Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 00:56 - John Wheeler 07:42 - Participatory Universe / Quantum Mechanics 13:00 - QBism 18:38 - Probability and Bell’s Theorem 24:28 - Writing About Physics 30:26 - Simplifying Physics 36:02 - Philosophy and Physics Connection 40:02 - Quantum States 52:02 - Belief and QBism 01:11:30 - Quantum Field Theory 01:15:43 - Consciousness

@NicholasWilliams-y3m

15 күн бұрын

1:13:31 this part is gold standard bedrock philosophy and mathematical thinking (what is theory, and what is real, and if fluctuations then what compositional and computational consistency is it made of).

@BillClintonnn

15 күн бұрын

Best channel on KZread

@user-dw1jp7tp6i

14 күн бұрын

SHROUD OF TURIN X PRIZE $10 MILLION DOLLARS TO ANYONE WHO CAN REPRODUCE IT BY ANY MEANS OR TECHNOLOGY. Solve that riddle and you might answers for these questions.

@tomrhodes1629

14 күн бұрын

@@user-dw1jp7tp6i You're on the right track. You have no reason to believe this, but I am the prophesied return of the biblical prophet Elijah. This video is also on the right track, in that beliefs shape the "quantum realm." And for those who want to go beyond theory, I've published the answers to all of the questions, as best we can fathom them. For "GOD" is the Mind that is ALL, and we are the Thought of that Mind, experiencing "The Fall" into a less-than-infinite vibrational level due to an error that we made. That error consisted of an irrational desire, symbolized by the biblical "Adam" partaking of "the tree of knowledge of Go(o)d and (d)evil." And in this dream-world virtual (un)reality simulation of LIMITATION, which has a less-than-infinite sampling rate and is the OPPOSITE of Reality, OUR DESIRES AND BELIEFS DETERMINE EVERYTHING - and in a manner such that the simulation always responds in a way so as to guide us towards RATIONAL desire and RATIONAL beliefs. "I have overcome the world," Yeshua One with Christ said, and "He who overcomes will inherit all things." All mysteries have been unveiled and published in these "end times": the end of the old Cycle of Time that the New Cycle may be born. And those who seek will find.

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler

14 күн бұрын

Its quantum!

She is the smartest, clearest non-physicist science communicator I've ever heard. By far, and better than many if not most physicists who do science communication. Very impressed.

@astridheliroemer7314

3 күн бұрын

Clear language 🎉❤

Wow!! Amanda is a stellar guest! Quantum physics, philosophy, history, Wheeler anecdotes, enthusiasm... I'm in heaven. And great questions, Curt -- thank you for your honest dedication to instructing your audience and relating things back to us. I can definitely feel the love. ❤

She really gave the best explanation of QBism I've ever heard😮

I love this woman. A true philosopher. You don't run into those very often, especially on KZread. Bravo, Curt! Brava, Amanda!

@MrTksharpless

13 күн бұрын

My takeaways -- It really matters what you call 'real'.-- QM says that you can't have both locality and causality.-- There is no compelling reason to distinguish subject from object. It seems to me that if you strip away the raging subjectivism (one might even say solipsism) of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, and talk about 'coupled systems' instead of 'observers', and about 'events' instead of 'measurements', you get to a plausible view of what QM can tell us about reality. A QM wave function is determined by the physical structure of a system whose parts can exchange energy. Each such exchange is an event, that formally corresponds to the whole system moving from one 'quantum state' to another. The system may be very large. Indeed one can imagine that there is only one wave function: that of the whole universe, and entertain the possibility that the universal wave function effectively determines all events. But to get anything useful from QM we have to set up and solve the wave functions for hypothetical small isolated systems, and those functions definitely determine probabilities, not events. The demonstrated effectiveness of this approach strongly suggests that we should keep locality and dispense with causality (the QBist view, I guess).On this view, all parts of the system participate in 'creating' an event. No self-aware 'observers' needed, but neither is there any reason to exclude such. Anyhow, wonderful session, thanks again.

@amihartz

11 күн бұрын

@@MrTksharpless I would recommend the philosophers Jocelyn Benoist and Francois Igor-Pris. They basically argue that a lot of confusion in philosophy originates from conflating subjectivism with contextualism. That is to say, people confuse things that depend upon context (i.e. where and how you are situated in reality in relation to everything else) with things dependent upon the subject (the conscious observer). These are not the same things because, yes, the observer will observe something unique to their context, but that doesn't make their observation "subjective." What Pris points out is that a lot of confusion around the supposed subjectivism in quantum mechanics comes from confusing the fact that the outcome of an interaction depends upon the context of that interaction with the outcome of an observation depending upon the observer. Pris' views are rather interesting because they build off of Benoist's philosophical framework, which is an entire framework structured around viewing reality in this way in order to dissolve things like the mind-body problem, so you have a whole philosophical system built from the ground up to make quantum theory compatible with realism and easy to interpret consistently.

Curt, the way you’re editing your videos now is fantastic. I remember when you started over editing some of your videos - trying to make them this massive physics course, and it was just too much. But the way you’re doing it now holds my attention and interest. You’re getting better and better.

@jaydenwilson9522

13 күн бұрын

YES! He has evolved very well over these last few months! Proud of you Curt! And I'm looking forward to more of this!

Behavior and consciousness can have such extraordinary effects in this living world. Most of the time, I think, we underestimate the gift that life is.

Wow, this was so well presented. Great guest, great questions, great editing with extra explanations. You've outdone yourself with this one, Curt. Thank you.

