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

@egggge4752

Жыл бұрын

Well it kinda is important. Knowing that quantum entanglement cant be independently measured if superdeterminism is true means that NOTHING can travel faster than light for real.

@mariusvorster6680

Жыл бұрын

Isn't religion all about the quest to exist past one's mortality. Conciousness makes reality. Once you observe, you determine.

@ex_ploit3529

Жыл бұрын

@@egggge4752 What use is there to learning anything in deterministic universe? Determinism literally means that future is set in stone and you can't do anything.

@JohnCena8351

Жыл бұрын

The universe only exist so that we can play half life 3.

@czypauly07

Жыл бұрын

I just want the cake

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

@robertbloch1063

Жыл бұрын

If Sabine recommends a video about superdeterminsm, it is worth watching On the other hand, I sense some spooky action here, two scientists seem to agree on something ;)

@VitriolicVermillion

Жыл бұрын

How did you DETERMINE that, Sabine?

@pbsspacetime

Жыл бұрын

We see what you did there. And appreciate it!

@marcelo55869

Жыл бұрын

I was super determined to observe this video... we share past interactions that guarantees it.

@mequavis

Жыл бұрын

@@pbsspacetime if the universe is deterministic then that would mean that the universe was predestined for us to come along and debate all this. That's just stupid... lol Even if it were somehow true, it implies a conscious universe which is a whole other can of worms lol. however, I think both ppl are right in this case. I hate to use the mandela effect as a real world science example. But if the reason for the mandela effect is due to natural paradox avoidance, meaning that regions of space-time get put into temporary superposition until a paradox has passed. (basically dual or more timelines concurrently running in an area of space-time but limited to a small region, not an entire universe) My point is that if we are experiencing russian doll style super positioning of space to avoid paradoxes, then determinism would be an active thing at the upper levels where light cones cross, and we would not have determinism within the regions of super position. This would mean that the universe has a deterministic flow, but regions of space have free will within them, but those regions of space are predetermined to result at a specific final destination...

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

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

@therealdannymullen

4 күн бұрын

If they never had free will, then they didn't choose to quit society.

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

@aiami2695

Жыл бұрын

The strong force is with Luke, the weak is with Leia... because less the Midi-chlorians...

@audiblegasp1

Жыл бұрын

It is exactly that, everything else is a model. The one we use is SU(2) symmetry which needs 3 gauge bosons to mediate the weak force, Z and Ws. The wikipedia article of course has it all readable for everyone.

@Idle_Cerberus

Жыл бұрын

@@aiami2695 Bro thats not even true lmfao, george lucas confirmed leia has more force potential its just luke got trained instead of her lol

@mastershooter64

Жыл бұрын

at the quantum level, there are no "forces" in the classical sense, they're more like interactions between particles that exchange "force" carriers, which are particles in and of themselves. You might've heard them referred to as "the strong interaction" or "the weak interaction" since that's technically what they are (or at least as far as we know with our current understanding of the universe) so the weak force "is" just two particles exchanging W and Z bosons with each other. Of course I haven't learnt actual QFT yet, so don't take my word for it, I could be very wrong. This is just my current understanding of it though. I definitely will change as I learn QFT. I don't know any of the mathematics behind QFT, I only know basic undergraduate QM.

@vantahku7211

Жыл бұрын

The word you're looking for, is "entropy" (also likely responsible for time/gravity). In short, the universe is imploding as the great void of non-universe sucks us out of existence. The weak force is basically the rate of entropy's effect on what we call matter.

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

@badlydrawnturtle8484

Жыл бұрын

I would argue that total determinism (super or otherwise) is perfectly compatible with the concept of "choice" as conventionally used. The notion of choice as some fundamentally non-deterministic thing is a highly philosophical concept that has no application in day-to-day life. In normal conversation, one has a "choice" if they can use their faculties to analyze a scenario and pick an action based on internally held criteria. Not only does this work in a deterministic universe, it's unclear how such a thing would work in a non-deterministic universe; quantum woo proposes quantum randomness as the source of free will, but fails to explain how "random" is willful.

@michaelfried3123

Жыл бұрын

rubbish. philosophical rubbish...

@and_I_am_Life_the_fixer_of_all

Жыл бұрын

@@badlydrawnturtle8484, I'd love to be your friend and talk about all everything.

@drdca8263

Жыл бұрын

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Well, I can buy that it isn’t clear how non-determinism (or at least specifically randomness) helps, but I don’t think having a bit of randomness causes any problems for choice?

@badlydrawnturtle8484

Жыл бұрын

A little bit of randomness is okay, but when there's enough randomness to cause major effects, you get things like "I chose to go right even though I know my destination is to the left because quantum fluctuations randomly influenced the choice I would make!" This is, of course, an absurdity that doesn't happen in real life. Choices aren't random, so proposing too much randomness would mess up how they work.

So- what you’re saying is that, on a macro scale, this manifests as karma or a Mass Effect dialogue wheel, where each choice has a predetermined outcome and where the “choice” itself is an illusion. I can dig it. Explains a lot.

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

@Px3.productions

Жыл бұрын

This is wrong everyone in watchman’s life is determined dr.m is present for it all dr.m becomes the only being WITH TRUE FREE WILL

@Px3.productions

Жыл бұрын

Why else could only HE change the future dummy!

@yazizme3852

Жыл бұрын

And this pleases you? Sounds like a good reason to want to look at anything but the very encapsulating diluting unpotent maker like determinism as you explain it

@yazizme3852

Жыл бұрын

I mean in a way I can see how you would appreciate this and even relate to it on many levels as I can as I read this but at the same time it's just so damn depressing. I mean he's obviously been shown the future for legit reasons and if it goes unheeded, aren't you just giving credit to some continuum as being more powerful than what is the truth?

@JohnDoe-in3ep

Жыл бұрын

What an incoherent story

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

@tentimesful

Жыл бұрын

humans will see the things when allah al hamd comes in thepicture, allah al hamd created everything with wormholes through everything and made it clear on his last day he is the shining light on his throne to watch everything to grow and he created us, 7000 years is 7 days for allah al hamd and 50000 years of angels travel in one day maybe he is faster when he created 3500000000 years of more the universes can be that 350 million years written in the quran allah al hamd can do more most probably if we dont existed

@Hamifit

Жыл бұрын

@@tentimesful dude I feel really bad for you

@tentimesful

Жыл бұрын

@@Hamifit dont do I'm OK

@IanUniacke

Жыл бұрын

4 billion years from now, Matt is making another physics youtube video as forced by the powers of distant stars. "KILL ME! KILL ME NOW PLEASE!!!" he screams into the void.

@Hamifit

Жыл бұрын

@@IanUniacke he’s gonna be like “oh how we’ve got it all wrong”

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

@Mandaeus

Жыл бұрын

Not convinced.

@Mandaeus

Жыл бұрын

Reality isn't subjective but taking an observation does change a particle/wave. Doesn't need a mind or subjectivity, it's the measurement device itself which does it, something it changes when it detects a photon or whatever.

@antonimusluxferr9571

Жыл бұрын

@@wingit7335 why "not anymore"?

@squirlmy

Жыл бұрын

You don't seem to understand he's not trying to convince you, just describe the theory. Don't worry dude, this is way over my head too. Some of us are just dumb.

@lookoutforchris

4 күн бұрын

3 ads before this video, every single one had a black person, zero had a white.

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

@pronumeral1446

Жыл бұрын

SuperNintendism is where you playing Zelda: A Link To The Past has inescapably led to every subsequent event in your life.

Zeilinger's experiments are truly beautiful and inspiring.

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

@ignaciomoreno9655

Жыл бұрын

I love Sabine. I hope that they can make a youtube video together.

@ricsouza5011

Жыл бұрын

sabine also heavily disses the mainstream interpretation of 'spooky action at distance' and electron entanglement

@brothermine2292

Жыл бұрын

Also, gullible people don't decide for themselves; their thinking is done by other people.

@brennanlable

Жыл бұрын

@@brothermine2292 as opposed to you who apparently has never gotten an idea from anyone else and invented english by yourself.

@LMarti13

Жыл бұрын

superdeterminism does not preclude us from making decisions, it's just that those decisions are predetermined. Our brains are still the ones deciding though. Yes this gets into the semantics of what the word "decide" means but I'd argue under common usage, our brains are still deciding.

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

@trucid2

Жыл бұрын

Well said!

@anestos2180

Жыл бұрын

lol what past? when this decisive moment happened and what was it before it? see time has no meaning in these kind of questions, the only logical conclusion is just the story is as it is.

@Homeboy73

Жыл бұрын

@@anestos2180 Yes, past. The arrow of time. Fundamentally emerging from the second law of thermodynamics. There is still flow of time - as we perceive it. Deterministic or not.

@Senriam

5 күн бұрын

@@Homeboy73time exists from our perspective in the third dimension.

@TheENLIGHT3NED

Күн бұрын

Beautiful

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

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

@thecosmickid8025

Жыл бұрын

That's basically David Hume's model of free will. It's a prominent early example of a position called "compatibilism". C'mon, give philosophers a little credit here.

@vukkulvar9769

Жыл бұрын

@@thecosmickid8025 I can't, that would require me from knowing all the bullshit they came up over the centuries. I already have trouble remembering birthdays.

@imveryangryitsnotbutter

Жыл бұрын

There's a word for that: "volition".

