Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

The Quantum Theory No One Dares Explain! David Deutsch Timestamp: 02:15 – David Deutsch introduces the idea that infinity is not just a mathematical abstraction but a physical reality. 06:42 – He emphasizes that understanding infinity is central to progress in both science and philosophy. 11:03 – Discussion on...

Briankeating's profile picture

Prof. Brian Keating

57,103 subscribers

37,867 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

EğitimBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

My conversation with David Deutsch (David Deutsch). David is the author of The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity. He is known as the father of quantum computing for his contributions to the field. He is an advocate of Taking Children Seriously, a new, non-paternalistic view of children. Topics we discuss are well captured by the timestamps below. Links to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify and transcript in thread below. Timestamps: 0:22 - Happiness is a state of continually solving one’s problems 4:54 - Both free-will and the self exist 12:06 - The principle of optimism 17:28 - Any ultimate explanation is a bad explanation 20:22 - The origins of Taking Children Seriously 25:33 - Why children are the most coerced members in society 31:33 - Anarcho-capitalism
40:37

My conversation with David Deutsch (David Deutsch). David is the author of The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity. He is known as the father of quantum computing for his contributions to the field. He is an advocate of Taking Children Seriously, a new, non-paternalistic view of children. Topics we discuss are well captured by the timestamps below. Links to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify and transcript in thread below. Timestamps: 0:22 - Happiness is a state of continually solving one’s problems 4:54 - Both free-will and the self exist 12:06 - The principle of optimism 17:28 - Any ultimate explanation is a bad explanation 20:22 - The origins of Taking Children Seriously 25:33 - Why children are the most coerced members in society 31:33 - Anarcho-capitalism

Arjun Khemani

470,695 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

.David Deutsch: Everyone can and should be a scientist, because being a scientist just means wanting to understand the world and using the only method of doing so that works, namely, to be puzzled, to be mistaken, to guess how one might be mistaken and how the grand authorities who can't imagine that they could be mistaken often are, and not to be satisfied with bad explanations, one's own or anyone's, that is, explanations that could have otherwise and you'd be none the wiser. That's the critical attitude. It's the only access to reality that we have. Use it. It's fun.
0:51

.David Deutsch: Everyone can and should be a scientist, because being a scientist just means wanting to understand the world and using the only method of doing so that works, namely, to be puzzled, to be mistaken, to guess how one might be mistaken and how the grand authorities who can't imagine that they could be mistaken often are, and not to be satisfied with bad explanations, one's own or anyone's, that is, explanations that could have otherwise and you'd be none the wiser. That's the critical attitude. It's the only access to reality that we have. Use it. It's fun.

Deutsch Explains

21,535 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The pursuit of AI is the pursuit of knowledge. And knowledge has no endpoint. Intelligence is being turned into a commodity, scaled like any other industrial resource. But what it unlocks is something far more profound. David Deutsch calls it the beginning of infinity. That idea feels especially relevant now. As AI expands our capacity to understand complex systems from biology to medicine to physics we are not approaching a finish line. We are stepping into a phase where discovery becomes continuous.
1:05

The pursuit of AI is the pursuit of knowledge. And knowledge has no endpoint. Intelligence is being turned into a commodity, scaled like any other industrial resource. But what it unlocks is something far more profound. David Deutsch calls it the beginning of infinity. That idea feels especially relevant now. As AI expands our capacity to understand complex systems from biology to medicine to physics we are not approaching a finish line. We are stepping into a phase where discovery becomes continuous.

Nina Schick

44,128 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

The mode of existence of the world can be understood as the set of its fundamental characteristics that make both its existence and its transformations possible. In other words, what basic properties must a world possess for its evolutionary existence to be possible at all? Among the key aspects, several can be identified: (a) physical space must be either finite or infinite; (b) if infinite, this infinity must be either spherical or linear; (c) physical reality must possess the capacity to generate vast, stable structures and highly complex phenomena — which, according to our observations, it indeed does; (d) this capacity, as an active self-organizing property, must either have a beginning or be beginningless — that is, it either existed eternally, or the world was originally maximally simple and static before this property spontaneously emerged. : The author proposes that the mode of existence of the world is defined by a set of fundamental characteristics that make both its persistence and its transformations possible. In other words, for any reality capable of evolutionary development to arise, certain basic properties must be present. Physical space must be either finite or infinite. If infinite, its geometry must be either spherical or linear. Physical reality must possess the inherent capacity to generate vast, stable structures and highly complex phenomena, as we observe in our own universe. Finally, this self-organizing property must either have existed eternally or have emerged spontaneously at a certain moment from an originally simple and static state. This framework invites us to consider the minimal conditions required for a universe like ours to evolve intelligence and complexity. It frames the question of cosmic origins not as a mystery of creation from nothing, but as an inquiry into the necessary and sufficient properties of matter and space that allow reality to unfold as it has.
0:57