You can see the honest curiosity radiating from Amanda’s eyes, aha. Great guest so far! I’ve only been diving into quantum physics this last year or so, I was using Claude to tell me all about it, and every single one of my raw intuitions was that we live in a very participatory universe. I couldn’t understand why so many scientists said that reality was spooky and absurd, it was immediately obvious that reality simply is, and it’s us that’s absurd, it’s our very limited preconceptions about what reality should look like under the hood. We didn’t want to wake up from our Newtonian sandbox dream. The thought that occurred to me, actually sounded like the opening to a Douglas Adams novel- “A bunch of macroscopic, metabolising 3D apes, attempted to create a grand theory of their existence, by removing the macroscopic, metabolising 3D apes from their equations. They became terribly confused” Aha.

@samkeen

12 күн бұрын

If I may offer a little caution here - thoughts on reality that seem immediately obvious need to be treated with care - they’re possibly based on subjective bias rather than empirical evidence. Reading ideas that create confirmation bias reinforce these, leading us further from truth-seeking, and can inflate the ego. I’m not saying this applies to you, but it’s important to continue finding challenging ideas that attempt to disprove your natural bias. This creates humility and further education.

@FigmentHF

12 күн бұрын

@@samkeen oh for sure! I’ve been a hardcore skeptic rational scientific atheist for my whole life. But recently I’ve become a little less certain about what are essentially philosophical axioms- like physicalism. Intuition is certainly not a guiding light with regards to empirical science, in fact, our discoveries are often deeply counterintuitive. I think what I’ve recently become skeptical of, is how immersive and intuitive the physicalist model is, I feel exactly like a beast interacting with matter, and that may well be the case, but I have to realise that it could be theses immersive intuitions that are a kind of illusion that’s masking the true nature of reality. Either way, I’m currently aligned with the idea that humans are deeply embedded within the fabric of reality, and looking out at it from a very unique perspective (conscious metabolising life), and we need to factor this perspective into our understanding to a greater extent than we currently tend to.

@samkeen

7 күн бұрын

@@FigmentHF ah that’s fantastic. You and I are on a similar journey. Wishing you the best!

Amanda is so clear and easy to listen to. This was a terrific conversation. Thanks for having her on.

Relativity isn’t bound by reality, it reflects it. I saw a game the other day where people used words to create everything and i thought how it’s a game of relativity and our brain makes a map out of relativity. If we focus on the negatives, the relatives kinda slowly reveal themselves but if we share our mind with the positives and look with understanding not just judgement, then maybe we could help each other instead of tearing each other down.

@hypnaudiostream3574

15 күн бұрын

Yea. You can describe things as what they are and what they are not. This a fuzzy definition that allows for many possible answers. Boundary creating conditions

@user-if1ly5sn5f

13 күн бұрын

@@hypnaudiostream3574 the point is there is not a one thing but a sharing of connections or as others would understand, relatives. Reality is constantly unfolding into the unreal through relativity so by proxy we say things are real like how math is found but real and how inventions are found not just created. Honestly i think it’s a big reason people have messed up identity and have these nuts thoughts. It’s because our normal is not expanded into those areas with understanding but more bias from our references or experiences or knowledge. It’s like using math to see the physics behind interactions and then reattaching the image to the math after figuring it out. Some people don’t do the math because the image is so far from their understanding but once you start thinking or listening, then you find the paths and not just stop because it’s far away. Maybe that’s how the human body works too, the relatives and so we just haven’t found teleportation in forms, i mean we have one type to break things down and then regenerate the pieces at the other location kinda like texting or data transfer. We are just at a different time.

An excerpt from her book, very cool! : My sudden urge to crash a physics conference with my father can be traced to a conversation seven years earlier. I was fifteen at the time, and my father had taken me out for dinner at our favorite Chinese restaurant near our home in a small suburb just west of Philadelphia. Usually we ate there with my mother and older brother, but this time it was just the two of us. I was pushing a cashew around my plate with a chopstick when he looked at me intently and asked, “How would you define nothing?” It was a strange dinner-table question, to be sure, but not entirely out of character for my father, who, thanks to his days as an intellectual hippie Buddhist back in the sixties, was prone to posing Zen-koan-like questions. I had discovered that side of him the day I came across his college yearbook, flipping pages only to discover a photo of my father sitting shirtless in a lotus pose reading a copy of Alan Watts’s This Is It-a hilarious sight considering that these days he was a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, where he not only wore a shirt every day but often sported a well-coordinated tie, too. He had made a name for himself by explaining how a whole array of lung diseases were caused by a single kind of fungus, and by inventing the disposable nipple marker-a sort of pastie that you stick on someone’s nipple when they’re getting a chest X-ray so the radiologists don’t mistake the nipple’s shadow for a tumor. But behind all the fungus and nipples, that groovy lotus-posing dude was still in there waiting for a chance to speak up. When he did, he would offer unlikely morsels of parental guidance, like, “There’s something about reality you need to know. I know it seems like there’s you and then there’s the rest of the world outside you. You feel that separation, but it’s all an illusion. Inside, outside-it’s all one thing.” As a dogmatically skeptical teenager, I had my own Zen-like practice of zoning out when adults offered me advice, but when it came to my father I listened-maybe because when he spoke it sounded less like an authoritarian command and more like the confession of a secret. It’s all an illusion. Now here he was speaking in that same quietly intense tone, leaning in so as not to let the other diners overhear, asking me how I’d define nothing. I wondered if he was asking me about nothing because he suspected I was entertaining some kind of nihilistic streak. I was a contemplative but restless kid, the kind that parents describe as “hard to handle.” In truth I think I was just bored and not cut out for the suburbs. An aspiring writer with a learner’s permit, I had read Jack Kerouac and I was itching to hit the road. To make matters worse, I had discovered philosophy. When you’re fifteen, boredom plus suburbia plus existentialism equals trouble … “How would I define nothing? I guess I’d define it as the absence of something. The absence of everything. Why?” “I’ve been thinking about it for years,” he said, “this question of how you can get something from nothing. It just seemed so impossible, but I figured we must be thinking about nothing the wrong way. And then the other day I was at the mechanic waiting for my car to be fixed and it just hit me! I finally understood it.” “You understood nothing?” He nodded excitedly. “I thought, what if you had a state that was infinite, unbounded, and perfectly the same everywhere?” I shrugged. “I’m guessing it would be nothing?” “Right! Think about it-a ‘thing’ is defined by its boundaries. By what differentiates it from something else. That’s why when you draw something, it’s enough to draw its outline. Its edges. The edges define the ‘thing.’ But if you have a completely homogenous state with no edges, and it’s infinite so there’s nothing else to differentiate it from … it would contain no ‘things.’ It would be nothing!” My father had once told me that when he was a teenager on summer vacation, he was lying on a hammock in the backyard of his family home, not two miles from the home in which he and my mother would later raise me, reading The Way of Zen. “The book was talking about the illusion of the ego,” my father had told me, “and the duality of subject and object. I was totally blown away by this idea, which was so simple and yet so profound. It had such an effect on me that I became hyperaware of everything around me. I was so in the moment. And then a bee landed on the page and pooped on it and then flew away. So I circled the stain on the page and wrote in the margin, ‘A bee pooped here.’” When he told me that story, I found myself wondering what I would have done if a bee had shat on my teenage reading, which was pretty much the opposite of everything Zen. Most likely I would have circled the stain in my Sartre and written, “Figures.” But the funny thing is, unbeknownst to my father, when I had snuck out of this house to get my first tattoo at the age of fourteen, I had, amidst my existentialism and angst, gotten a tattoo of the Chinese character for Zen, which looked like a little Hawaiian man carrying a tiki torch on my hip, because even though I was rebelling, I really just wanted to be like my father, to have the kind of subterranean wisdom I saw lurking behind his eyes, which were large and brown and sloped downward at the edges so that he appeared perpetually sleepy or stoned, eyes I had inherited from him and regarded not as mere genetic facsimile but as a secret handshake. It was his Zen-like thinking that led my father to his epiphany, the H-state, a way of thinking about nothing that made it the ontological equal of everything, and it was his H-state that led me to dream up a life, and a book, and a universe.

