1:01 Quantum mechanics forces us to abandon one of the three fundamental beliefs about reality. Either quantum mechanics is incomplete, or 1:08 particles can instantaneously affect each other across the universe, or physical objects don't exist when we're not looking at them. 1:17 There is no fourth option. Decades later, physicist John Bell proved Einstein correct 1:22 with mathematical precision. Bell's theorem show that quantum mechanics violates locality, meaning reality either breaks 1:30 the speed of light limit or splits into parallel universes. Every time a quantum measurement occurs.No, this is wrong. QM does not violate locality, and does not split into multiple worlds.
32:06 if you enjoyed exploring how our most successful theory might be fundamentally incomplete, 32:11 you should definitely check out my episode With cosmologist Sean Carroll, where we dive deep into the many worlds interpretation 32:18 and whether every quantum measurement literally splits reality into two parallel universes.There is some truth to the statement that QM is incomplete in the sense that it does not describe everything you might want to be described. Often this is just a way of saying QM is not a classical mechanical theory.
It is fine if Keating and his guest want to push their favorite interpretations of QM, but they should be accurately describing mainstream Physics. Bell's theorem only shows that QM differs from local classsical theories of hidden variables. That's all. Nothing about whether QM itself is local, or splits worlds, or anything like that.
Keating also has a new interview of Sabine Hossenfelder.
Does free will exist? It's a question that's haunted philosophers for centuries. But physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has a provocative answer that might just disturb you. She says free will doesn't exist.She is a super-determinist, so she thinks free will is just an illusion. It is funny how these intellectuals have claim to have beliefs that are opposite to how they live their lives.Everything is determined by the laws of physics. But here's the paradox that's fascinated me. I've talked to Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Robert Sapolsky, all brilliant minds who agree that free will is an illusion. Yet, when I asked them if they've ever encountered someone who acts like they don't have free will, they all said no. So how can this be?
How can we all be determined by physics, yet live as if we're making genuine choices? This isn't some abstract philosophical exercise, no. Sabine's insight has real implications for artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and the future of consciousness itself.
She explains why AI may already have the same kind of agency that we do, and why quantum computers could reveal that we fundamentally misunderstand the nature of reality.
She ends with:
I've I've uh returned to working on a 1:11:16 paper about the foundations of uh quantum mechanics because I feel like this is like my life's work and I need 1:11:22 to finish it and I need to get it out before I die.I am confident that this paper will be wrong.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Local hidden variables"? Heh maybe they are so perplexed by that because all of the major problems concerning hidden subgroups have yet to be solved (i.e. the algorithms for them are in NP but not NP-complete). If they were solved, this would create a computational speedup across potentially all algorithms known. And computational speedups like that would mean that heretofore unobtainable levels of precision will be practical. That would pretty much overturn all their crufty, unworkable, self-contradictory theories. I'm sure that's where the confusion comes from, incorrect or incomplete mathematical physics. It CERTAINLY is the problem when it comes to phenomena like "dark matter" and "black holes" which are simply artifacts of mathematical flights of fancy. So I'm sure all this quantum woo and confusion has the same cause.
ReplyDelete