The mode of existence of the world can be understood as the set of its fundamental characteristics that make both its existence and its transformations possible. In other words, what basic properties must a world possess for its evolutionary existence to be possible at all? Among the key aspects, several can be identified: (a) physical space must be either finite or infinite; (b) if infinite, this infinity must be either spherical or linear; (c) physical reality must possess the capacity to generate vast, stable structures and highly complex phenomena — which, according to our observations, it indeed does; (d) this capacity, as an active self-organizing property, must either have a beginning or be beginningless — that is, it either existed eternally, or the world was originally maximally simple and static before this property spontaneously emerged. : The author proposes that the mode of existence of the world is defined by a set of fundamental characteristics that make both its persistence and its transformations possible. In other words, for any reality capable of evolutionary development to arise, certain basic properties must be present. Physical space must be either finite or infinite. If infinite, its geometry must be either spherical or linear. Physical reality must possess the inherent capacity to generate vast, stable structures and highly complex phenomena, as we observe in our own universe. Finally, this self-organizing property must either have existed eternally or have emerged spontaneously at a certain moment from an originally simple and static state. This framework invites us to consider the minimal conditions required for a universe like ours to evolve intelligence and complexity. It frames the question of cosmic origins not as a mystery of creation from nothing, but as an inquiry into the necessary and sufficient properties of matter and space that allow reality to unfold as it has.

Zafar Mirzo | Quotes

1,851,902 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

First, Happy New Year everyone! It's been a wild ride. I can't wait for 2026, LFG! I love you all! ❤️ Second, here's my conversation with Joel David Hamkins (Joel David Hamkins), mathematician and philosopher specializing in set theory, the foundations of mathematics, and the nature of infinity. We talk about paradoxes that challenged some of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, Gödel Incompleteness theorems, the mathematical multiverse, the nature of truth, computation, and much more. By the way, Joel is the #1 highest-rated user on MathOverflow, and writes a great blog called "Infinitely More". It's here on X in full and is up everywhere else (see comment). Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 2:17 - Infinity & paradoxes 49:27 - Russell's paradox 1:02:35 - Gödel's incompleteness theorems 1:20:06 - Truth vs proof 1:31:30 - The Halting Problem 1:47:23 - Does infinity exist? 2:04:57 - MathOverflow 2:08:49 - The Continuum Hypothesis 2:18:36 - Hardest problems in mathematics 2:28:03 - Mathematical multiverse 2:46:55 - Surreal numbers 2:57:33 - Conway's Game of Life 2:59:49 - Computability theory 3:09:41 - P vs NP 3:12:58 - Greatest mathematicians in history 3:26:43 - Infinite chess 3:45:01 - Most beautiful idea in mathematics
3:52:17

First, Happy New Year everyone! It's been a wild ride. I can't wait for 2026, LFG! I love you all! ❤️ Second, here's my conversation with Joel David Hamkins (Joel David Hamkins), mathematician and philosopher specializing in set theory, the foundations of mathematics, and the nature of infinity. We talk about paradoxes that challenged some of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, Gödel Incompleteness theorems, the mathematical multiverse, the nature of truth, computation, and much more. By the way, Joel is the #1 highest-rated user on MathOverflow, and writes a great blog called "Infinitely More". It's here on X in full and is up everywhere else (see comment). Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 2:17 - Infinity & paradoxes 49:27 - Russell's paradox 1:02:35 - Gödel's incompleteness theorems 1:20:06 - Truth vs proof 1:31:30 - The Halting Problem 1:47:23 - Does infinity exist? 2:04:57 - MathOverflow 2:08:49 - The Continuum Hypothesis 2:18:36 - Hardest problems in mathematics 2:28:03 - Mathematical multiverse 2:46:55 - Surreal numbers 2:57:33 - Conway's Game of Life 2:59:49 - Computability theory 3:09:41 - P vs NP 3:12:58 - Greatest mathematicians in history 3:26:43 - Infinite chess 3:45:01 - Most beautiful idea in mathematics