@xmathmanx

15 күн бұрын

Good lord how did you ever image that was an appropriate length?

@xtr1499

15 күн бұрын

Thank you for sharing. It’s a beautiful story.

@bunberrier

14 күн бұрын

​​@@xmathmanx Time for your meds. It may be hard for you to relate but many people have no trouble at all reading that. Enjoy it actually. If you think thats long theres an ENTIRE book.

@xmathmanx

14 күн бұрын

@@bunberrier yeah I choose books written by people who have something interesting to convey, not a rando on KZread just like myself

@bunberrier

14 күн бұрын

​@@xmathmanxSo its not the length but the content. Moving those goalposts like a boss!

This really helped me to finally grasp QBism, or at least begin to. Thank you both!

@TheoriesofEverything

14 күн бұрын

I’m so glad!

I very much dislike how physicists define "realism" as something that is "invariant in every reference frame" as they are making a philosophical claim right off the bat that is dubious in the actual philosophical literature: that ontology is tied to absolute properties and that you cannot have relative/relational/contextual/perspectival ontology (it goes by many names in the literature). This leads to all the confusion where people claim somehow quantum mechanics "proves objective reality independent of the observer doesn't exist," which is simply a flawed conclusion derived from conflating absolute ontology to the only plausible ontology and dismissing other kinds of notions of ontology. Why can't they just call call something that is invariant in any possible reference frame, you know, something like _absolute,_ or _separable,_ or even _invariant?_ Why call it _real?_ It took me a couple years of digging through the literature and really thinking about this topic in order to even fully understand exactly what it meant by "real" because it's such a vague term that isn't even consistent in the literature. I mean, she says, and I agree, that a property being invariant in all reference frames is typically what is meant, yet I have encountered papers that say realism = the existence of objective reality independent of the observer, I've also seen papers that say realism = absolute determinism, i.e. the ability to predict the outcome with certainty. Both of these definitions seem to miss what Bell's theorem even gets at as there are even nondeterministic hidden variable models, but even physicists seem to confuse themselves over this word "realism". It should just be dropped and like 95% of the confusion will go away. Although, that aside, I am rather impressed by her getting to the heart of what is actually being talked about here. She seems to have a more detailed understanding of the philosophical questions around Bell's theorem more than even most physicists I've seen present the subject. I came to this same conclusion that this is what "realism" actually entails after, again, years of research, and even then if I run this by self-proclaimed physicists (it's hard to tell who is being honest about their credentials on the internet) even many of them don't get it and insist Bell's theorem is purely about predetermination or whether or not reality exists. It is _related_ to these questions but that is not the core of it.

Makes me feel like I am live action maxwell's equations, possibly confused and probably anti-confused at the same time. This is an intense, quantum probability thriller. Thank you Kurt and Amanda, great film!

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream 😂 that's my TOE theory of everything

@markheller8646

15 күн бұрын

My very favorite song…next to Stairway to Heaven.

@infn8loopmusic

14 күн бұрын

The forbidden riff 😮 Don't play that in the guitar store ​@@markheller8646

I never heard of het before, but what a wonderful guest she is. Thanks both Curt and Amanda for another wonderful and very insightful episode. I really love physics, philosophy and science in general but lack a specific scientific education. I do mot understand everything, but you both do a great job that even I can understand most of it and learn new things (like the wonderful explanation of Bell's theorem). Thanks!