@ansuz5903

Жыл бұрын

@@imveryangryitsnotbutter Terrible game studio. Saints 5 was very shoddy

@ansuz5903

Жыл бұрын

Ive heard somewhere that over 95 percent of our decision making is reliant on external stimuli. Idk if thats true but it sounds interesting

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

@nutsackmania

Жыл бұрын

you never really had a choice

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

For what you call a "fantastic" (which means no more and no less than the stuff of fantasy) communicator is remarkably poor when it comes to defining his terms, because you do not communicate anything unless you can define your terms clearly. Deterministic merely means has already been determined exactly as from the moment you are born or first will breath more death is determined which is to say that it is inevitable, but quite what the waffling windbag means by universe or deterministic, it simply does not trouble himself to say or defining is terms, like most men (human beings) he simply assumes that he understands what he means by the words he uses, but self-evidently he does not, because he does not trouble himself to define his terms but merely waffles at large*assuming* that he understands the meaning of the words he uses. Do you understand the word "fantastic" means the stuff of fantasy? It simply means dreamy or dreamy would do as well.To speak of a "deterministic universe without defining either deterministic or universe is simply intellectual sloppiness but if you find intellectual sloppiness fantastic - the stuff of fantasy dreamy or imaginary, then one wonders why you have that particular reaction in your functions or at least one of your functions.

@uneducatedguess6740

Жыл бұрын

Check "Beyond Cutting Edge with Bob Lazar" instead of mainstream mantra teachers.

@badactor3440

Жыл бұрын

We are all just actors on a stage...

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

@@badactor3440 "We" meaning or pointing to your indicating the user of the term - that is*you* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor, absent which all that is left is you being an actor on the stage which apparently is your direct immediate personal experience. Is the money any good ion the acting business?

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

@eatonkuntz

Жыл бұрын

Woah

@mrdre3628

Жыл бұрын

If space exists in all directions so does time

@Vastin

Жыл бұрын

That's about right I think. It means that some interaction in the distant past will functionally determine your decisions in the future in a macroscopic way, even if the interaction in question doesn't seem remotely relevant to those choices. It's pretty weird, and kind of suggests that there is no 'arrow' of time at all, which, to be fair, is pretty much the case in a super-determistic universe. :D

@nickacelvn

Жыл бұрын

@Rosetta Stoned It "is" a concept.

@matthewfors114

Жыл бұрын

@Rosetta Stoned i think you are stoned

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

@ardnaxxxx

Жыл бұрын

I’ve come to the same exact realization, verbatim!!!… The apparent loss of free will doesn’t unnerve me at all. On the contrary, it’s like a weight lifted off my shoulders… all my past regrets, gone… I understood that everything happened exactly as it had to happen, no what ifs or would haves. My behaviors were determined by the state of my mind in every single moment in time. I’m just an observer, watching the future unfold, with curiosity, openness, and with the peace of mind that everything will happen that has to happen…

@bobgrinshpon

Жыл бұрын

Huh? How can you be more or less productive if you didn’t have a choice in the first place? Free will is only an illusion in that your decisions are brought to your conscience mind after it’s been decided by your subconscious mind. Youre extrapolating complex reality from a simple program. Nonetheless, you should not regret your past decisions, and should use them as a guide to make better subconscious decisions through meditation.

@ponli7532

Жыл бұрын

@@bobgrinshpon It's not that your subcontious mind makes decisions hence you have no "free will", It's what ever decision you make is based upon trillions of variables in your brain and in the enviroment around you, that will produce the same exact result if you could replay the moment in time, because each of those variables are a cascading butterfly effect of cause and effect of other variables leading all the way to the big bang. Regarding the programming example, it was just to illustrate when started to think about this, it's not a direct jump to the understanding I have now. Regarding "productive" i mean that understanding determinism is not doom and apathy it's actually very useful for your psyche if you accept that free will is a useful illusion and the past is the only past you could have had.

@remc2

Жыл бұрын

To your first point: That's because computers are deterministic machines by design. For obtaining real random numbers (as required in, e.g., strong cryptography), one needs an extra device that exploits some unpredictable physical effect.

@ponli7532

Жыл бұрын

@@remc2 that's the point, nothing is unpredictable if you understand all the variables.

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

@boslyporshy6553

Жыл бұрын

Like Hysterisis or Preformationism?

@newinhuman

Жыл бұрын

@@boslyporshy6553 i was thinking along the conditions where direction is dependent on the formation

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

@MrArtVein

Жыл бұрын

If you like that, look into The Philosophy of Science. It's the next rabbit hole step

@RAYGERVATO

Жыл бұрын

Half the brain perhaps - wired as the transmitting "receiver" of a destined "ordained randomness"...whilst other half of our mind/brain one of freewill god-willing ;) perhaps...

@RAYGERVATO

Жыл бұрын

-Totally feelin it yup. But then again, this just hit me: since we only know what the smartest minds know, this modern perspective is merely that... only a snapshot of today's knowing. And OF that how much is subject to change from future facts..(that may come into better focus)? -WE ONLY know what's been found to BE. How about what always was, but has not yet been discovered? -Mysteries OF today may be solved someday. The randomness we define as such may not seem so random, once beneath numerologic scrutiny. Mathematics and prime number patterns bears it out as does the golden ratio aka the fibanacci sequence.. Gravity seems to play a role in shaping physics SO why not inside the brain?...Between the ears is neither a solid, liquid OR a gas So what IS the mind? Matter? If not of the scientific table or chart of elements, then OF WHAT is brain activity? Spirit/soul, a receiver thats transmitting the hand we were dealt in this life? Is ordained randomness, really a royal flush, or karma in need of a blow torch!? LOL PERPLEXING! Guess I left out the free will part but did our creator? freewill god-willing!

@drewbeck1000

Жыл бұрын

All that you touch you change All that you change changes you

@msdos_kapital

Жыл бұрын

The opposite belief, i.e. that quantum decoherence *doesn't happen to brains* is the real "mind-bending" (i.e. obviously false) stuff that quite frankly I'm tired of hearing on channels like this. I respect keeping an open mind of course, but this video and so many others like it feels like taking 20 minutes to explain something that many worlds can explain in about 5, and making many, many extraordinary claims along the way, even where a perfectly ordinary claim (e.g. "of course brains are effected by quantum decoherence just like anything else in the universe") would do just as well.

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

@tomorbataar5922

Жыл бұрын

I don't know about the wrench, seems like it just throws a wrench into our species' natural view of the world. Some physicists cope hard from this and others don't, and that's really what the debate is about.

@MattExzy

Жыл бұрын

I like how we as humans have put ourselves on top of it. I mean, I get the observer aspect, but I find it cute in a way that the act of *us* observing something changes its fate. There's something innately narcissistic about it in a way... again, I get it, but I like how it needs our observation or measurement to do its thing .

@william41017

Жыл бұрын

@@MattExzy it's not we chose this path, it's just one of the conclusions of our experiments. Some physicist conjured a multiverse theory to try to avoid this conclusion!

@dartplayer170

Жыл бұрын

I would say that quantum mechanics resolves paradoxes that exist in classical theory that cannot be resolved by classical theories. For example the ultra-violet catastrophe. Therefore quantum mechanics is not weird, it is a requirement. And as such, I would conjecture that the questions left are a result of the complexity required to resolve all the other paradoxes.

@helpmechangetheworld

Жыл бұрын

That's because the parts that leave you with unanswerable questions are the wrong parts.

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

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

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

@dimitrispapadimitriou5622

Жыл бұрын

Yes, from all interpretations ( or alternatives) of QM, either realist or not, this kind of superdeterministic conspiracy " theories" ( I'm not sure if it is correct to even call this interpretation) is, by far , the most implausible, as it requires both precisely fine tuned initial conditions and, moreover, it has to "mimic" the same correlations of standard QM . Both coincidences seem extremely improbable, to say the least..

@hannybenny7632

Жыл бұрын

But IF the universe is superdeterministic, there is a 50% possibility (if it has no end) it repeats its whole existence-history - maybe with many other evolved instances in between - endless times quantumphysically exactly the same. And every conscious being would repeat its existence also endless times exactly even.

@MarshmallowRadiation

Жыл бұрын

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I think the idea is that it _doesn't_ mimic QM by pure chance or fine-tuning, but rather that there is some unknown law or factor (let's call it "fate") that dictates that the researchers will ALWAYS choose orientations that ultimately illustrate the correlations between the entangled particles as a quantum-mechanical distribution. It's not that they require some kind of conspiracy to make it such that the outcomes only _appear_ quantum-mechanical while they actually aren't, it's that through this unstated, unknown "fate" process it is somehow impossible for non-QM-aligned outcomes to occur. This isn't to say that it's any less absurd or unscientific. If it were the case, then the exact mechanisms of this "fate" factor would be literally impossible to trace by definition, since it would have to be a factor that defies observation. If we try to observe how "fate" affects our choices of observation, then those observations would be subject to "fate" too, and any attempt to track the influence of "fate" on the meta-observation would also be subject to "fate", etc. etc. etc. ad absurdum. It necessitates the existence of something that by definition we cannot observe, infer, or even guess at the properties of, because its own existence would make it literally impossible to think about. It's like a Roko's Basilisk for physicists: a memetic virus that if you obsess too much over it, the only thing it'll do is drive you crazy.

@juimymary9951

Жыл бұрын

Wait, doesn't retro-causality imply backwards time travel?

@spencerwenzel7381

Жыл бұрын

@@juimymary9951 Yup. Positrons can be viewed as electrons moving backwards in time. PBS spacetimes one electron universe video is a good one for this. Or the legend Eugene himself has an excellent video about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics where he explains retro causality clearly.