Lex Fridman

516,714 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

––Mathias Döpfner: Sam, is it actually true that your kind of favorite book is The Beginning of Infinity of Dieter Deutsch? Sam Altman: Yeah, I think if I had to pick one favorite book, I would pick that. ––Mathias Döpfner: Why is that so fascinating? Can you explain that? Sam Altman: Even if you don't read the whole thing, the first like 40-50 pages are, I think, the most wonderfully optimistic take on why, even in a world with AI, we're never going to run out of things to do and ways to be useful and problems to solve and things to explore. But I also think it explains so beautifully how we got here and why the relatively simple process that we've followed throughout human history got us to this incredible place. ––Mathias Döpfner: Okay, that's good, because David Deutsch, I think, is going to be our last virtual guest, at least tonight. David Deutsch is a physicist and scientist from Oxford University. And I think also you have disagreements with him about the possibility that artificial intelligence is transforming into superintelligence with consciousness, perhaps even. He thinks it cannot be the case. You think it should be the case. Here he is, David Deutsch. Welcome. And perhaps you can elaborate a little bit on that disagreement, but also why you admire Sam Altman. Sam Altman: Well, I don't care about that. I just want to hear your disagreement. David Deutsch: Okay, I can tell you. Well, on my computer, I keep a list of progress that has been achieved where I had previously been sure that it wasn't yet possible. One of the items I'm embarrassed to admit was the World Wide Web. Another was that I thought that no computer program would be able to sustain open-ended conversation on general subjects in natural language unless that program was an AGI, an artificial general intelligence. So it would have, I prefer to call, explanatory creativity. ChatGPT proved me wrong. It's not an AGI, and it can converse. That ability was a side effect of another, namely knowledge. The Eliza chatbot in the 1960s used little more than the words and phrases you told it. ChatGPT can chat about anything drawing on a vast body of knowledge, which was a phenomenally useful combination. For some people, too useful. They think they're speaking to a person, an AGI, just as the first users of Eliza treated it as if it were a person. Which brings me to a widespread myth of the Turing test. In reality, Alan Turing never proposed a test or benchmark for AGI. His imitation game wasn't a test of ethics, but a thought experiment to torpedo the intuition that machines can't think. Indeed, there can be no benchmark, because to be general, an AGI must be capable of choosing to remain silent. This is already a proof that AGI cannot be made via existing approaches, while those can and must be judged by benchmarks. Conversely, if something outputs a new explanation, you can't test for whether it created that or a human did, even you yourself when you administered the test. In Edison's phrase, there's the inspiration part, which only humans and AGIs can do, and the perspiration part, from which AGIs can liberate us. So, if there's no test, how do we know that humans are general intelligences? By telling their story. Human thought doesn't consist of mechanically converting motivations into actions, prompts into output. It's mainly about choosing motivations. Just as science is not extracting theories from data, it's seeing a problem, guessing explanations, criticizing and testing them. So how can you tell whether something is doing that? You can't, always. Sometimes it really is a bot you're chatting to, but when you have no explanation saying that you yourself are a bot, or that humans in general are, it's rational to assume that they aren't. Some people have fun questioning whether Einstein really created the theory of relativity or only assembled it mechanically from a smorgasbord of existing ideas. We know he created it because we know his story, what problems he was addressing, and why. Just as we know that Sam Altman, without having to write any code, brought ChatGPT into existence as a product and a phenomenon by having the intuition and the gumption to know that this was the right thing for humanity to try next. Nothing can program a computer to have such intuitions, yet. Sam Altman: Can I ask one question? David Deutsch: My guess. Sam Altman: You mentioned Einstein and general relativity, and I agree, I think that's one of the most beautiful things humanity's ever figured out. Maybe I would even say number one. And Einstein had a story, we knew what he was working on. If in a few years, GPT-8 figured out quantum gravity and could tell you its story of how it did it and the problems it was thinking about and why it decided to work on it, would But it still just looked like a language model output, but it was the real, it really did solve it. Would you call it like, then would you say, I appreciate that you keep a list of things you're wrong about. I do too. But would that be enough to convince you? David Deutsch: I think it would. Yeah. Sam Altman: All right. I'll take you up... David Deutsch: It's crucial here. Sam Altman: I agree to that as the test. ––Mathias Döpfner: David, thank you so much for joining us and thank you for your uplifting words and have a great evening. David Deutsch, a pioneer of quantum computing, one of the most brilliant thinkers of our times. Thank you for joining.
7:25