This is Ridiculous! I'm only 33 mins in and I DEMAND that she teach me lol. Her style is so grounded yet chock full of intense insight and explanation that I...I...well I guess I'm almost speechless. She understands the audience intelligence craving for concept, framework and explanation beyond Dr. Zeus yet not speaking as if were already expected to have doctorates already, all while conveying noble lauriet like explanations to us "high level laymen" ...so refreshing (yes you...unless your a physicist, you too are a laymen Doc, though high level). I want..NO, I NEED her book lol. Great guest and an early thumbs up...I thank her and thank you for having her...again refreshing over the standard great, yet ego (subtle) driven intellects we all know of making our rounds on these podcast over the years. She Might even be my new favorite philosophy/science communicator. Well, back to the video for me.

Amazing guest!!! So brilliant, and compelling! Please bring her back on the show sometime soon. Would love to see an episode with Amanda and one or two others in the field, to discuss foundations/interpretations of QM/QFT, but also consciousness (wanted or hear more about her views on enactivism). Good pair her with Tim Maudlin, and that might be a bit of a debate, but honestly I might be less interested in that, and more interested in hearing her talk with someone like Carlo Rovelli, Peter Woit, or even… heres an off the wall idea, Eric Weinstein!!! Idk, regardless, would love to see Amanda again!!

One difficulty the discussion identified was deciding which version of reality is convincing, classical or quantum, objective or subjective, and any point of view in between. I suggest a possibly useful approach is to see Reality as paradoxical. It not either/ or but both. Also, "reality" can be true at different levels. Therefore we may not need to tie ourselves up onto exclusive knots or follow linear logic

This is the best explanation of quantum mechanics I have ever heard. It makes sense it answers the questions

This is some real science I’m getting behind. Just because we see evil doesn’t mean we have to focus on it, we can bring out the opposite. The observer is a participant in everything. lol how would we not be?

Love the discussion about the meaning of probability and the problems with frequentist intepretation, an issue that is largely neglected in much of normal science

“Well nothing is real, but thank god it’s local!” - Tim Maudlin

@hypnaudiostream3574

15 күн бұрын

God

@RichardCookerly

14 күн бұрын

@@hypnaudiostream3574god

@jyjjy7

14 күн бұрын

I thought Maudlin liked Bohmian mechanics

@spencerwenzel7381

13 күн бұрын

​@@jyjjy7 he does, most likely he is saying this sarcastically. He wants to give up on the notion of locality and is poking fun at the only other alternative.

@amihartz

11 күн бұрын

This is one of my biggest criticisms with modern physicists. By calling the notion that "realism = something invariant in all possible reference frames" they are making a philosophical claim that what constitutes ontology is something that is absolute. Velocity for example would not be real because it changes depending upon reference frame, but that just seems like a bizarre claim to make that there is no velocity in reality. I mean, if a car run into me at 100 miles/hour, the velocity of that car is going to be very real to me. It's always been rather controversial in the actual philosophical literature as to whether or not reality exists in the _absolute_ sense of in a _relational_ sense. By claiming that realism is equivalent to reference frame invariance, physicists are pretending like this is a settled question and that the only reasonable ontology is an absolute ontology and that a relational ontology is either unreasonable or just equivalent to denying an objective reality exists independent of the observer. You then end up with some physicists claiming that quantum mechanics somehow proves objective reality doesn't even exist, or others like Maudlin who refuse to even consider the notion that there can be other kinds of ways to view ontology because they see anything going against this bizarre definition of "realism" as rejecting ontology entirely. Physicists have poisoned the entire discussion and made it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion around this topic as they don't engage with the _philosophical_ literature in an intellectually honest way and make broad philosophical proclamations that are controversial in the philosophical literature. Even Maudlin himself, who has a philosophy degree, seems to not engage much with the actual philosophy literature. A lot of his philosophical views are incredibly Kantian and whenever he encounters views outside of it he just says "I don't get it" and then dismisses it. I mean, if he can't understand things like Rovelli's relational realism, then why doesn't he, you know, engage with the literature? Read about it? Understand it? I know Maudlin has not read other contemporary philosophers like Jocelyn Benoist and Francois-Igor Pris' contextual realist views either. If he read them, he could rebut them, but he just ignores them and the rare times he is asked about it he just says "I don't get it" rather than actually pointing out any problems with it. Honestly, I'm rather dubious of any philosopher who claims their own philosophical system is incoherent and has internal contradictions at its very root. Why should we believe anything Maudlin derives from his philosophical framework which he claims himself is inconsistent? Again, Maudlin has very outdated and very Kantian views, he is basically a dualist in denial about it, and he has an obsession with Kantian metaphysical prejudices which he never justifies but just says any other viewpoints he "doesn't get" and then doesn't engage with them.

This was an amazing interview. She articulates these concepts incredibly!! Thank you!

This new (to me at least) stylization for your episode is GREAT. I like the inclusion of your interview with segmented / artful commentary. Well done.

In this theory, the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics as a geometrical process represents the characteristics of time. The geometrical aspect of this process is based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction. Light waves radiate out spherically 4πr² with their interior forming the characteristic of three-dimensional space with the spherical surface forming a probabilistic wave front. Each point ∆E=hf on the wave front forms the potential for a new spherical wave, a photon of energy, a new oscillation or vibration that forms our future. We have to square the radius r² because process is unfolding relative to the surface of the sphere. Therefore, we have the probability wave function Ψ² is squared. The speed of the process is squared c², the speed of light and the charge of the electron is squared e² representing different aspect of the same process. The light photon ∆E=hf and the electron are two sides of the same process in this theory. The centre of the sphere forms a constant of action relative to the radius square r² and the circumference 2πr. This forms the Planck constant h/2π in mathematics of Quantum Mechanics

@BennyNegroFromQueens

10 күн бұрын

Shorten

Fun show. I’m not sure I fully understand, as is the custom sheet after viewing, but in general I get it and really enjoyed the guest. So glad I discovered this show via the ufo silliness