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

@and_I_am_Life_the_fixer_of_all

Жыл бұрын

I need to start some stochastic processes class. I didn't understand this, could you please try to explain it to me again?

@DensityMatrix1

Жыл бұрын

Generate an infinite sequence of infinite length binary numbers. Construct each digit by flipping a fair coin. Put those in a database. When some one asks you for a random number, just pick one from your database. Or When someone wants a random number generate one by flipping a fair coin and returning a digit.

@alexmcleod4330

Жыл бұрын

@@and_I_am_Life_the_fixer_of_all The set of things that just happened is the same as the set of things that were always going to happen. We can't detect any difference. In the real world, we naturally accept that the past was inevitable. There's only one way it could've gone, and that's the way it went. Right? But we think the future could go any way, because of 'free will' and fizzy quantum beverages. But when the future gets here it always turns out to have gone exactly one way. Isn't it kind of nonsensical to expect that things in the future might go differently to the way they'll end up having gone? As far as we can tell, that's never happened. Nothing has ever failed to go the way it went, so if events were really random (or affected by free will) and *not* strictly causally related, we should have evidence by now that something didn't actually happen the way it actually happened. Why do we make a distinction between the inevitable past and the uncertain future, when it always turns out there's zero difference? If we stop making that unnecessary distinction, we have superdeterminism.

@cagrulucyildirimoglu771

Жыл бұрын

This also should show that free will is just bullshit. Let’s talk about “will”, which is a very real thing.

@marcushendriksen8415

Жыл бұрын

@@DensityMatrix1 that doesn't make any sense. Numbers are finite by definition (unless you're talking about the extended reals). So there isn't any such thing as infinite binary numbers. Did you mean an infinite sequence of binary digits? Because that's allowed

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

@i_booba

Жыл бұрын

I'm a young academic (3 years post PhD) studying quantum phenomena, and I personally tend to sit more in the camp of the Many Worlds Interpretation. I'm not saying I'm correct, and how we choose to interpret quantum mechanics ultimately doesn't change what the theory can predict (for now at least). However, to me, the Many Worlds Interpretation falls more in line with the mathematics of quantum mechanics. First, it doesn't throw away parts of the wavefunction at the moment of measurement like the Copenhagen interpretation does. Second, it also doesn't add anything to the mathematics of quantum mechanics either, which I feel superdeterminism does by imposing that particles in a superpositon actually choose their final quantum state from their inception, well before any measurement is made. In Many Worlds, the wavefunction of a system in a superposition of states simply remains in such a superposition, even during measurement. A measurement of a property of that system therefore splits reality into the many different possible realities that could have occurred. It might seem like we're adding "realities" just to get around the whole collapse of the wavefunction, but in my opinion, we're not adding anything because the various realities already existed simultaneously for the particles in a superposition. The wavefunction therefore remains exactly as it did before -- in a superposition of states -- until it ceases to exist. Note that this doesn't require conscious observers performing measurements. Any measurement carried out by any particle "disturbing" a quantum system in a superposition of states splits the universe into multiple parallel realities.

@moresoysauce5489

Жыл бұрын

@@i_booba ya I have no idea, I just watch KZread lol

@jimskirtt5717

Жыл бұрын

You love a female physicist who doesn't understand that as a black body heats up, it emits more heat to space (Planck's Law)?

@coscinaippogrifo

Жыл бұрын

@@i_booba I'm no physicist and therefore I can't have an educated guess, however I would agree that the many worlds interpretation is at least a very elegant interpretation. The problem I have with it is that, as far as I know, at present there is no way to prove or falsify it. So I think I would prefer superdeterminism if it gave me an explanation even only limited to the single world I experience.

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

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

@KendraAndTheLaw

Жыл бұрын

"the idea that past, present and future exist simultaneously, and that we are only characters in a pre-written narrative"

@AceSpadeThePikachu

Жыл бұрын

@@KendraAndTheLaw Well for one nobody really knows for sure what "consciousness" actually is to begin with. One could even argue consciousness, if nothing else, MUST be real, because of René Descartes' famous adage, "I think therefore I am." I never said I fully subscribe to the super-deterministic theory as explained in the "book" or "movie" scenario. Rather, I prefer what I like to call the "video game universe." Where, like with the other examples, the game cartridge, disk or file contains all of space, time and reality within that universe, but we the players have countless options for how to play the game; our character, our allegiance, our accessories, our techniques, our friends and our adversaries. The rules of the game may be built in and there may be a set number of possible outcomes, but like with many real games, the possibilities outnumber the particles in the observable universe. Finite, but inconceivably vast.

@lrwerewolf

Жыл бұрын

So that's actually a separate concept -- eternalist block space time, in contrast with presentism, growing block, melting block, and others. The eternalist block spacetime model need not be superdeterministic. Granted, it's exceptionally difficult to build an eternalist block spacetime model that isn't superdeterministic, but it is possible. Where eternalist block spacetime becomes really handy is General Relativity. Given some event and some observer, it is always possible to construct for that observer a velocity (recall that velocity is both speed and direction) such that the given event is in the observer's past light cone, in the observer's now-slice (jargon: hyperplane of simultaneity), or the observer's future light cone. Moreso, we can calculate for that event a spacetime manifold configuration where the observer's measurement of the event is in the event's past, the event's present, or the event's future. All the other main temporal models besides eternalist block spacetime have difficulty coping with this -- and even when they do, it almost always involves accepting that non-existing events can have a causal influence on existing events (a steep price if one is attempting to maintain realism, which is usually an explicit goal in such attempts). Superdeterminism is properly a metaphysical position -- it's a description of 'what is' and 'how it is'. Eternalist block space time is a position in philosophy of time (some philosophers updated the title of the subfield to philosophy of spacetime due to Einstein's work, but I prefer the traditional nomenclature), a separate field in philosophy. Like many things in philosophy, these two fields often intersect/overlap heavily, but it's worth the effort to remember which aspects hail from which field. Simulation theory is largely bunk though. It would be generally untestable, and what few models are testable, those tests have largely been done and falsified. On top of that, it doesn't actually solve any of the problems -- it just extends them to a metareality -- what are the physics and facts of THAT realm? What are its origins? How is its time structured (if it even has such a component in a meaningful sense at the very least analogous to what we mean by the term 'time')? Does that realm share the translation mapping between Boltzmann entropy and Shannon entropy (if not, there are gigantic implications for theory of physical computation in that realm -- right down to the fact it could not run on what we consider classical logic, as it would require that realm to operate on a logic where the law of non-contradiction does not hold). While it is possible that simulation's the case -- it's a pseudoscientific concept. We cannot access that realm and as far as we can tell there's no way to even test if there simply is such a realm. Until such a test is proposed, is successful (ie: the null is rejected), and is replicated by peers, it belongs in the bin with orgone and chiropractic 'medicine' (though if someone comes up with a test and their peers agree it's a sound test, hey, we can snag it outta the bin and give it its chance to show what it is worth).

@lrwerewolf

Жыл бұрын

@@AceSpadeThePikachu Descartes' cogito was an excellent attempt at trying to find at least one certain fact. However, it has long been known to not hold water - it does not obtain. In its argumentative form, it assumes the consequent, and is logically fallacious. Saying "I think" pre-assumes that "I" exist. Descartes himself recognized this and tried to find ways to avoid this, but his efforts ended up taking self-existence axiomatically instead of as something that can be shown. The channel Carneades here on youtube has an excellent three-part series that deconstructs the full cogito then each half of the cogito, showing how even the two propositions fail to hold. I will try posting the link in a follow up message but I know youtube tends to not like links, even youtube links.

@lrwerewolf

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/aIOGqpOdiK-7qJM.html

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

@gmshadowtraders

Жыл бұрын

100th comment like is on me!

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

@ASLUHLUHCE

3 ай бұрын

(04/02/24)

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

@jasoncruz19800

19 күн бұрын

That is nonsensical.........free will is impossible due to casualty in determinism, and impossible due to randomness in indetermnism

@Senriam

5 күн бұрын

@@jasoncruz19800you had me until you said that randomness and free will can’t coexist

@MattanIngram

3 күн бұрын

@@Senriam Either something is caused by a prior state (determined) or it is not caused by anything (random). There is no other option. So what would free will be? It's a non-sensical technical term because it basically means "determined randomness". All free will actually is is the feeling we have of making choices that were based on the prior state of your mind. It literally cannot be anything else. Randomness is not will, and prior cause is not freedom.

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

@dapperwolf6034

Жыл бұрын

Then you would probably be able to measure it. But there isn't any information moving when entanglement happens.

@T34RG45

Жыл бұрын

From my interpretation of what I've seen and read (no source) online, the electron and other particles are not simply points of a field in space and time, but rather the entire field mediating the information exchange like a decentralized ledger. The electron is not in your hand and in the air around your hand, the electron is the entire universe including your hand which can excite other "electrons" (really it could be 1 electron sharing the entire universe's field) through a vibrational exchange on the field it floats in. The whole universe is inside the single electron, stacked on top of itself so that every interaction is recorded through itself. There is zero room for error in the physics of the universe because there is zero room for the information to go, every single thing we call matter is connected to its(matter's) core. So I think the information actually already existed so it could never be lost unless like the sky tore open and exotic elements rained through adding mass to the universe, unbalancing it in its entirety. But we are here, so, its like we always have been.