––Mathias Döpfner: Sam, is it actually true that your kind of favorite book is The Beginning of Infinity of Dieter Deutsch? Sam Altman: Yeah, I think if I had to pick one favorite book, I would pick that. ––Mathias Döpfner: Why is that so fascinating? Can you explain that? Sam Altman: Even if you don't read the whole thing, the first like 40-50 pages are, I think, the most wonderfully optimistic take on why, even in a world with AI, we're never going to run out of things to do and ways to be useful and problems to solve and things to explore. But I also think it explains so beautifully how we got here and why the relatively simple process that we've followed throughout human history got us to this incredible place. ––Mathias Döpfner: Okay, that's good, because David Deutsch, I think, is going to be our last virtual guest, at least tonight. David Deutsch is a physicist and scientist from Oxford University. And I think also you have disagreements with him about the possibility that artificial intelligence is transforming into superintelligence with consciousness, perhaps even. He thinks it cannot be the case. You think it should be the case. Here he is, David Deutsch. Welcome. And perhaps you can elaborate a little bit on that disagreement, but also why you admire Sam Altman. Sam Altman: Well, I don't care about that. I just want to hear your disagreement. David Deutsch: Okay, I can tell you. Well, on my computer, I keep a list of progress that has been achieved where I had previously been sure that it wasn't yet possible. One of the items I'm embarrassed to admit was the World Wide Web. Another was that I thought that no computer program would be able to sustain open-ended conversation on general subjects in natural language unless that program was an AGI, an artificial general intelligence. So it would have, I prefer to call, explanatory creativity. ChatGPT proved me wrong. It's not an AGI, and it can converse. That ability was a side effect of another, namely knowledge. The Eliza chatbot in the 1960s used little more than the words and phrases you told it. ChatGPT can chat about anything drawing on a vast body of knowledge, which was a phenomenally useful combination. For some people, too useful. They think they're speaking to a person, an AGI, just as the first users of Eliza treated it as if it were a person. Which brings me to a widespread myth of the Turing test. In reality, Alan Turing never proposed a test or benchmark for AGI. His imitation game wasn't a test of ethics, but a thought experiment to torpedo the intuition that machines can't think. Indeed, there can be no benchmark, because to be general, an AGI must be capable of choosing to remain silent. This is already a proof that AGI cannot be made via existing approaches, while those can and must be judged by benchmarks. Conversely, if something outputs a new explanation, you can't test for whether it created that or a human did, even you yourself when you administered the test. In Edison's phrase, there's the inspiration part, which only humans and AGIs can do, and the perspiration part, from which AGIs can liberate us. So, if there's no test, how do we know that humans are general intelligences? By telling their story. Human thought doesn't consist of mechanically converting motivations into actions, prompts into output. It's mainly about choosing motivations. Just as science is not extracting theories from data, it's seeing a problem, guessing explanations, criticizing and testing them. So how can you tell whether something is doing that? You can't, always. Sometimes it really is a bot you're chatting to, but when you have no explanation saying that you yourself are a bot, or that humans in general are, it's rational to assume that they aren't. Some people have fun questioning whether Einstein really created the theory of relativity or only assembled it mechanically from a smorgasbord of existing ideas. We know he created it because we know his story, what problems he was addressing, and why. Just as we know that Sam Altman, without having to write any code, brought ChatGPT into existence as a product and a phenomenon by having the intuition and the gumption to know that this was the right thing for humanity to try next. Nothing can program a computer to have such intuitions, yet. Sam Altman: Can I ask one question? David Deutsch: My guess. Sam Altman: You mentioned Einstein and general relativity, and I agree, I think that's one of the most beautiful things humanity's ever figured out. Maybe I would even say number one. And Einstein had a story, we knew what he was working on. If in a few years, GPT-8 figured out quantum gravity and could tell you its story of how it did it and the problems it was thinking about and why it decided to work on it, would But it still just looked like a language model output, but it was the real, it really did solve it. Would you call it like, then would you say, I appreciate that you keep a list of things you're wrong about. I do too. But would that be enough to convince you? David Deutsch: I think it would. Yeah. Sam Altman: All right. I'll take you up... David Deutsch: It's crucial here. Sam Altman: I agree to that as the test. ––Mathias Döpfner: David, thank you so much for joining us and thank you for your uplifting words and have a great evening. David Deutsch, a pioneer of quantum computing, one of the most brilliant thinkers of our times. Thank you for joining.