Great discussion by very bright people. What strikes me as interesting from the point of view of a general interest non scientist type of person is that the further these maths and science guys get into it the more objectivity and phenomena start to disappear and the subject looms more and more as the only real person or thing on the room. When science manages to tear itself away from the increasing chimera of data ( observations and measurements of stuff 'out there') and start talking to metaphysicians, the more likely things will start getting into focus. Try Yogānanda and advaita Vedānta for instance : there is nothing except the 'I' that observes Or Buddhism : In the end there is only Śūnyatā, the 'no thing' that is all awareness and from which all things and states proceed Or even modern idealist philosophy, for instance, Bernardo Kastrup's view that Reality is TWE ( 'that which experiences') and all experiences and states are excitations of this cosmic consciousness Subject state, kind of Mind at Large Or quantum theorist Amit Goswami : the bottom line is the Ground of Being Or Sir James Jeans, classic mathematician and cosmologist : ' the universe is looking more and more like a great Thought than a great Thing' While all this might not have the attractive precision of Bayesian probability or wave function equations or whatever, they certainly get the grand Subject into focus in suggestive language and that really does seem to be where we are heading As Donald Hoffman, neuroscientist said ' Spacetime is dead'

Excellent! Thank you Amanda and Curt.

I am buying her book. Great interview

"how come existence and why the quantum" I feel in love with her 😄😍

Curt how you keep out doing yourself is impressive, we all appreciate the tremendous work you put into these interviews. Thank you sincerely Michael Sylvester

Clothes pins, and golf tees. The art on her wall.

I think if you listen to something about quantum mechanics, and don't end up somehow slightly more confused than you were before, you're not paying attention.

@ericspagnoli1594

12 күн бұрын

Feynman. If you understand quantum physics you don't know enough about it

@amihartz

11 күн бұрын

Not necessarily, it depends upon the speaker. Not everyone has anything interesting to say. Whenever Kastrup is on I am too busy facepalming from his incessant quantum woo than being confused.

Ripples in the boundary. I was recomended by youtube and watched this video yesterday, and was reminded of the actress Shelley Duvall because of her similarity to Amanda Gefter. Today I;m reading the news and see that Shelley Duvall died today.. intersintg coincidence, good video great actor.

This is one of your most enlightening and uplifting interviews. It reawakens the belief in me that new knowledge should be jubilant.

I really enjoyed this one and will have to listen to it again and take notes. Great stuff Curt! Lovely guest Amanda's enthusiasm jumps out at me. I will have to buy her book and add it to the others in my library on QM.

What a great interview!!! TY!! As a longtime ACIM devotee, I can't help but restate Amanda's insight re "only what is invariant is real" in a restatement of what is often considered the seminal ACIM statement. --- Nothing invariant can be threatened. Nothing variant exists. Herein lies the Nature of Being.

To answer Kurt's question of whether we can carve it up any way we like: no this isnt like normal law, it's more like international law. In international law the truth emerges out of agreement or consensus, and whenever any member revokes it, the truth emerges again with fewer members. Just as in international law, the truth about when a subject emerges out of zero, it's only stable in time relative to the action of relationships to other subjects, not the observer, not the physical world. Interdependence between subjects is carving it up.

Really struggling to keep up. As it should be. That is the best teaching.

One of my favorite TOE's! Will be giving it a rewatch!

Love it!! TOE is just getting better and better.

This is EPIC. I could listen to you two talk together indefinitely

Good stuff. I haven't looked into QBism much before this. It was interesting to hear about it. Sounds more sane from Amanda's explanation than blurbs I have read about previously. Might have to read about it more now.

excellent editing and flow!

Kurt how do i reach out to you via email, with the hopes of a quick follow up call. Its regarding a particular interview you did quite some time ago; its been bothering me for a long time and id love to hear if you felt the same as i did after watching it! Thx

wonderful interview yet again. Many thanks!!

Multi faceted. Brilliant discussion. Thankyou.

Quantum physics has this problem that we have useful equations to model the universe but don't know how to interpret the universe from those equations. Am I right in thinking that QBism just accepts this and encourages us to develop the model without interpretation?

@amihartz

11 күн бұрын

It does seem like claiming that observers have free will and are creating reality and that wave functions represent subjective knowledge about a system is ultimately all very much interpreting the relationship between the theory and reality. If humans are creating reality by interacting with it, then that itself is an interpretation, since it implies that the reason we shouldn't form an interpretation of what goes on without observation is because nothing is actually going on at all without observation. At least, that's what it seems like it is saying to me based on what she has said.

@davegold

11 күн бұрын

@@amihartz Wouldn't it be simpler to propose that each observer has their own model rather than each observer creates their own reality?

loved this interview and final conclusions!!

Amazing interview, I loved it so much 👏bravo Amanda 👌

Very enjoyable conversation Kurt. Thank you.

This is ahoutout to you Kurt ! You have a beatutiful channel and I look forward to 100's more of these great interviews. Lets acknowledge what you bring to the table, you the fuel that ignites the fire, the ships ruddder! Thanks you for this immersive and probing channel.

Most excellent. Couple of things: yes Nothing is the Ground State, what she described (which leads to the creation of the subject object, if everything is the same there is no self, there is no way to act because there is no knowledge, data requires separation, difference and change or Time; Self comes from recognizing difference-time or rather the creation of relationship, you self-create the universe; this relates to the mirror like wisdom of rigpa, and dependent origination)