@DatPiffy

Жыл бұрын

Information is not only omnipresent it’s omniscient - duality & eraser. The future is a (useful) human construct but fundamentally it’s only“Then Or There”

@coconutflour9868

Жыл бұрын

I mean, that in itself is a sort of hidden variable theory, which the Bell inequality's experimental violation prohibits (at least, local hidden variable theories)

@T34RG45

Жыл бұрын

@@DatPiffy thank you mark twain. Hey, is it safe to say we are already dead, like Einstein said just over the next hill?

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

Bravo to the animators for this series of videos.

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

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

@naptime_riot

Жыл бұрын

Sabine is my favorite science educator, and an amazing skeptic thinker.

@shadowthehedgehog3113

Жыл бұрын

@@naptime_riot She still makes me mad with her dismissal of free will and the multiverse yet she's willing to jump onboard the idea of superdeterminism-which seems to have even less evidence than free will or the multiverse.

@naptime_riot

Жыл бұрын

​@@shadowthehedgehog3113 except that it is perfectly sensible, and doesn't require a bunch of hooplah (or infinite universes) to work. The quest for "free will" as it pertains to being "free from causality" seems nonsensical, and the argument for superdeterminism gels with everything we know about the universe: that prior events cause later events, and that everything once occupied a sub-superluminal distance together where almost ALL particles could have interacted directly or indirectly. It seems to me that it is the idea of being free from causality that must come with the proof as it defies the way nature seems to work. Superdeterminism has the unique feature among these theories of more simply and elegantly fitting what we observe to be true. At least that's how it seems to me.

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

I love these talks! Amazing !

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

@kekkonidekekkonide3163

3 ай бұрын

Cogito ergo sum

@professornebula6545

2 ай бұрын

The processes may be real, and your mind may be real in some sense of the term, but the perception of individuality is definitely an illusion. The feeling that possess a distinct mind separate from reality is absolutely not real. Just look at split brain syndrome, or consider the simple fact that your consciousness doesn't exist in a vacuum, but emerges in the interaction between the environment. It's a system which is defined as much by its own internal processes as the external information fed to it, and its function is really only to create an internal model of reality through memory and reasoning and use this model to navigate its environment towards favorable circumstances. It evolved the traits it has because they facilitated survival in more complex niches where multicelluar organisms had to navigate both a complicated environment, but also other minds doing the same thing. It didn't do so with purpose, it was just an adaptation to environmental circumstances. On the one hand the brain carries out many tasks which aren't beneficial to survival as a byproduct of its properties. This doesn't really matter just as long as these byproducts don't inhibit survival. On the other hand, even byproducts like leisure could be seen as beneficial, since the drive for greater recreational stimulation not directly necessary for survival led humans to be curious and seek our new experiences and information and learn new things. It gave us new routes to improve our chances of survival and gave us purpose which made us more likely to persist and grow even in the face of adversity. It made us a more adaptable and resilient species. You can see everything about individuality and consciousness as being interlinked components of an evolving system driven by environmental pressures, and the experience of consciousness itself is just a heuristic, a kind of shorthand processing mechanism that forms as the brain compiles sensory information and sends it through neural pathways which create associations, filter information, and set specific goals to carry out as needed to satisfy the physiological needs. I don't know if you'd call this an illusion. Sure, consciousness itself IS a physical process, but the experience of consciousness is more like a computer program - the program doesn't represent the actual processes generating it, the program itself just a medium at the macro level which simplifies and coordinates interactions. If not an illusion, then maybe a delusion, because if nothing else the experience of consciousness itself may be a real part of reality itself, but entire experience is predicated on a false belief or judgment, which is the very assumption of individuality which underlies all our actions.

@sasanr1

2 ай бұрын

​@@professornebula6545exactly free will is the same sort of illusion as time and ego and thought itself is . It's very difficult for most people to accept that even though they may understand that ego is an illusion The experiencer doesn't have free will the same way they can't decide what their next thought emerging in their mind will be .

@hiteshkumar4728

2 ай бұрын

@@professornebula6545Consciousness is required even to say that there is "physical matter" -- and the world perceived in dream also seems to be a physical one, situated in space and time, although it is not physical. In the final analysis, there's no reason to believe that there is anything other than consciousness. Saying consciousness emerges from physical matter is putting the cart before the horse.

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

@helpmechangetheworld

Жыл бұрын

I made the same assumption you did and your logic is perfectly correct, but to my still current bewilderment the formula to measure spin up for an axis rotated a certain theta degrees away from your particle's spin axis, if the particle is spin up, is cos²(theta/2). And 1 - cos²(theta/2) for spin down. Which means your numbers aren't quite right. It's something to do with spin 1/2 particles. But your logic of splitting the probability by how far a particle's spin axis has to rotate is, I do believe, correct!

@NK-fx1qs

Жыл бұрын

and the reverse rotation effect? distance matters not yet revolution is what dictates our perception?

@partypoet2012

Жыл бұрын

@@helpmechangetheworld these goddamn you screw algorithms got me here guys you realize your entire universe is based on the fact that Galileo look into a telescope that you could beat for 50 bucks at Walmart today and apparently he was able to see Venus and tell you it's size and even the weather and because Galileo was able to do that with his magical telescope you decided to apply all these rules to the rest of your known universe of course there isn't a single shred of scientific proof but I'll be the first one to admit those pictures look amazing that imagination you need to come up with this horseshit can anybody out there tell me one scientific reason why you think you live on a pretty blue ball spinning through space at an unimaginable pace and you think we're crazy

@IamMrJerrySoFU

Жыл бұрын

If you have two devices to measure the spin, then I guess you must keep their rotations same relative to each other, right? Meaning if I fly away with one machine on spaceship, and you stay on Earth, which is rotating, I would have to somehow line up my machine to the correct rotation relative to your machine on Earth, right? And if we did not do the meassurement at the same time, I would have to line it up like you had your machine at that time? And if I don't know when you will do or did it, then I am not able to do the meassurement in correct axis. And would we also need to somehow account for curvature of space? So many questions

@partypoet2012

Жыл бұрын

@@IamMrJerrySoFU remember your Universe only works because Galileo looked into a telescope you could beat at Walmart for 50 bucks today and was able to tell you the size and the exact weather on Venus and after the world bought that you also have to remember that the world has already bought the BS that crepuscular Rays from the Sun are parallel and therefore you can somehow imagine our world to be a pretty blue ball and then once you've established the fact that Galileo spewed about Venus has to be correct they just applied it to the rest of the lights in the sky you see and then they let the NASA's graphic Department paint your entire universe just the way every little kid imagines it to be isn't that a far simpler look at your entire universe than the nonsense you need to spew just to keep a flat pizza that's non rotational spinning so fast it turns into a ball and then all you can rely on is your imagination because science has left the building

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

@Tdubya

Жыл бұрын

And what has spending so much time pondering a piece of physics trivia gained for you?

@stefl14

Жыл бұрын

@@Tdubya A great amount of satisfaction and awe at awe pondering big questions - the reward most true scholars are seeking.

@tastytoast4576

Жыл бұрын

@@Tdubya probably some fun times :) thinking is fun to some

@michaelfried3123

Жыл бұрын

even if its garbage philosophy masquerading as science? like this theory certain is!

@benjamindains6906

Жыл бұрын

@@stefl14 I’m like you, so I’ll chime in as well, some other benefits are: expanding your critical thinking skills, and increasing the capacity and use of your imagination.

Fantastic introduction in the first 60 seconds into very complex topics

The first five minutes of music made me feel like a character in a late nineties/early 00s top down RPG adventure, especially starting from 02:30. Like i’ve finally made it to the old capitol city but much too late, everything has been burned to the ground. Among cracked stone buildings, charred wooden structures wet from rain, some still smoldering I look to find the next NPC to continue the story. lol

Very excited for this.

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

@PBlague

11 ай бұрын

I absolutely love this subject, it has been one of my main topics of argument with other people in my life. And I believe that super determinism is the way, but all the people whom I've encountered have told me otherwise in their own view. I'm soo happy to see this and not only know that I'm not the only one thinking that everything is most likely super-detemined but that it is touched upon and tested in real scientific labs... I wish to be a scientist on the bleeding edge of this... Proposing ideas... But I've got a long way to go... That is if I manage to ever get there

@schakiarligonde1736

11 ай бұрын

There’s no evidence for superdetermism it requires an immense conspiracy in the universe for it to be true

@illegaltendencies7803

5 ай бұрын

thought I was the only one it's a completely different view to live it imo @@PBlague an kinda depressing depending on one's "fate"

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

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

@NoConsequenc3

Жыл бұрын

All interference is measurement, you just don't have the relevant units to describe the interaction most of the time

@felixmcphie

Жыл бұрын

It's still important to understand that the superposition of particles is not just a consequence of our inability to measure accurately, but a fact inherent to the state of the particles. Particles are fundamentally expressed as waves of probability until they are observed

@HummingShaman

4 ай бұрын

​@@felixmcphieif we can't measure them properly how do we define them as you have said. Probability is just lack of certainty.

@felixmcphie

4 ай бұрын

@@HummingShaman The most famous experiment in quantum physics is the double slit experiment because it shows that particles are expressed as waves of probability until observed.

@coolblue5929

3 ай бұрын

@@felixmcphieuntil they interact.