Deutsch Explains

63,456 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

.David Deutsch: The equivalent of consilience, that is, the unified meta-theory, as you put it, for all sciences, and I think actually more than a meta-theory, because I think more links them than just the structure and methodology and so on, was discovered by Popper. Again, I don't know whether this is historically the order in which things happen, but he is famous for his political philosophy and for his philosophy of science, and he found at one point that they are the same, that they both are about problems and about the fact that there is no such instruction from without, there is only conjecture from within. So that's why Lamarckism is false and Darwinism is true, and that's why group selection is false and individual selection is true, and so on. So I think it's already there in Popper. I think there's a lot more to it, and I tried to add another couple of things to it, so quantum theory and computation, but there's a lot that isn't in it, like consciousness and creativity and so on, that we have no idea of how those work and how they fit in with those other things. Gad Saad: Forgive me for interrupting you, David, I'm sorry. There is a book by Dean Simington, who's a psychologist out of, I think, UC Davis, that actually offers a Darwinian account for creativity. It's actually quite mind-blowing. So keep that in mind. I can give you the reference later, but go ahead. David Deutsch: I don't read such things unless they've already made an AGI. Gad Saad: I see. Okay, fair enough. David Deutsch: If they can't make an AGI, then they haven't got the full theory. They might have an idea for a theory, but then Popper has an idea for a theory, but he couldn't make one either. And Turing thought that there'd be an AGI by the year 2000, and that it would require two megabytes of memory. Now, he's obviously wrong about the year 2000, but two megabytes of memory, I reckon that's what it'll be. In other words, these large language models and all this massive computer power is going in entirely the wrong direction. The answer will be a philosophical breakthrough, which will allow, once we understand what we're trying to make, it will be relatively easy to make it with relatively few computational resources.
2:58

.David Deutsch: The equivalent of consilience, that is, the unified meta-theory, as you put it, for all sciences, and I think actually more than a meta-theory, because I think more links them than just the structure and methodology and so on, was discovered by Popper. Again, I don't know whether this is historically the order in which things happen, but he is famous for his political philosophy and for his philosophy of science, and he found at one point that they are the same, that they both are about problems and about the fact that there is no such instruction from without, there is only conjecture from within. So that's why Lamarckism is false and Darwinism is true, and that's why group selection is false and individual selection is true, and so on. So I think it's already there in Popper. I think there's a lot more to it, and I tried to add another couple of things to it, so quantum theory and computation, but there's a lot that isn't in it, like consciousness and creativity and so on, that we have no idea of how those work and how they fit in with those other things. Gad Saad: Forgive me for interrupting you, David, I'm sorry. There is a book by Dean Simington, who's a psychologist out of, I think, UC Davis, that actually offers a Darwinian account for creativity. It's actually quite mind-blowing. So keep that in mind. I can give you the reference later, but go ahead. David Deutsch: I don't read such things unless they've already made an AGI. Gad Saad: I see. Okay, fair enough. David Deutsch: If they can't make an AGI, then they haven't got the full theory. They might have an idea for a theory, but then Popper has an idea for a theory, but he couldn't make one either. And Turing thought that there'd be an AGI by the year 2000, and that it would require two megabytes of memory. Now, he's obviously wrong about the year 2000, but two megabytes of memory, I reckon that's what it'll be. In other words, these large language models and all this massive computer power is going in entirely the wrong direction. The answer will be a philosophical breakthrough, which will allow, once we understand what we're trying to make, it will be relatively easy to make it with relatively few computational resources.

Deutsch Explains

33,398 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."
2:31

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."