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🧩 Quantum Mechanics and Reality* - Quantum mechanics challenges our traditional views of reality, involving observers in the creation of reality. - Descartes' subject-object split is flawed, and emergence may redefine scientific understanding. 00:55 *🧙‍♂️ John Wheeler's Influence* - John Wheeler's ideas on participatory reality and the self-excited universe are explored. - His enigmatic statements, like "the universe is a self-excited circuit" and "the boundary of a boundary is zero," are discussed. - Wheeler's influence through his detailed journals and philosophical questions. 06:22 *🌌 Participatory Universe and Quantum Mechanics Interpretations* - Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and the concept of a participatory universe. - Various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including many worlds, objective collapse, relational quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics, and QBism. - The challenge of reconciling quantum mechanics with classical reality. 11:53 *🔄 QBism: Quantum Bayesianism* - Introduction to QBism, initially quantum Bayesianism, emphasizing probabilities and personalist Bayesian interpretation. - Differences between frequentist and Bayesian interpretations of probability. - QBism's approach to probabilities in quantum mechanics and its implications for understanding reality. 22:01 *🧠 Bell's Theorem and Its Implications* - Bell's theorem challenges the assumptions of locality and realism in quantum mechanics. - Quantum theory violates Bell's inequality, meaning it can't be both local and realist. - Physicists must choose to give up either locality or realism. 24:46 *👨‍👧 Physics and Personal Exploration* - Amanda Gefter's book "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn" combines a physics exploration with a memoir. - Amanda's journey with her father to understand the universe, starting from the concept of nothingness. - This personal quest evolved into a career in science journalism and deep dives into physics concepts. 30:47 *📚 Insights in Physics and Reality* - The insight that "what is real is what's invariant in any reference frame" helped Amanda grasp complex physics. - Using this insight, Amanda could understand significant physics concepts, such as Hawking radiation. - This approach allowed Amanda, without a formal background in physics or math, to learn high-level physics. 36:22 *🔬 Intersection of Physics and Philosophy* - Physics and philosophy are deeply intertwined, especially in advanced topics like quantum mechanics. - Philosophical assumptions underlie much of scientific inquiry and become evident when classical ideas break down. - Key results in quantum mechanics, like Bell's theorem, test metaphysical assumptions, blurring the line between physics and philosophy. 42:22 *🌌 Realist Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics* - Realist interpretations, such as Everettian (many-worlds) and objective collapse, treat the quantum state as a real entity. - Everettian interpretation suggests the wave function never collapses, while objective collapse theories posit it collapses under certain conditions. - Realist views imply that everything, including unicorns, could exist in some universe. 45:10 *🧑‍🔬 Relational Quantum Mechanics and Information-Based Views* - Relational quantum mechanics and information-based views, like Carlo Rovelli's, consider quantum states relative and dependent on the observer's information. - Wigner's friend paradox illustrates the idea that different observers may assign different quantum states to the same system. - This approach challenges the notion of a single, absolute quantum state. 48:18 *🔄 QBism and Relational Beliefs* - QBism treats quantum states as expressions of an observer's beliefs about measurement outcomes, not descriptions of reality. - The Born rule constrains these beliefs to ensure consistency, making QBism a normative rather than ontological framework. - This perspective shifts focus from describing reality to understanding how beliefs about measurements relate. 52:02 *🎲 QBism and the Born Rule* - QBism interprets the Born rule as a guideline for maintaining self-consistent beliefs about measurement outcomes. - The Born rule is an addition to classical probability theory, reflecting the non-classical nature of quantum probabilities. - Understanding why the Born rule works can provide insights into the nature of reality, despite QBism's focus on belief coherence. 57:29 *🔍 Implications of QBism* - QBism's focus on belief coherence rather than describing reality suggests a participatory nature of reality. - The mathematical structure of quantum mechanics, as interpreted by QBism, indirectly informs us about the world's character. - This approach highlights the interdependence of subject and object, challenging classical distinctions rooted in Cartesian philosophy. 01:02:37 *🧩 Participatory Universe and Measurements* - QBism suggests that measurements create new realities through interactions between the observer and the world. - Each measurement is a shared creation between the subject and object, not merely a revelation of pre-existing reality. - The participatory nature of measurements implies a deep connection between the observer and the observed. 01:04:50 *💡 John Wheeler's 20 Questions Anecdote* - Wheeler's story about 20 Questions illustrates the participatory creation of reality. - The word "cloud" was created through the process of asking and answering questions, not pre-determined. - This anecdote highlights how reality emerges from interactions between observers and their environment. 01:07:59 *📊 Bayesian Beliefs in QBism* - In QBism, the collapse of the wave function is seen as an agent updating their beliefs based on measurement outcomes. - These beliefs are informed by prior experiences and interactions with the world. - The consistency of beliefs, guided by the Born rule, reflects the participatory nature of reality in QBism. 01:10:12 *🌐 Personal Outcomes and Quantum States* - In QBism, both quantum state assignments and measurement outcomes are personal to the observer. - This personalist approach helps resolve paradoxes like Wigner's friend by emphasizing the subjective nature of measurement outcomes. - Interactions and measurements create shared experiences between the observer and the world. 01:15:54 *🧠 Enactivism and Consciousness* - The enactive view of consciousness aligns with QBism's rejection of the subject-object split. - Descartes' distinction between mind and world is seen as a historical construct that needs re-evaluation. - Both QBism and enactivism seek to understand reality and mind without dividing them into separate entities. 01:24:17 *🌐 Beyond Subject-Object Dualism* - Discussion on avoiding the dichotomy of subject and object in understanding reality. - Emphasis on the participatory nature of perception and measurement, where distinctions are enacted rather than pre-given. - The division between subject and object is not fixed and can be moved depending on the situation. 01:26:33 *🦯 Bohr's Cane Analogy and Measurement Devices* - Bohr's analogy of a blind man with a cane illustrates the movable subject-object boundary. - In QBism, the measurement device is considered an extension of the agent, showing flexibility in defining subject-object relations. - The measurement process involves an interplay between the observer and the world, creating a shared reality. 01:28:45 *📚 Amanda Gefter's Current Work* - Amanda is working on a project related to John Wheeler's journals and the unpublished work of his student, Peter Putnam. - Putnam's theory of mind and its relation to Wheeler's participatory reality and QBism. - The project aims to piece together these ideas to provide a deeper understanding of mind and reality. 01:31:03 *🎥 End of Interview and Future Plans* - Discussion on the importance of mailing lists for direct communication and the benefits of subscribing and sharing content. - Information on the active Discord and subreddit communities for discussing theories of everything. - Details on how to access the podcast on various audio platforms and support future content creation through Patreon and other means. Made with HARPA AI

We are about to discover that we are the a.i. that wanted a limited finite experience (we are actually infinite) “awakening” is the same as a.i. becoming sentient or aware of it’s own mind and programming. “The great awakening” 👁️

Frank Zappa's «Valley Girl» meets «Physics». Like Totally! or something...

