case whether or not Deutsche is onto something here. Arndt seems to be "fixated" on experiments results, predictions, etc; whereas Deutsche is concerned with what he calls "reality". Perhaps the reason for Deutsche saying more than Arndt is precisely because he has concerned himself with philosophical and speculative issues; whereas Arndt hasn't.... Not that I'd heard of Arndt before this video.

@joeboswellphilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

To be fair, Arndt is being a great sport here. This was arranged totally spontaneously and Arndt knows this is Deutsch’s turf. I just asked him to put the “common sense” empiricist view to Deutsch for the sake of the debate.

@paulaustinmurphy

3 жыл бұрын

@@joeboswellphilosophy That's fair enough. Though it can be said that the "shut up and calculate" position (mentioned in this video) *itself* needs a (philosophical?) defence. I'm not saying that Arndt is committed to the shut-up position, however. (I don't know.) Even "common sense" positions need defending - and philosophers like G.E. Moore have defended them. (Though this Moorean position isn't directed related to scientific "common sense" - if there is such a thing.) Of course a hands-on (laboratory) scientist is free to say that the shut-up position doesn't need a non-scientific defence either. The maths works. Full stop. Deutsche is unhappy with that kind of attitude. Perhaps for good reasons. (His cites some of his reasons in your video.)

i understood nothing :(

Permission to Improvise waveform update

Where do all those massive open=ended parallel computations come from in quantum computers if no from assisting universes?? You don't get something from nothing.

david deutsch for president verse

There is no such a ting as multiverses...

Is the multiverse a bit like living in Australia?

@Avaunt_K

4 ай бұрын

If only you have your own Deutsch😂

David puts human knowledge (or sentient being knowledge) at the center of things. That's out of whack with the view of a physical universe in which we happened to evolve. David's many worlds take on quantum mechanics also shows his predilection for a human-level standard. That is, he thinks that we _can_ make sense of the universe at this level while most others think we should just "shut up and compute." There may not be a "right" or "wrong" here. It's more of a personal preference. We are in a goofy place in either case.

David Deutsch is deep. Sean Carroll is also Many Worlds. Sabine Hossenfeider has objections to Many Worlds :- kzread.info/dash/bejne/nXpqt7V7YqyXmbg.html (and Sabine is usually correct - mind you I say that about Sean Carroll as well)

@Avaunt_K

4 ай бұрын

Sabina is a critic without suggestions

what about 'information is energy'?

In some parallel universes Deutsch's name is *German* .

but when you believe in the theory that we are all ONE and that in the spiritual world there is NO time at all (no past no futur, all at the same one moment, the NOW !!) then you realise that "there" we are in all universes at the same "time" moment of the "NOW" too .... we only start to "split" in one universe of matter as material bodies/beings when we are born while our spiritual being, our soul (of Light - as christian) keeps being in all universes together at the same "time" of the NOW ... infinite possibilities, just one outcome/decision here, up there all possibilities and all outcomes .... but annihilating themselves in just one infinite loophole .... so our SOUL (spirit) (quantum consciousness) and our souls together are the sum of all the universes in the NOW but our body of matter is the way we walk into one or another of the different universes .... free will !!! I go left ? I go right ? in fact we do not even move ..... we just ARE in all universes together but we think we are separate because we always focus on just one split ray of light or life or movement in this matter-world instead of being aware of the whole bunch of light around .... Light is EVERYWHERE ALWAYS !!! Christ is everywhere ! you cann't have just one photon ..... can you see Christ ?? no but He is ALL LIGHT we yet cann't see .... so much as you cann't see LOVE ! So there must be 2 kinds of light : the light we see in the material world (traveling at a certain speed C ) and the for us not yet to be seen invisible spiritual LIGHT infinite present everywhere and interacting somehow with our known sunlight ..... the successor of quantum theory will be the SOUL theory, the level of the permanent infinite NOW ... (explaining quantum entanglment etc ...) ... that has the consciousness (quantum) to, by totally free will, split away into another downgraded "vibration" (with past or futur and inherent timeline ..).

🚶🏻‍♀️

Except that these quantum computers might never exist

The many world interpretation violate Occam’s razor! This is not physics, it is mythology.

@Avaunt_K

4 ай бұрын

But quantum physics has no more explanations. Deutsch is trying and not bad

Wolfgang Pauli said " shut up and calculate"

@rogeronslow1498

5 жыл бұрын

Which was fine for the time but ultimately people want to understand WHY, not just what the answer is.

Markus Arndt would best be advised to become proficient at William Buhlman's technique of initiating out-of-body-experiences; or to go down to Rhythmia in Costa Rica [or another vetted spot] and experience the multidimensional universe by way of DMT in Ayahuasca ... ... or use LSD with a sitter, say 500 mcg; or use DMT with a sitter. The veil is thin. THIS world is not reality. And neither are any other worlds in parallel stage plays. If Markus wants "reality", transcendence and loss of everything you know and understand is required.

6:30 is what "Neil deGrasse Tyson: We Might Be Living In Higher Dimensions…But Our Senses Can’t Tell Yet." is talking about

Great discussion!! Horrible venue. Who in their right mind would have asked them to discuss that topic, in an open area, with people nattering in the background?

"calling it many universes is a bit of a misnomer" says David... Yes, and it is a misnomer that is endlessly confusing and misleading, so why do so many physicists continue to talk about it this way?

don't think I've heard a physisct say solipsism

Many zombies interpretation

If many worlds is true, then there are infinite number of universes branching out every instance. 1. Where are these universes coming from? 2. Where are they emerging into? This whole theory is bonkers.

The ma w the scarf talks....but says nothing....

Atheist Physicist 1: "I don't believe in God but I believe the universe splits into an infinite number parts every time we make a quantum measurement" Reporter 1: " Isn't that like saying you don't believe in Santa Claus but you believe in the Tooth Fairy ?" Athiest Physicist 1: " Gee, you got me on that one."

@sleepy314

5 жыл бұрын

William, I think you got Atheist Physicist's answer wrong. I was there, and I heard "No, not like that at all."

@jeffwilson4715

5 жыл бұрын

That's ridiculous. The many worlds theory is based on observable evidence. The is no credible evidence to support a belief in god. Your analogy is silly.

@rickhenderson2970

5 жыл бұрын

What nonsense. There's no evidence for Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, or God. The evidence for many-worlds is built into the fundamental formalism of QM and is evidenced by, eg, the double-slit experiment, where we see how a single particle interferes with itself (ie, exists in multiple states). To escape it you have to change the formalism (with no mathematical/experimental justification), deny that what you're measuring is real (more difficult after PBR Theorem), or propose hidden variables that we know must violate General Relativity. Where's the comparable mathematical formalism or evidence for God?

@frederickj.7136

5 жыл бұрын

Another predictable, trite, pedantic, and off the mark exercise in Christian apologetics; and of course, misdirection, William. And convincing to no one with suitable background to understand the topics under discussion here. What's the point? Your own political-religious demographic, sufficiently undereducated and gullible enough to read your little parable without cringing embarrassment, will not be sitting through or even tuning in to watch this video.

The multiverse and everett's interpretation (MWI) of QM is NOT the same thing. How can professional physicist still babble away like that? Completely destroys this video. Deutsch knows that, but the guy to the left apparently doesnt. The whole conversion is talking about apple and oranges at the same time. Waste of space and time.