Deutsch Explains

13,826 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Physicist Yakir Aharonov argues that the standard story of quantum mechanics is wrong, proposing a time-symmetric “two-state vector” view in which reality is defined by wavefunctions from both past and future. He explains weak measurements (information without collapse), nonlocal dynamics behind interference, and phenomena like the “quantum Cheshire Cat.” Aharonov recounts the birth of the Aharonov–Bohm effect, why gauge potentials mislead about locality, and how pre and post-selection restore causal insight without determinism. He shares memories of Bohm, Heisenberg, and Feynman, touches on gravitational and non-Abelian AB analogs, and lays out why a clear narrative—not just math—is essential to understanding quantum theory.
1:59

Physicist Yakir Aharonov argues that the standard story of quantum mechanics is wrong, proposing a time-symmetric “two-state vector” view in which reality is defined by wavefunctions from both past and future. He explains weak measurements (information without collapse), nonlocal dynamics behind interference, and phenomena like the “quantum Cheshire Cat.” Aharonov recounts the birth of the Aharonov–Bohm effect, why gauge potentials mislead about locality, and how pre and post-selection restore causal insight without determinism. He shares memories of Bohm, Heisenberg, and Feynman, touches on gravitational and non-Abelian AB analogs, and lays out why a clear narrative—not just math—is essential to understanding quantum theory.

Curt Jaimungal

106,417 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Quantum theory appears to allow some kind of connection between entangled particles, but not enough to send messages. Prof Antony Valentini argues this is a conspiracy: there must be something deeper than quantum, where nonlocality can actually be used to send messages, but it is hidden from view in standard quantum experiments. In this episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Valentini uses Pilot-wave theory to explain the physics of the nonlocal subquantum world. He discusses various ways that the theory could be experimentally tested, by looking for signatures of violations of the Born rule in extreme environments, such as the early universe. He also discusses the radical technological implications of subquantum physics, if we were able to harness it. Watch on YouTube or listen on audio platforms!
0:55

Quantum theory appears to allow some kind of connection between entangled particles, but not enough to send messages. Prof Antony Valentini argues this is a conspiracy: there must be something deeper than quantum, where nonlocality can actually be used to send messages, but it is hidden from view in standard quantum experiments. In this episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Valentini uses Pilot-wave theory to explain the physics of the nonlocal subquantum world. He discusses various ways that the theory could be experimentally tested, by looking for signatures of violations of the Born rule in extreme environments, such as the early universe. He also discusses the radical technological implications of subquantum physics, if we were able to harness it. Watch on YouTube or listen on audio platforms!

Dr Maria Violaris

23,732 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

I am a physicist and I'm profoundly opposed to any idea of non-physical explanations that contradict physics. So that's a no-no and really doesn't make sense. However, there are ways in which both emergent properties such as minds and life and so on have an effect. And as you said, also abstractions. Now the fact that the theory of good explanations led to the idea that abstractions are real things was slightly surprising to me. I wasn't expecting the link, at least wasn't expecting it to be so strong as it is. But the thing is, if you think about how to explain events, physical events like a footprint on the moon, how do you explain how that happened? Well, it happened because of human ideas, of science. And human ideas, you could say in this reductionist sense that as you rightly say is the prevailing mode of explanation and the prevailing idea is to look down on other modes of explanation, that those ideas are nothing more than configurations of atoms. So some physicists, some rocket scientists put their brain into certain configurations of atoms and those atoms then acted on other atoms which then ended up making a footprint on the moon. Now what that misses is the explanation of why certain configurations of atoms put footprints on the moon while others, the overwhelming majority of configurations that human brains, even human brains have been put into in history, do not have that effect. And it's because there's a certain type of information. And this information can't in my view be reduced to statements about atoms because if you think about what that information does, it is in brains but the same information then gets transferred into, let's say, sound waves in air and then it gets transferred into ink on paper and then it gets transferred into magnetic domains inside a computer which then control a machine that instantiates those ideas in bits of steel and silicon and so on and so on. There's an immense chain of instantiations of the same information. And it's only special kinds of information that have this property that they are preserved and instantiated in successive physical modes. So what is being transmitted, what is having the causal effect is not the atoms but the fact that the atoms instantiate certain kinds of information and not other kinds. So therefore it is the information that is having the causal effect. If a particular instantiation of that information were damaged, then processes would come along to fix it, whether or not they could fix the physical instantiation. For example, if the computer goes wrong, then we don't use the corrupted information. We go back and rescue the information from a different computer and we throw away the atoms that at one point instantiated it. So the information causes itself to remain in existence. Now I think there's no way out of that mode of explanation. And if explanation is going to be the fundamental thing about our criterion, for example, about what is or isn't real, then we have to say that information and this particular kind which we call knowledge is real and really does cause things. David Deutsch
6:05