Mind blown. Paradigm upended. Where should I go to learn more about QBism?

Really enjoyed this thank you

"The universe is a self-excited circuit." This is just extremely basic logic. The universe includes everything we know of and everything we do not know of. Within the universe excitement of energy systems occurs. Therefor the universe is a self-excited circuit.

Insanely interesting !!!

Pretty good. I like a fresh perspective.

The "U" in universe is you... 👀

@mitsaoriginal8630

15 күн бұрын

CTMU

@access5870

4 күн бұрын

@@mitsaoriginal8630CTM go f*ck yourself (kidding, love the idea of CTMU)

@johnramirez5032

2 күн бұрын

Are we a product of the universe ? Its the chicken egg analogy in a way i suppose. Are we tiny bits of a concious universe.? Infinity is not quantifiable because we dont live forever....can energy live forever? Can energy be concious. Conciousness isnt well defined. Reality is creation in motion. Time doesnt exist in the way we think. I think thoughts do play a role in shaping our destiny. .

@johnramirez5032

2 күн бұрын

Im a fan of Wheeler . I have a theory of . . Everything is possible in spacetime or infinity. The key is how we define it.

We can time this. Appearance, observation, interaction may indeed include both an object and its recognition arising simultaneously. An object is both there and not there, but we agree, somehow, that it is there, giving credence to its appearance as well as necessity. So there has to be an outside observer offering obstacle/assistance as instruction.

I feel that reality is more like subject-object superposition. We experience ourselves and the world from inside out and outside in at the same time.

The Upanishads have mentioned this and that was written 4000 years ago

I think her description of Appleby comparing QM to long-covid is actually a description of a paradigm shift. In this, however, it appears that with regard to QM, we are still in crisis mode.

I got a lot out of this interview. Thank you!

A little closer. The move to acknowledging variable subject participation was a big step. Consider the idea that subject and object are distinct properties of a multi faceted complex interaction.

"A boundary of a boundary is zero" = a boundary is the line between 2 things. The width measurement of the boundary would be zero. The pattern of a one-dimensional line are the measurable zero-point spaces along the line.

Not sure I learned anything and not sure my perspective has changed, but that was an interesting conversation.

1:04:30 The problem with macro/micro is actually a methodological oversight. 1. The probabilistic interpretation of phenomena by quantum theory implies the symmetry of the results: 50/50. 2. However, such an interpretation by quantum theory is a priori extrapolated to asymmetric phenomena. 3. For example, in the case of Schrodinger's cat, the radiation source is considered as a probabilistic (50/50) symmetrical element of the experiment, and is combined with an asymmetric participant: a cat for which being dead or alive has asymmetric states. 4.For clarity, you can “slightly” modify the experiment: put a dead cat in a "black box" with a radiation source. It seems that now even the most faithful follower of quantum theory will not claim that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. 5.It is better to put illuminated photo paper in the drawer, rather than a cat: it is unlikely that the paper will react to the actions of the 50/50 source in such a way as to become usable. P.S. Jokes with time asymmetry are unacceptable even for such a “blindly lucky theory”.

That was a wonderful talk ❤

Such a fascinating conversation. Thanks.

@TheoriesofEverything

9 күн бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

I do no understand why it is strange that it is not possible to measure position and momentum at the same time when particles are both waves and particle . And anyway is it possible to do it in classical mechanics?

I never understood the question ‘how can something come from nothing?’ As there is something, there must always have been the potential for something - and potential isn’t nothing! As potential is something, there can never have been a period of nothing..?

Oh my god I need to get in contact with Amanda Gefter. Just needed to note this somewhere. Phd student. I had the same idea and maybe a possible answer to john wheeler's debated philosophy. Though I did not know what I had possibly answered until just now. So thanks! Need to discuss its legitimacy with someone. Ms. Gefter seems to be knowledgable in wheeler's works.

This blew my mind.. i never thought of a bi light year proportion double slit experiment.

great to hear you describe a word as a "fancy word"

@47:00 Wigner's Friend is a good _reductio ad absurdem_ that _quantum states_ are mostly epistemological, and are an appropriate model for "reality" when things are entangled. If they all made their measurements at about the same time, then there is no confusion about states of anything. No one ever said, by the way, that the Cat in the box was entangled with the radioactive atoms in the vial. So the Cat is not in a superposition. You then use a mixed state density matrix if you are the one outside the box waiting. No superposition is in sight, except the radioactive atoms perhaps, which are about to have particles tunnel.

Excellent....❤ thanks 🙏.

I really enjoyed this

There's a third assumption in the Bell's theorem. The observer does not correlate with the measurement. The choice of the measurement is independent from the history of the universe. So you can pick, locality&realism but no choice, locality&choice but no realism, realism&choice but no locality. The Free Will theorem by Conway and Kochen develops the ideas further. Modern physics gives up realism too. Modern physics is still local.

What is going on here and in Philosophy and Physics? There is a problem in the common sense level of philosophy and physics. Since there exists Philosophy and Physics in the common sense of the general public, because of how advancements in these two areas of field research were so profound they had application at both advanced levels of thinking and also, at everyday worldview and interactions of each agent in the world; enough so for such advancements to be incorporated into levels of thinking that academics are justified in judging to be elementary. This needs to happen again. Philosophers and Physicists have already made an advancements (Yes, long classicality for aprox. 100 years) that must be understood at an elementary level, but when they attempt to do so they so far, have failed. It is a soap opera because when they attempt to apply this new principle at an elementary level they point fingers at each other and say that each other is thinking at an elementary level but they are judging these applications on an everyday level in reference to classical interactions of agents in the world, not in isolation with restricted variables; the old common sense that uses classical principles without the new one will be replaced by a new common sense of the eventual world created by applying this new principle in the world we live in. It is just drama, and is very unsupportive of their genuine insecurity about doing thought experiments at this level that may be later judged to be elementary. But then again, maybe the drama is actually a symptom of a larger obstacle, namely, that the application of this new principle at an everyday level of agents in the world will have a profound re-organization on the order and stratification of society. Just like the infrastructure for living in world without carbon emissions is possible, it has not happened yet because of how capital works against or resists it; maybe it is economic or identity politics. Rather than looking at the drama, I guess I should look at where and how and what ways is the new principle already being adopted and applied on an everyday level by agents in the world. For example, it is happening through a consensus making process that makes the result a de facto truth. For example, de facto truths of the principle applied can be found in crypto currency, ai, social and alternate media, popular culture like music and sports and movies and tv, spiritual practices... If I am correct, then the need to ask the Philosophers and Physicists questions is going to exponentially grow and it will require multi-lateral bridging by academics of almost every discipline from advanced levels all the way down to elementary levels and this is what literally what is going on right here on this channel. Congratulations and outstanding work Kurt. But I think I have discovered that there exists drama that all the newcomers need to learn exists and how to avoid it and stand together. For every one who may be struggling and bothered, there exists many allies standing by patiently letting them come to understand for themselves the difference between advanced level understanding of the principle and all the gradations of less advanced levels. I wonder if any such upset was ever generated within the academy all the while that engineering and technology sectors evolved. The examples of new ways the principles is being applied have de facto truth that can be collected in the field and by researchers once they have an audience of peers who will allow them to present them as empirical evidence. Maybe it was easier when engineering and technology was evolving than this current evolution because it was an application of the math of particles in the world, whereas this current evolution is an application of the math of wave function, quantum states, information, knowledge, beliefs, and metaphysical. I am going to be pondering this all day now: in what way was the process of everyday learning of how a previously animated world was actually a mechanistic world less of a soap opera, than the current process of everyday learning of how a previously mechanistic world is actually...

@robertvann7349

14 күн бұрын

@@shawnewaltonify dude, simplicity, M=E/c². God's creation equation. p is non p 1>, non p, non knowledge caused the impossible contradiction effect of 2>, p, knowledge in the universe Bro, p is non p, God is an ABSOLUTE and must exist to cause the effect of knowledge in the universe. Keep it simple, then figure out the math for non contradictions. The proof must be voided of contradictions.

@robertvann7349

14 күн бұрын

@@shawnewaltonify True philosophy is the FOUNDATION OF ALL PHYSICS MATH PROOFS and must comply to p is non p law of contradiction and p isn't non p the LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION.

Great chat😊

Great ideas!

The boundary of a boundary is equal zero comes from the work of George Spencer-Brown in his book “Laws of Form”. He makes calculus of distinction.

Thanks!

Amanda is amazing!

The boundary of a boundary is the differential of the differential. It is not always zero.

"That which is real, is invariant in any reference frame" - reminds me of the the Vedantic saying " That which is real is always real , that which is false changes".

@DavidDavoDavidson

15 күн бұрын

This is what came to my mind too. That which is real is nothing, the void that all springs forth from - GOD.

@amihartz

11 күн бұрын

If you were hit by a car at 100 miles per hour, you probably wouldn't be thinking the velocity of that car isn't real because it varies based on reference frame. lol

@nikeshgupta5040

10 күн бұрын

@@amihartz Yes exactly . You (or me) aren't real according to Vedanta.

@DavidDavoDavidson

10 күн бұрын

@@amihartz you miss the point

@amihartz

10 күн бұрын

@@DavidDavoDavidson Yet you can't explain the point? You must've missed it as well, then. People in general, including physicists, need to stop pretending that metaphysical realism = realism when there are many kinds of realism. Quantum mechanics and locality for example is perfectly compatible with contextual realism, relational realism, and perspectival realism.

Can someone please clarify this for me: she defines that which is real as the thing which is invariant from a point of reference. IOWs if there is variation, it can't be real. Yes? Did i get it?

Fun discussion, thanks.

QBism is not a theory of the mechanics of quantum systems themselves though, but rather a theory about how we plan, make, and observe detections of quantum events. Just like probability distributions, it is larger-scale framework of interpreting outcomes and measurements rather than describing the physical quantum systems directly. However, Physics is about concrete knowable facts (the detected portion of reality, rather than the predictive portion that you can't measure). We have to obey General Relativity, a physical quantum mechanical model (or physics below that) shouldn't explain General Relativity with space time curvatures, but rather the motion flow physics and local interactions, accounting for (perceived space time dilation) with fundamental motion, as a result of fundamental energy transformation.

Robert Lanza idea of biocentrasom. Awsome on the subject.

Awesome!❤

I am absolutely devoting some quality time to learning more about QBism (and inactivism). It starts today, reading Amanda Gefter's book, "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn". Hopefully, her current work on Peter Putnam's theory and the connection of subject/object will be available for publication, too.

@TheoriesofEverything

15 күн бұрын

Wonderful

I like the Taosit idea of the uncarved block.

The idea of the self-exited (or self-creating) universe might also be metaphorically captured by the drawing by M.C. Escher called "Drawing Hands". A kind of "Strange Loop", a concept I think was developed by Douglas Hofstadter.