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

@goldnutter412

Жыл бұрын

We aren't, but consciousness (hive mind the early civilizations called god) is an information system and can extrapolate probable futures and easily make un noticeable adjustments that don't affect free will. It is up to all of us to be a team, and eventually we will be a global society with digital provenance that can allow us to free our minds. We have to defeat fear and ego and closed minded belief/disbelief. The only way is to choose to part of the solution and not make selfish choices, to give to humanity not play a stupid 0 sum game mentality that causes destruction. This is why we are here and why the internet has trended to where it is, why extreme politics are where they are at.. and why fear is winning for many people. Community groups are vital.. education reform.. open source and collaborative constructs.. DAO's.. digital identity and privacy, a whole new cybersecurity era and data economy, decentralized digital society.. almost here ! Decentralized.. sound familiar ? consciousness walking around in these cognition machines making choices ? Entropy is relentless when you have more data. We are the strategy, all our choices matter. Human consensus mechanism has always been the driver of our shared evolutionary strategy for consciousness. We are at the final boss of our own fear. The emergence of Bitcoin was the result of iterative work by many, and just a proof of concept. Whether it will become the new digital gold that reserve banks buy and use to partially back their paper currency with is unknown, but it seems plausible. Cryptography is not a new thing, lol.. and secure databases and distributed computing and shared state networks are not unique to blockchain systems or smart contract platforms. It's a logical consequence of complex interconnected society that has grown too large to manage and corrupted by our young minds.. self focused, fear driven.. we still dont get to have aliens because we aren't even global yet. That was just a scam lol, reglobalization seems like it has been delayed with this senseless war too.. conflict and pushback doesnt help, it only delays us all from levelling up.. but it is inevitable ! there is only trending up or down. Evolution is relentless because of entropy.. BE THE CHANGE... (choose wisely)

@cherniaktamir612

Жыл бұрын

The events are suprising because determinism is not proven, once we get the ability of predicting everything, life will be totally empty of meaning

@goldnutter412

Жыл бұрын

@@cherniaktamir612 it is absolute delusion to think we could come close to predicting everything Reality is FUNDAMENTALLY RULED BY UNCERTAINTY have people still not understood what is going on. It is the most obvious simple setup. I give up lol you'll all learn the hard way with backwards logic

@Video-Game-OST-HQ

Жыл бұрын

@@cherniaktamir612 If we can’t build a computer larger than the universe then it is unlikely we will ever be able to just predict everything that will happen in the future. There will never be a point when living stops being a series of constant surprises. Even if we know what is coming it is weird to assume that would make the event boring. I am moving back to Japan next month. I know that in advance, and yet the experience will still be just as fun and exciting as it was the first time I moved to Japan. To assume that knowledge of the future bereaves it of excitement and rewards that please our brains is bizarre. Brains are only data-processing units anyway. Excitement and enjoyment of living are not removed from that fact. Knowing of the future data that will be fed to our brains is completely different from actually being fed that data to our brains.

@kepspark3362

Жыл бұрын

Exactly! No matter what the truth is, ultimately, it was, it is & it always will be behind all the events that unfolds; either we want it or not. All we can do is seek it, we don't get to make it. It's not going to change just because we want to.

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

@Craftlngo

Жыл бұрын

But the Zeilinger Experiment has proven that Superdeterminism can't be correct per se. So if Superdeterminism is a thing, it doesn't explain the whole situation completely. There is still a piece missing in the puzzle.

@sycodeathman

Жыл бұрын

@@Craftlngo Zeilinger experiments show exactly what we would see in a superdeterministic universe, too. They simply show more strongly that Bell was correct that there are no hidden variables. The solution to the paradox is that either instamtaneous communication of quantum information is possible, or, everything is determined. On both a basic intuition level and from the perspective of a deep understanding of physics, determinism becomes the obvious answer. The reason you get the apparent "spooky action" is because YOU are an entity entirely within the universe, operating under physical laws, and therefore are wholly determined by physical laws including quantum mechanics, and as such the paradox is resolved. The only reason the paradox exists is because we use the concept of a truly independent observer, which is impossible.

@Craftlngo

Жыл бұрын

@@sycodeathman I guess I got this wrong. Language Barrier is hitting hard

@chalichaligha3234

Жыл бұрын

@@sycodeathman Superdeterminism is not the obvious answer to me. Superdeterminism is a supposed extra, invisible law of the universe, standing apart from the normal directly acting physical and local ones, that states that quantum correlations must happen, and therefore this law arranged the initial configuration of the universe in such a way as to make them happen via the interactions of the normal physical laws, over all time. Why, how, where do you go from here?! The theory literally tautologically states that because we see quantum correlations, they must happen, without any room for explanation or development of our understanding of physics. The other options Bell tests leave us with are that particles are non real, which means that they are again quite literally in an incomprehensible eldritch state until measurement. Or finally that particles can communicate instantly over any distance. The latter is not compatible with the current mathematical formulation of General Relativity, but though weird, is perfectly imaginable and understandable - Newtonian mechanics can work with instantaneity, so can Lorenz Ether Theory which is mathematically equivalent to Special Relativity. Perhaps we just need to rewrite the mathematics of GR along Aether theory lines. Further, this interpretation of quantum mechanics allows for further development of physics - how do we describe the operation of the hidden variables? How are these rules encoded? Is there another layer of reality to accommodate this? And so on.

@sycodeathman

Жыл бұрын

@@chalichaligha3234 That's not what superdeterminism states, though. It literally just says everything happens because it is caused by something else, in this case a universal wave function. It's identical to determinism with the added spice that unlike in classical determinism where everything is like billiard balls fated to interact in only one possible way due to physics, everything is wavelike and fated to interact in only one possible way due to physics. Superdeterminism is really not more than determinism.

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

Determinism and free will aren't in conflict. Just because a decision may be predictable or inevitable doesn't mean it isn't free. For example, if I offer you $1 or $100, we both know you'll always choose to take $100, but that predictability doesn't mean it wasn't a free choice.

@nonononononono8532

7 күн бұрын

That does disprove fee will. You didn’t choose to want the $100 more than the $1, and thus the decision to choose the $100 over the $1 was determined by your want, over which you had no control. And even if you chose the $1 over the $100 to prove you have free will, then you didn’t choose to want to prove you have free will more than the will to get the greater sum of money, thus again, your decision was entirely determined by your want which you didn’t have agency in selecting.

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

@questor5189

Жыл бұрын

An excellent analysis and overview Daniel. Perhaps yet another mathematical equation can one day be formulated to prove Superdeterminism, or demonstrate that determinism and realism function in parallel. From a theological standpoint, this video may help explain how a pre-existent Divine Entity is able to engage in prophecies of the future; and with each prophetic fulfillment, human freewill is challenged by predestination. Albeit purely hypothetical, I nonetheless see a scientific connection. By all means feel free to disagree.

@user-ij8ef2ck4u

Жыл бұрын

Well, determinism was the "default" worldview among scientists for a long time. And then quantum physics ruined it, as experiments showed there is a randomness to everything. Now there is a chance that we live in super-deterministic world, but there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Thing is: you can't be sure until you've got a proof. And there is yet no experimental proof for both deterministic and non-deterministic worldviews. You can "believe" in whatever you want (or whatever you are determined to believe in), but that's not a scientific method. That's why modern physics is so fascinating. It really came close to answering - or at least, asking - questions that was previously only answered in religion. And those answers were just hypothesis' unfortunately, even though some people choose to believe in them. Right now we are on the brink on turning those into theories. Maybe one day we'll be able to find the real answer.

@UchihaOokami2596

Жыл бұрын

Yup. Our minds are far too… primative to actually see the strings. We can just conclude they exist. To understand it all would be to have a full understanding of the universe and thats technically impossible except for the universe itself. And Its pretty mum on that subject.

@questor5189

Жыл бұрын

@@UchihaOokami2596 Correct. This is why I have chosen to employ scientific method, deductive reasoning, and Divine revelation in my search for truth. Knowledge can be gained through the observations of science and mathematics; the separation of fact from fiction can be achieved through philosophy and the testing of hypothesis; and wisdom can be attained by a careful reading of the sacred texts.

@yazizme3852

Жыл бұрын

So right on. It parallels the day, today, and how every undermorrow and tomorrow makes every time a prescription for the new day , then, overmorrow, which is the new day birthed to every undermorrow and tomorrow. So for every 2 days is born a new day, a 3rd day. This is today's tomorrow rewritten for our yesterday that we did wrong. And it's only by observing the wrong way that we might accept and receive the prescription handed us , is in contrast to the wrong way we did . Another chance to move on into perfection always.

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

@osmosisjones4912

Жыл бұрын

Maybe their was more then 1 big bang that overlapped as they expanded

@gregor-samsa

Жыл бұрын

it was for sure - anyhow :-)

@dienadel30

Жыл бұрын

Same, so in the Macro world Keeping it simple bare with me if we decided to do a Cat experiment it was already determined ? Because we already decided the parameters ? An automated cat farm one is alive or dead no observation. FYI love cats just trying to wrap my head around this. Are we not just local Sensors on earth ? Changing all observations, you get a photon I did not...?

@ThePurza

Жыл бұрын

It's really interesting watching Sabine's take. She's highly dismissive of the results from confusing experiments like the delayed choice Quantum eraser, and that confused me until I saw her views on Determinism. I guess she believes that quantum probabalism is actually an illusion, which seems a bold take.. but it does seem to resolve these mysteries (I'll take the word of qualified scientists on that front). Both Determinism and many-worlds seem quite hard pills to swallow. As a layman I've wondered whether maybe 1. the waveform operates separately somehow to the 4d universe we can observe, and isn't bound by the laws of relativity, or 2. that many worlds is only true for very limited examples where decoherence can exist, and that the other worlds resolve to a single logically-coherent reality in the same way the waveform appears to. Such a fascinating topic

@kempokiin6280

Жыл бұрын

I feel theres a bit of irony... saying "finally" and "waiting" regarding a video on superdeterministic universe. There's gotta be a joke here...