I am a physicist and I'm profoundly opposed to any idea of non-physical explanations that contradict physics. So that's a no-no and really doesn't make sense. However, there are ways in which both emergent properties such as minds and life and so on have an effect. And as you said, also abstractions. Now the fact that the theory of good explanations led to the idea that abstractions are real things was slightly surprising to me. I wasn't expecting the link, at least wasn't expecting it to be so strong as it is. But the thing is, if you think about how to explain events, physical events like a footprint on the moon, how do you explain how that happened? Well, it happened because of human ideas, of science. And human ideas, you could say in this reductionist sense that as you rightly say is the prevailing mode of explanation and the prevailing idea is to look down on other modes of explanation, that those ideas are nothing more than configurations of atoms. So some physicists, some rocket scientists put their brain into certain configurations of atoms and those atoms then acted on other atoms which then ended up making a footprint on the moon. Now what that misses is the explanation of why certain configurations of atoms put footprints on the moon while others, the overwhelming majority of configurations that human brains, even human brains have been put into in history, do not have that effect. And it's because there's a certain type of information. And this information can't in my view be reduced to statements about atoms because if you think about what that information does, it is in brains but the same information then gets transferred into, let's say, sound waves in air and then it gets transferred into ink on paper and then it gets transferred into magnetic domains inside a computer which then control a machine that instantiates those ideas in bits of steel and silicon and so on and so on. There's an immense chain of instantiations of the same information. And it's only special kinds of information that have this property that they are preserved and instantiated in successive physical modes. So what is being transmitted, what is having the causal effect is not the atoms but the fact that the atoms instantiate certain kinds of information and not other kinds. So therefore it is the information that is having the causal effect. If a particular instantiation of that information were damaged, then processes would come along to fix it, whether or not they could fix the physical instantiation. For example, if the computer goes wrong, then we don't use the corrupted information. We go back and rescue the information from a different computer and we throw away the atoms that at one point instantiated it. So the information causes itself to remain in existence. Now I think there's no way out of that mode of explanation. And if explanation is going to be the fundamental thing about our criterion, for example, about what is or isn't real, then we have to say that information and this particular kind which we call knowledge is real and really does cause things. David Deutsch

Deutsch Explains

45,735 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen C. Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics. From the simple certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 to the mind-bending mathematics behind black holes and quantum physics, the conversation asks why abstract numbers—created in the human mind—map so perfectly onto the physical world. Is mathematics purely logical, or does it point to a deeper structure of reality that isn't material at all? Along the way, the panel explores beauty in science, the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math, and whether the concept of materialism can really explain the world we live in. This wide-ranging discussion blends mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics into a fascinating conversation about truth, beauty, and the nature of reality itself. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:
57:17

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen C. Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics. From the simple certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 to the mind-bending mathematics behind black holes and quantum physics, the conversation asks why abstract numbers—created in the human mind—map so perfectly onto the physical world. Is mathematics purely logical, or does it point to a deeper structure of reality that isn't material at all? Along the way, the panel explores beauty in science, the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math, and whether the concept of materialism can really explain the world we live in. This wide-ranging discussion blends mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics into a fascinating conversation about truth, beauty, and the nature of reality itself. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:

Hoover Institution

51,619 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Message from #LAKA ~ The First Created Expression "Spirit Existed Infinitely. This Is Not Possible For Human Understanding As Your Teaching Allows Only Beginnings And Endings. But Allow Your Heart And Mind To Open To All Possibilities." "There Is Only Infinity. From A Spiritual Perspective, What Is Linear Is An Illusion. In Timelessness, All Unfolds Together." "Spirit Became Aware Of Itself In Stillness. In A Moment Of A Moment, An Awareness To Know Itself Became Part Of What Would Be. This Desire To Allow Expressions In All Manners, Brought Movement. "This Was The First Intention That Would Create Galaxies And Levels Of Consciousness From One."
3:49

