As pointed out by Mateus Araújo above, QFT is local, so it seems to me that the only ways to reconcile this with the nonlocality of standard QM evidenced by the Bell test are: (1) QFT being totally incorrect in an easily-measurable way, (2) Many-Worlds, so that the appearance of non-locality is only due to our observable universe residing in a slice of the “true” wavefunction, (3) superdeterminism.If those were really the only consequences of the Bell tests, then the Nobel citation would have said so. It did not.
“It’s very weird that we feel that we have the free will to perform experiments and the consciousness to feel like we understand them, when, to our best understanding, everything is predetermined by the laws of physics.”
What’s even weirder is that determinism isn’t even the core culprit here! You only have two ingredients at each end of the spectrum: perfect determinism (e.g. a bunch of balls moving around and hitting one another… i.e. every event is caused by a prior event), and pure randomness (everything is uncorrelated noise, i.e. no causality, things happen without a prior cause… very weird too when you think about it).
And then you can mix those two in various amount, on a continuous scale. QM is a mix of determinism and randomness, somewhere in the middle of the scale. MWI + consciousness also seems to lie in the middle of the scale (the wave function of the universe is determined, but my place as a conscious being on that structure seems random, from my subjective point of view).
When it comes to free will: sure, determinism seems to obviously exclude it… but randomness seems to exclude it too! For the general idea of free will isn’t exactly understood by throwing a dice at every moment a supposed “decision point” happens. He is right that our dynamical models do not generate free will. That is why it is called free will.
He responds:You might as well call it pixie magic dust then?No, randomness is not an event without any cause within the system, it is an event without cause in the model. Something is random if your model cannot predict it. There is no such thing as pure randomness.
A dynamic system is a system which state evolves with time (a parameter).
My point is that dynamic systems either evolve following causality (current state is derived from prior state) and/or randomness (current state is independent of prior state), and then any degree of mix of those two things (where events depend partly on prior events and partly on some randomness).
Note that randomness is non-determinsm, meaning an event without any cause within the system. Whether that randomness is pure (appearing magically within the system) or is a dependence on causes external to the system is basically the same.
What other ingredient would there be?
Free will is a form of randomness that no one is even trying to model.
He moved on to the latest scientific hoax:Looks like fusion energy supremacy has been demonstrated!They refer to this story:
Scott Says: Only “scientific supremacy,” not supremacy where you account for the actual energy cost of the lasers which is still 100x too high. Still good though!Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy have reached a breakthrough in nuclear fusion.To make this claim, they ignore the energy required to run the lasers, and to power the confinement structure. As Scott notes, they are really putting 100x energy in.
For the first time ever in a laboratory, researchers were able to generate more energy from fusion reactions than they used to start the process. The total gain was around 150%.
"America has achieved a tremendous scientific breakthrough," Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said at a press conference.
The achievement came at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a $3.5 billion laser complex at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. For more than a decade, NIF has struggled to meet its stated goal of producing a fusion reaction that generates more energy than it consumes.
The analogy here is that this new experiment is supposed to show that it is possible to generate fusion energy, even if the overall efficiency is lousy. Quantum supremacy is supposed to show that it is possible to generate a super-Turing computation, even if it is completely useless.
Update: I added this comment:@fred: You say that events are either caused by the previous state (determinism), or independent of it (random), and magic pixie dust is the only other possibility.Update: Another comment:
Consciousness is the other possible cause. My conscious state appears inscrutable to you. You cannot model it, and my decisions appear unpredictable. You as might as well call them random, if you cannot predict them. I cannot really explain it either, except to say that I am more sure of it than any of my perceptions. Cogito ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am.)
Readers here might say I could be a troll or an AI bot, and hence not to be believed. Fine, decide for yourself. Do you really think that modern physics has explained causality so thoroughly as to rule out human consciousness? Or do you make decisions everyday that science cannot predict or explain?They got a breakthrough on Nuclear Fusion. No one now can say quantum computing is the nuclear fusion of the 60s.Not sure if this is intended to be sarcastic. Quantum computing is more like nuclear fusion than ever, with both fields making big splashes with supremacy claims of no practical significance.