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

@adeyemi120

Жыл бұрын

But that wouldn’t account for the fact that when observed they pick a spin direction opposite of one another. If, to their perspective, they are still at the same point then we have to throw away the idea that they are conserving angular momentum as they are essentially the same particle (yea can’t have that) and the observed spin should be the same. P.S. I can be very wrong I’m still trying to get my head around quantum Mechanics

@michaelnesbit6447

Жыл бұрын

@@adeyemi120 true they will have the same spin until they are measured, because the spin will still remain undetermined until they strike a detector and lose their velocity. As long as they're not interfered with they'll remain coupled and act as a single object, spin being superposition of both up/down, until one gets measured. Then that action determines the spin of both. It's hard to wrap your mind around it because it violates our conventional Ida of causation. But one you accept that our macro scale ideas of causation are built up from simpler things at the quantum scale, it's not so bad. Quantum field theory even points to the idea that there really are no such things as particles per se, just points of action within a field of energy. So if that's true then nonlocality is the normal state of things, and our idea of local causation is what's really unusual. :-)

@user-fc8xw4fi5v

7 ай бұрын

Debunked in one sentence: use electron spin instead of photon polarization.

@michaelnesbit6447

7 ай бұрын

@user-fc8xw4fi5v that doesn't change anything. Electron entanglement effects are mathematically no different. And debunked means you have disproven something that was fake or false, but presented as true. That's not what is happening here.

@coolblue5929

3 ай бұрын

They experience no time, therefore they have experienced no movement? No. Spacetime is four orthogonal dimensions.

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

@JFGag

3 ай бұрын

It's the only serious possibility, all the rest "realism" is just a mere repeated tentative to save religion, imputability, etc.

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

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

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

@gistfilm

Жыл бұрын

Yes but who made the choice? You? Which part of you is "you?" You is a construct. There is no "you"

@Scymet

Жыл бұрын

"But that doesn’t mean we’re not making choices, it just means we’ve already made them." Agreed

@enigmalfidelity

Жыл бұрын

Here's a question for this maddening concept: if I had a box of matches, and I knew of a house that could be burnt down, is it not me who decides if I do the action or not? Sure, everything led to the situation, but it is free will that allows us to decide on our own. Super determinism is also called "reality". Every action has an effect on what's to come. To claim we don't make an influence on current happenings is impossible.

@Fractured_Unity

Жыл бұрын

@@enigmalfidelity Sure, the atoms that make up you are part of the casual chain that led to the house being burned down. But free will proponents like to claim that the ego ‘You’ is solely responsible for every choice made. Ego isn’t the master, although some people allow it to have undue influence due to ignorance, fate is.

@bluejanis5317

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean with "right now". That term lost its meaning in your paragraph. But yes, just think of time as another dimension besides the other 3.

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

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

@shawniscoolerthanyou

Жыл бұрын

Exactly! Some explanations show as though I'm watching a photon pass through a slit, but if I can see the photon, then it's in my eye and not part of the diffraction pattern. Then that misconception is used to start saying all kinds of BS about consciousness.

@NotHumant8727

Жыл бұрын

We are part of universe not something else in it. Instrument, human, not so diff thing.

@shawniscoolerthanyou

Жыл бұрын

@@NotHumant8727 Exactly. No consciousness required.

@Blackmystix

Жыл бұрын

Wrong. Von Neumann chains are at the very least a consideration against your point. At the end of the day, there is a human cognizing the measurement.

@senor2930

Жыл бұрын

@@shawniscoolerthanyou imo consciousness is loosely defined ascientific term. It should not even be regarded.

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

@osmosisjones4912

Жыл бұрын

Maybe the speed of light is the speed it is because of at least 2 opposing forces pulling on face time

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

@ralphhebgen7067

7 ай бұрын

“Whatever will happen is the only thing that could have happened”. Well… unfortunately it is not quite as comforting as that - whatever DID happen is the only thing that could have happened - yes. But when it has not happened yet, we (the human being) is still in the middle of a process of determining how to act. The fact that the human does not KNOW the inevitable, deterministic outcome of their reasoning does not mean that they do not have ‘to do the work’. So unfortunately it looks as if we live in a deterministic universe, but that does not mean that things unfold automatically, ‘free will’ is what it feels like to contribute to the development of sequential states in the state space of the universe without knowing in which way we help shape these states. That is why super-determinism does not take away ‘free will’ at all, it just defines better what ‘free will’ means. To be honest, I think the entire debate on free will may have been put to rest if the phenomenon had not been called FREE will, but something like “working will” or “acting will”. I am afraid there is no way to abrogate responsibility for our actions. No interpretation of the universe is going to free us of free will… 😊

@elplaga7

3 ай бұрын

@@ralphhebgen7067 The thing with determinism is that is a paradox itself. If every state of the universe is determined by the previous one, then the first state is arbitrary. If the first state doesnt exist because reality has existed forever, then the rules are either arbitrary or not universal (which means there could be other rules). These rules could either be arbitrary or determined, by some other rules that determine rules. Also, "rules" are not in the domain of real material existence, so what is even the rules for rules?

@ralphhebgen7067

3 ай бұрын

@@elplaga7 You’re raising an interesting point, one which I have never really thought about… . I suppose the idea of a deterministic universe is only interesting within the context of free will. That is why you find people talking about this - it is always in the context of trying to identify the nature of free will. So there’s an important subtlety here: For the purpose of deciding whether free will can exist, it is not important whether the universe is deterministic or not - what is important is that it is UNPREDICTABLE. Because a thinking agent (a human being) cannot know what the impact of their thoughts on the ‘next’ state space of the universe is going to be, they cannot pre-determine the impact of their thoughts on the formation of that ‘next’ state space. But they would need to be able to do that in order for will to exist that would be truly FREE in the literal sense of that expression, ie free from the physical rules of the universe. So, from the point of free will again, it is therefore also irrelevant what the presumed ‘first’ state space of the universe was and how it came into existence. Randomness does not enable free will - I think the idea that it does is the source of so many misconceptions (well they are misconceptions in my view, at least) about the nature of free will. For free will to be truly free, a thinking agent would need to be able to look into the future, observe what state space a particular thought (a choice) would engender, and then decide, ahead of time (!!) which state space they would wish to generate, and in light of that preference make their choice. So, in a universe with only one time dimension (ours), free will in the absolutist sense cannot exist. But I think you are asking a different question? You are saying “well, if the universe is deterministic, and everything unrolls from one state space to the next, what brought about the fist state space? Would that one not have to pop into existence randomly?” If you ARE asking that, your points are distinct from a debate about free will, and talk more about the origins of the universe perhaps. And if you are asking that, I think you are right. The universe itself does not unrol deterministically, quantum physics has long taught us that the state of elementary particles is genuinely indeterminable, indeed that no distinct state exists, the “normal” state of an elementary particle is to exist in all their physically allowable states at once, the normal state is “superposition”, and this superposition decoheres into one specific state when the particles interact with another particle. So the nature of the universe itself is subtle: The structure of each state IN ITSELF has random elements. But given a specific state, the rules of physics determine deterministically what the next state is. To illustrate: Say, state 1 can be A or B. Say, A always engenders C, and B always engenders D. Then state 2 is C given that state 1 is A, and D given that state 1 is B. The rules of physics determine A->C and B->D, and this is deterministic. But whether we start with A or B (in the unit of time we are observing) is random. That’s how I see it, at least. You might be interested to check out some of the books written on cosmology by Brian Greene or Sean Carroll. Most of my ideas are cobbled together from these books, plus monographs on quantum physics (Suskind) and physics (Penrose). I am just an interested layman, though - I have no standing in the debate, nor do I claim that my ideas are correct. Just wanted to share my thoughts with you. Take care!

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

@pandawandas

Жыл бұрын

Superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will. It’s about arbitrarily letting go of statistical independence and assuming spooky hidden variables. I think it’s a fantasy, possibly woo

@girlofanimation

Жыл бұрын

@@pandawandas superdeterminism implies no freewill at human scales...

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

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

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

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

@tb303techno

Жыл бұрын

Your paragraph with, quote: " Either the Einstein field equations are mathematically invalid or they are superdeterministic" => Congratulations, you are at the point here. The forme, quote, " any valid solution to the Einstein field equations must demonstrate nonlocality" tells me that we have nonlocality anyway. Since we can demonstrate (at least simulate) nonlocality with the violation of the Bell theorem, GRT (if valid or not) can't refute nonlocality or "spooky action at a distance". Problem solved ... on the QM side at least.

@user-qn2bg7zb9s

26 күн бұрын

Yeah, the other guy is right, measurement could be independent (not necessarily free will but random) if nonlocality already has to be accepted

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

One question. The experiments may be such that they are not in each other's light cones, true. However, to confirm the result, the two sets of data needs to be brought together. Surely, at the time of comparison both experiments would be in the light cone then, right?

@noahway13

Жыл бұрын

I THINK u can be separated, mark results, and then join up again.

@GorbonM

Жыл бұрын

@@noahway13 the point is that you can only know the answer by comparing the results, qt which point both experiments would be in the comparisons light cone

@SLYdevil

Жыл бұрын

I agree. It doesn't seem feasible to separate the cones of influence if both must be accessed from a central testing ground. I applaud the longtime development of the experiment, assume that these issues have been taken into consideration, & the result of this scientific research are published - ready to be disputed. As long as the scientific method is applied the facts will be exposed - along with the non-factual assumptions.

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

@santiagonicolasarellano6239

Жыл бұрын

I still don't get many's obsession with defending free will. It's almost among the most religious traits that modern science retains.

@m0rthaus

Жыл бұрын

Call me reductive but that's just a pedantic way of redefining what a 'decision' is, so that it fits in with your belief in Superdeterminism.

@anhedonianepiphany5588

Жыл бұрын

Paradoxical statements aren’t particularly helpful, but you were, of course, always bound to see things this way.

@milannesic5718

Жыл бұрын

@@santiagonicolasarellano6239 You don't understand peoples obsession with defending free will? It is simple dude. It is predetermined. As if you logically know that there is no free will and that everything is predetermined, including people defending it, but intuitively you think that people actually do have a choice to change their opinion, so you are trying to change it and get frustrated when you fail

@dpt4458

Жыл бұрын

​@@santiagonicolasarellano6239 I had the same grievance but at some point you just have to recognize that people don't really want "free will". A completely free will would mean a betrayal of their identity which no identity wants. In other words, it is our will to do some things which drives forward decision making. Free will in this context would only make things worse since right now our mental faculties are literally doing the best possible job in making decisions. Its hard to explain but basically it would mean either inneficient expresion of the will or a change of the will which would negate identity. I wrote a short paper about this but it is not english, if you want I can answer any other questions.

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

@webx135

Жыл бұрын

Yeah that's what I like about this interpretation. And "The entire entangled universe acting upon me at all moments" has some profound implications. Like if you get a sufficiently complex and sensitive system, it takes the entire universe to know its state. Something about that reminds me of "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself". It might be a tad too "new-age spirity", but I like the idea conscious experience is essentially the universe experiencing itself from a limited perspective. Also, I've never really seen determinism as being in conflict with free will, per se. You are 100% free to make whatever decision you want. Determinism just says it's already known which choice you'll WANT to make.

@chalichaligha3234

Жыл бұрын

This to me sounds a lot more like the realist nonlocal position (like Bohmian mechanics or objective collapse) though? As in all points in the universe are constantly influencing each other through quantum interactions. Superdeterminism from what I understand is the idea that the universe is like a story that has already been written, with it's own internal rules - the laws of physics. One of it's rules are quantum correlations, so they must happen, to avoid "plot holes". Thus to any character in the story, all the local laws of classical physics apply, and the seemingly instantaneously causal quantum measurements are just a result of the story being written without plot holes so that the classical interactions create situations that produce the illusion of locality violation. I was just wondering which one you were going for or if you disagree with my explanations?

@adamtokay

Жыл бұрын

Well said. I don't understand why people still resist it. What's the difference between deciding on having a beer and going 'haha' at the last moment and reaching for a coke? Who do you think you're fooling? The universe? Lol. You're still on the only possible path that lays ahead of you.

@AndyGraceMedia

Жыл бұрын

Nicely said ... and you're okay with reading this response and knowing it's only the universe or the simulation keeping you interested? :). For now anyway! The only thing I'd add is if the universe is entirely super-deterministic, ultimately it only exists to determine itself, but that's a bit pointless as it already knows that it knows itself and hence there's nothing to determine! A quantum computer simulation however can run with an immense amount of data compression. It only needs to tesselate my individual experience around the perceived reality of me as I see it. Observed quantum mechanical effects in my meatspace are perhaps artefacts of the simulation as it runs out of available resolution in which to compute, so the underlying architecture leaks into my almost entirely classical physics perception of the world. So our experience of QM might be analogous to a side-channel attack on a deeply cached and pipelined processor.

@jonathanfielding7387

Жыл бұрын

@@AndyGraceMedia Well said, However I would argue, The universe at it's ultimate extents has no ability to determine anything for it can only be "everything" Essentially to it self nothing more then an unchanged crystal structure... To Contemplate or determine would require extra substance outside itself . It may be possible that at the moment Time and Space is created all quantum possibilities are tested at which point the Superdeterministic universes path is determined likely related to the path of least resistance that works as per what ever natural selection defines as "works" on the universal evolutionary time scales (Further determined by additional quantum entanglements with a see of endless other universes bubbling into and out of existence around it . Maybe? lol

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

@slash196

Жыл бұрын

I agree. It's not like one thing is causing another thing, there's just a correlation, and how often do we like to say that correlation is not causation?

@t.c.bramblett617

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Even with instantaneous state change across the universe, there still isn't any useful information exchanged. It's still weird, but like Matt says, 100 years of this stuff should have taught us by now not to expect things to make us feel comfortable!

Regarding measurements seemingly violating the speed of light limit: what happens when two experimenters agree to perform their random(?) measurements at locally the same time; but two observers in relative motion disagree on which measurement took place first? Which measurement drives the other? If a contradiction is impossible, does that prove that there is no cause and effect between the two, only an inexplicable correlation?

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

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

@markdelej

Жыл бұрын

Yes. Voluntary action of moving a body part is different than believing a concept by being convinced by evidence. I think there is no free will so there is no choice for either, but there is certainly no choice for believing in something

@gnidarap

Жыл бұрын

But in a total deterministic universe determines your character, life circumstances, experience, knowledge, upbringing etc in turn determining your beliefs I like the idea of completely deterministic world because, for me, it actually provides REAL free will If the universe is deterministic I am the universe and I determine everything Real free will Idk if u get me xd

@shaneacton1627

Жыл бұрын

@@gnidarap A deterministic brain is no more free than is a marble rolling down a mountain.

@homewall744

Жыл бұрын

Faith is believe that isn't really convincing, so much so that people often scream over the oddities and outcomes despite their faith. It is absurd that every brain is constructed and populated and harmed/aged so that all actions are determined in advance. It goes 100% against our reality.

@Practicality01

Жыл бұрын

There are plenty of mental conditions that contradict the idea that you have to be convinced to believe something. It would be nice if logic and evidence were more broadly correlated to belief.

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

@x--.

Жыл бұрын

If I am understanding you correctly, I'm not sure that being able to send messages back in time is a "better" resolution the the paradoxes implicated here.

@MarshmallowRadiation

Жыл бұрын

Retrocausality (what you're suggesting) _is_ another, albeit slightly different, valid EPR solution. It's counterintuitive, but given the idea that the arrow of time might only seem to move forward because of the general increase in entropy since the big bang, causality _could_ theoretically go both ways. I personally don't think so, since I think of entropy as like a record of causality: entropy increases over time because information about prior interactions between objects builds up over time, carrying that information into the future so that causes can follow effects. It's my opinion that causality cannot work in a direction of decreasing universal entropy, which is what the idea of retrocausality needs in order to function. But I'm not an actual physicist, and the math as we know it seems to work just as well backwards as it does forwards.

@pgp1558

Жыл бұрын

Yes, it would; retrocausality can be considered a form of superdeterminism. In fact, if you read between the lines in Sabine's videos, you can see this is the kind of mechanism she believes is behind quantum measurements

@matthewparker9276

Жыл бұрын

@@pgp1558 I don't think that's what Sabine is suggesting happens. It has been a while since I've watched her video on the topic, but from memory her interpretation is that the interactions which influence the measurement choices travel forwards in time from the particle creation to the time of the measurement, as opposed to the time of the measurement having a retrocausal influence on the time of partical creation. The maths is probably mostly the same, particularly for simple scenarios, but I think where entropy gets involved they might diverge.

@anorak-adenoids

Жыл бұрын

What if the Big Crunch theory holds and entropy will decrease when universe starts to shrink? Particles will get fused(created) again, and nothing will prevent another intelligent civilisation to measure time in opposite direction (queue TENET the movie:)

Amazing Video, great work!

One possibility is that the entangled, separated particles are connected by a wormhole (or are local in hyperspace). The entire universe may then be a network of plank scale wormholes which connect different places (and times). Fundamental particles may even be composed of arrangements of wormholes and hyperspace donuts (self enclosing wormholes).

@onidaaitsubasa4177

Жыл бұрын

There is no distance when it comes to the quantum level, cause all particles everywhere in the universe have a baseline quantum frequency, the only local area is the particular universe you are observing.

@mertonhirsch4734

Жыл бұрын

@@onidaaitsubasa4177 So would you say that space is created when we make an observation?

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

@TheLazyVideo

Жыл бұрын

It’s just a way of praising Nathen Rosen by using Einstein’s expiration date

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

@nocare

Жыл бұрын

This actually does matter. This knowledge is used every day in various forms of technology. Quantum computers function on precisely this and thats why they are so hard to make. When a quantum computer is running it uses entangled particles in superpositions to do its calculations and the only thing stopping them from being good enough to fundamentally change large parts of the computer industry such as how encryption works is that the entanglement breaks after measurement and the computer has to spend a bunch of time setting it back up before running a new calculation. Some breakthroughs may have solved this problem but haven't yet been applied to an existing quantum computer. Not that anyone should actively worry about this but a fully functioning quantum computer can crack all modern RSA encryptions in minutes to seconds. So every secure online transaction you make would no longer be secure. This won't happen there are quantum encryptions to replace RSA but it shows how fundamental and drastic and effect this stuff can have on your life. This has very little to do with philosophy; that is a confusion with what the term observer means. By definition any particle/waveform interacting with another is an observation and will cause the waveform to collapse and so doesn't really on a conscious mind in any way. The debate is not philosophical one but a scientific one about the nature of reality. If we could answer for certain weather the universe is random or deterministic we might for instance gain new insights into the theory of quantum gravity which has so far eluded humanity.

@bxdanny

Жыл бұрын

Science used to be called "natural philosophy". I think our culture made a mistake in separating the two as much as we did. Quantum mechanics has been gradually bringing them back together over the last 60 years or so. I think much of what is discussed here matters deeply, but I agree it may be more "philosophy" than "science".

@angelmendez-rivera351

Жыл бұрын

@@bxdanny That would just be inaccurate. As someone with degrees in both subjects, I can tell you they are vastly, irreconcilably different.

@DrDeuteron

Жыл бұрын

No need to understand. Quantum mechanics is correct even if it bothers our classical intuition

@Blackmystix

Жыл бұрын

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Vastly irreconcilably different. That's laughable at best. Remember, there are multiple men you read about during your schooling who were at the apex of their profession and were dead wrong. Much like Einstein and spooky action at a distance.

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

@SamRMoyer

2 ай бұрын

The subject really isn’t. A series easier to follow would be Sabine Hossenfelder’s. The wording is probably the most important part of quantum mechanics, and these videos do that pretty poorly…

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

@puckpovier1559

5 ай бұрын

No, because that computer must be part of its own measurement, computation and especialy of the deterministic consequences itself. This would be a theory with no falsification, thus no science at all. And the mapping must be at least as big as the universe. This is an infinite regress.

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

@absolutelydegenerate1261

Жыл бұрын

Wow. How about you actually just use 'Layperson,' instead of using that boggeted engendered language. "LayMAN." How about you wake up and realize the harm you're enacting

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

@shaneacton1627

Жыл бұрын

A vortex is just as real as a rock

@lyrimetacurl0

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that sounds similar to the quote "consciousness is not an illusion" (because an illusion cannot be observed without the existence of a consciousness).

@kmb_jr

Жыл бұрын

Yes I feel there's a physical collection of molecules for each memory we have.

@ThePowerLover

Жыл бұрын

And illusions are not that.

Non-scientist here, asking a question. Would it have been clearer to begin with the reasonably-proven observation that reality appears to be non-local, that things which are not connected in space seem to behave in concert without any apparent means of exchanging information? This could then be explained by one of three alternatives: (1) there is no deep concrete reality; (2) there are many realities, exponentially propagating every time an observer or a particle makes a choice; and (3) superdeterminism - we think we are making choices, or that individual particles randomly behave (seemingly in accordance with probabilities for large numbers of such particles) but in fact these personal or particle “random choices” are not choices at all but pre-determined from an almost-infinite series of causalities going back to the beginning of time (which might imply types of interaction or influence of which we are currently unaware)?

But there's a problem. Quantum Decoherence. If all particles in the universe are related, they are entangled, but every interaction decreases the "level of entanglement" by increasing entropy and decoherence. That's why it's very hard to have entangled molecules, and even harder for macroscopic objects, because a lot of particles are mutually interacting all the time in a non-closed system (cosmic radiation comes from the "outside"). So is it truly possible for a particle to be exactly 0% entangled to any/all particles in the universe? If so, then super-determinism is wrong. What SD implies, is that QE is always happening, and that no particle can ever reach 0%, similar to the impossibility of 0Kelvin. It's like some kind of Zeno's paradox. Every interaction divides the entanglement by a value greater than 1, so it always gets smaller, approaching 0, but never touching it

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

@mastershooter64

Жыл бұрын

"Those who claim we live in a deterministic universe still look both ways before crossing the street"

@tkdyo

Жыл бұрын

@@mastershooter64 Yep, its pretty much impossible to have all the info necessary to predict every macro event in your life. Doesn't change that there was already a set of events to determine if a car was coming or not.

@stefl14

Жыл бұрын

nonlocality is also a perfectly viable philosophically. After all, we know nonlocality is perfectly possible in, say, computer games (no, I'm not saying we're in a simulation, just that it's perfectly plausible that 2 spinning particles share a bit even though we interpret them as "spatially-disconnected" ).

@Frankthegb

Жыл бұрын

That's the fundamental difference between the physical (science) and the metaphysical (philosophy). Philosophy, by definition, can't actually describe physical reality because its existence is to describe that which cannot be described by science. No matter how much a certain philosophy might make sense, there is no way of knowing if it's true, and in many cases, it likely isn't.

@thelostone6981

Жыл бұрын

Back when I was a Christian, I use to believe that God knew everything that was going to happen. Yet, the people who indoctrinated me in that way of thinking, told me that he gave us free-will and will judge us based on our choices…and almost in the same breath! Something just didn’t seem right in that way of thinking. I know this doesn’t have to do with quantum mechanics, but it’s just a funny thing I think about when I hear someone talk about philosophy, determinism and free-will.

I think Einstein for the EPR paradox stated something like: "if there was a left-handed glove in one box, and a right-handed glove in another and you mixed them up and didn't know which glove was in which box, when you open one of them, the other box has always had the opposite glove." Switch it out with entangled particles and spins, you have Einsteins watered down view on determinism. Edit: nvm, I don't think Einstein said it, it's probably just a common example used by physicists.

@anthonymorris615

Жыл бұрын

I know the box I open will have the glove I'm not looking for.

@goldnutter412

Жыл бұрын

@@DazedSpy2 relativity is so underrated, there is far more to this, it can be applied to so many other things All Einstein missed was the information age, it would have been blatantly obvious to him that this is a probabilistic virtual computer created by our shared consciousness and energy/matter has to be quantized - you can't store HALF of a bit in memory. Quantum mechanics is actually ridiculously easy you just have to be a gamer and understand data is not information. Buddha said it best. This world is an illusion. We are one !

@goldnutter412

Жыл бұрын

Also it's not a paradox it's just not wasting bits on things that aren't necessary. Computed realities are always constrained by resources and doing things the hard way is just dumb. When you simulate a virtual world you don't program a clockwork universe of atoms and subatomic particles those only exist because we looked. VM's present results to avatars. If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around does it make a sound ? THERE IS NO TREE that data is not being rendered because noone is around sigh.. one day we'll all be digital natives and this will be childs play.. you can literally explain it to a 10 year old that we live in a computer game that we make as we experience life, quantum mechanics isn't hard at all. The standard model lacks logic for a superset computing the reality and bingo you're done DICHOTOMY and duality is inescapable ! QM and relativity are just the pair of facets of how this universe of "physical" seeable touchable stuff is rendered if you look. We like looking.

@tyjames9936

Жыл бұрын

@@goldnutter412 on a side note, if a tree falls in a forest and no one was around to hear it, it in fact does NOT make a sound. It may make sonic waves and vibrations, but without a brain to translate those vibrations, they are not a "sound". Just ripple in the air

@Greasyspleen

Жыл бұрын

That's essentially what he's describing at 8:57. But then he explains why that's wrong, and I couldn't understand that part. LOL

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

All it really means, from the individual perspective, is: "Don't worry; be happy," because all you ever did, do, or will do, has already been decided. From the group perspective, however, it means that: The persistence of observation(s) solidifies the nature of reality (the maths for which is already underway).

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

That double slit electron experiment always tripped me out.

What would happen if you view both particles at the EXACT same moment? Which would influence the other?

Damn this is one good channel. Keep it up.

12:21 It felt amazing that I was thinking about the exact same experiment setup as the cosmic bell test, right before it was mentioned in the video. Guess I'm learning something from this channel!

Determinism doesn't require predictability. Chaotic systems like a double or triple pendulum are very unpredictable (due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions), but wholly determined by standard mechanics.

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

Information revealed by any test which determines what a particles properties are must coincide with a gain of information, which is likewise, a gain of entropy. Every result from any measurement must coincide with a gain of entropy. No interaction between particles is necessary, even if their properties are indeterminate until measured.

I love the end proposal that giving technology to someone as a test for what they do with it (make it or don't, test for understanding, etc.) Except that humans are such a wide array of possibility. Give it to one person, group, region, whatever, and you are uncertain to find the best representation. Please, galactic order, keep an open mind!

@DarioCastellarin

Жыл бұрын

To be completely honest, I think it would be a very stupid test and I would question the aliens' advanced-ness: to give out a test with a 50% possibility of being successful by sheer luck, doesn't weed out the dumb, just the unlucky.

@and_I_am_Life_the_fixer_of_all

Жыл бұрын

@@DarioCastellarin keep the ones interested in science and technology and weed out the ones without a heart or without a decent brain

@nicholascurran1734

Жыл бұрын

@@DarioCastellarin a bit short sighted in my opinion. It isn't just make it or don't, what about using something, and how or why? If I give you a rare space metal, and then watch to see how you utilize it, or if you even run tests to see (edit: how) it may best be utilized... well that's beyond sheer luck isn't it? Maybe the process in determining what to do with this metal is the test, not just what is made with it. My two cents anyhow

@DarioCastellarin

Жыл бұрын

@@nicholascurran1734 the episode referred here was about how it would be impossible to deduce an alien's notation standard for certain physical qualities, like charge. There's no axiom-free way to deduce what is a positive or negative charge in an alien's standard model. But once you figure that out, you can easily derive all other values, like color, spin, etc. My comment was about this: you could flip a coin and have a 50% possibility of being right. It's not an intelligence test.

@nicholascurran1734

Жыл бұрын

@@DarioCastellarin then we're not talking about the same thing. The test of giving technology, in concept or material, and what is done with such, is what I'm talking about. It's at the very end of the episode, and it's a tangent off the main topic of the episode. So while your argument may have merit, I don't see why it came in response to my post. Cheers