Message from #LAKA ~ The First Created Expression "Spirit Existed Infinitely. This Is Not Possible For Human Understanding As Your Teaching Allows Only Beginnings And Endings. But Allow Your Heart And Mind To Open To All Possibilities." "There Is Only Infinity. From A Spiritual Perspective, What Is Linear Is An Illusion. In Timelessness, All Unfolds Together." "Spirit Became Aware Of Itself In Stillness. In A Moment Of A Moment, An Awareness To Know Itself Became Part Of What Would Be. This Desire To Allow Expressions In All Manners, Brought Movement. "This Was The First Intention That Would Create Galaxies And Levels Of Consciousness From One."

Kab

71,516 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Here is a video that challenges our understanding of human intelligence and progress. Judging by the ancient images, it seems that we are not so unique when it comes to technology. The poses of people reminiscent of using tablets and the drawings depicting car-like vehicles and aeroplanes suggest that all this existed in the past? We may not be the first to have achieved such technological progress. What if other civilisations had already travelled the same path of development and thinking that we are going through now? It is very likely that we are just a repeated link in an infinite chain. History, as we know, is often rewritten and we only have fragments of knowledge of the past. Think about it, what if all that we consider our own achievement was actually the path of ancient knowledge and technology undertaken by someone else, which we are rediscovering for ourselves?😉
0:44

Here is a video that challenges our understanding of human intelligence and progress. Judging by the ancient images, it seems that we are not so unique when it comes to technology. The poses of people reminiscent of using tablets and the drawings depicting car-like vehicles and aeroplanes suggest that all this existed in the past? We may not be the first to have achieved such technological progress. What if other civilisations had already travelled the same path of development and thinking that we are going through now? It is very likely that we are just a repeated link in an infinite chain. History, as we know, is often rewritten and we only have fragments of knowledge of the past. Think about it, what if all that we consider our own achievement was actually the path of ancient knowledge and technology undertaken by someone else, which we are rediscovering for ourselves?😉

Andy

61,959 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

I first met David Jolly when we served together in Congress. We were part of a small bipartisan group of Floridians who met regularly to talk about how we could work together for our state. That mattered then, and it matters even more now. What I came to know about David is simple: he is a good human being. That should matter in leadership. Decency, honesty, and care for others are not Democratic traits or Republican traits. They are human traits. And that is the kind of leader I believe Florida needs.
1:09

I first met David Jolly when we served together in Congress. We were part of a small bipartisan group of Floridians who met regularly to talk about how we could work together for our state. That mattered then, and it matters even more now. What I came to know about David is simple: he is a good human being. That should matter in leadership. Decency, honesty, and care for others are not Democratic traits or Republican traits. They are human traits. And that is the kind of leader I believe Florida needs.

Gwen Graham

15,451 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis believes there is virtually no limit to what AI can eventually achieve. "humans as biological information processing systems". He is working on the premise that the entire universe is "computable," meaning that anything that exists can technically be modeled by a machine. He says that a powerful enough computer—conceptually known as a Turing machine—should be able to simulate every aspect of reality. Until physics proves that something is impossible to calculate, he is operating on the belief that AI can solve any problem. This perspective even applies to the things that feel uniquely human. When asked about physical sensations, like feeling the warmth of a light or hearing background noise, Hassabis argued that these are just forms of information being processed by the brain. He views humans as biological information processing systems. By treating biology and reality essentially as data, he believes we will not only replicate human capabilities but also solve complex challenges, such as curing all diseases, by decoding the information of life itself.
1:57

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis believes there is virtually no limit to what AI can eventually achieve. "humans as biological information processing systems". He is working on the premise that the entire universe is "computable," meaning that anything that exists can technically be modeled by a machine. He says that a powerful enough computer—conceptually known as a Turing machine—should be able to simulate every aspect of reality. Until physics proves that something is impossible to calculate, he is operating on the belief that AI can solve any problem. This perspective even applies to the things that feel uniquely human. When asked about physical sensations, like feeling the warmth of a light or hearing background noise, Hassabis argued that these are just forms of information being processed by the brain. He views humans as biological information processing systems. By treating biology and reality essentially as data, he believes we will not only replicate human capabilities but also solve complex challenges, such as curing all diseases, by decoding the information of life itself.

Rohan Paul

84,528 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce