00:00 -- EISM logo and website sequence 00:28 -- Introduction and key takeaways by Razo 02:01 -- The two kinds of quantum nonsense 02:46 -- When science and nature allow different interpretations 03:16 -- BS is often in the eye of the beholder 03:41 -- The question to measure both types of quantum BS 05:20 -- Conversation begins 05:53 -- Was Ferrie funny as a kid? 06:32 -- Have Ferrie's kids inherited his sense of humor? 07:23 -- How Ferrie's approach to writing came about 08:45 -- Ferrie talks about his approximately 60 books 09:36 -- Ferries says the best way to learn is to teach 10:59 -- Ferrie comments on how he covers science and philosophy 13:09 -- Ferrie's more serious activity as an academic 14:41 -- Ferrie's distinction between quantum bullshit and horseshit in media 17:08 -- Which quantum approach is the most promising? 19:02 -- How quantum concepts are misused to bamboozle the public 21:32 -- What has been the response to Ferrie's "exposé" of quantum BS? 22:33 -- Ferrie comments on the nonsensical theories he gets from the public 24:00 -- The link between popular quantum BS and academic interpretations 24:28 -- The many worlds interpretation of quantum theory 26:31 -- Ferrie on how quantum BS gets pushed by the academic community 29:02 -- Ferrie on quasi-retired physicists getting together at conferences 29:57 -- BS physics polls by, for example, Max Tegmark 31:08 -- The Dirac / Von Neumann interpretation of quantum physics 33:23 -- Ferrie explains the many-worlds interpretation 34:15 -- Ferrie explains quantum baysesian interpretation 36:09 -- Razo asks, what is the purpose of studying physics? 37:11 -- Feyman's approach to interpretation and story telling in physics 38:16 -- Razo on what humans universally agree we DON'T want to happen 41:29 -- Ferries separates physics from politics and psychology 43:50 -- Razo on why human survival should be a guide to evaluate stories 45:10 -- Ferrie explains how education is the most promising approach 45:48 -- The equivalence of different pictures or stories of nature 46:32 -- Ferrie prefers to teach that there is no right approach or story 49:50 -- Ferrie on the uncrossable gulf between physics and human goals 50:27 -- Razo on human disagreement, physics, and politics (voting theory) 53:02 -- Ferrie on the limits of making analogies a la Deepak Chopra 53:56 -- Ferrie on the quantum BS of Michael Freedman 54:36 -- Ferrie on the limits of the "physicalist" approach to the world 56:29 -- Razo on the centrality of disagreements and political theory 57:45 -- Razo asks Ferrie about his quantum take on free will 1:00:40 -- Ferrie on how humans "volitionally" project into the future 1:02:03 -- Razo on Aharanov's two-time approach to free will and time 1:03:29 -- Where to follow Ferrie and next steps for Ferrie's book
On the topic brought up about extinction, it seems obvious that we don't all want to avoid extinction. There are some among us who have promoted global warming through deforestation (usually for economic reasons), which could be an issue of greed. To influence scientists towards moral and ethical methods (those that result in our continued thriving as a biosphere) of developing technologies and performing research seems the most logical answer to the problem of perverse incentives to develop and publish research. Science departments use undergrads, doc's and post-doc's for the sole purpose of securing research funding. When the impetus is to develop knowledge that furthers our thriving as a biosphere, we will collect information assisting us in attaining a worthwhile goal. Thank you for hosting this discussion, BTW.
I have one for you, can anyone explain thru math or science why there is homelessness? Or the benefits of our worlds political structure, in fact, I think even a simple child can explain or describe simple ideas of far better use and application, I go to Williamsburg Virginia w my family often for vacation, there is a colonial era hospital as an attraction, I watched the will Ferrell movie Sherlock Holmes, the statement he makes are what ull see at the hospital, the complete certainty of their medical knowledge and practices, yet now we literally are repulsed and horrified by the methods used as so called health, as example look at George Washingtons death,
Thank you very much for sharing your insights and wisdoms filled videos and conversations !! Intelligent and educational !! Outstanding !! Greetings from California … I wish you and folks and all good health, success and happiness !! Much Love ✌️😎💕
Hello Louis, as a tangent to our discussion below, I have analyzed the Aharanov-Bohm effect and I find that at least the explanation that I am reading about it seems to be in error. I submit the following: similar to "the Lagrange" point, this is the point where gravity is in an "equilibrium" state. I submit therefore, that the conclusion of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect is not a novel quantum effect where magnetic field does not exist but simply the fact that the magnetic fields are in equilibrium. They are however, still present. (this was just my observation). I don't anticipate that this affects the overall theme of the main discussion.
If I remember right, I brought up the Aharanov-Bohm effect and the role that the square root of -1 plays in quantum mechanics to respond to your contention that math is "just an anology". If I understand your most recent comment above, you are saying that the Aharanov-Bohm effect and quantum phase spaces are "just analogies"? If you can elaborate, I will respond as soon as I can. Thanks.
@@eismscience I had spent some time examining Aharanov-Bohm Effect as a "novel quantum effect" simply out of curiosity when I realized that the paper itself describing the effect probably made a fairly large error (although I am not an expert on physics, so the error could be mine)... but basically, the paper describes the quantum effect as novel effect. The essentials of the experiment are: That charged particles passing between 2 wires experience a (quantum) phase shift due to the electromagnetic potential and very specifically "in the absence of a magnetic field in the region" where the particles are moving. It is my conjecture that something must be "incorrect" with the theory that a "region" had no magnetic field, and instead the region must have a magnetic field, but perhaps the magnetic field was in equilibrium... similar to how gravity has Lagrange points. In that case if the region actually had a magnetic field in equilibrium it wouldn't be a novel effect but more like Aharonov-Casher effect? (At least that is my supposition). On the other hand, I could be wrong, and the authors might be well aware that the magnetic field was in equilibrium. I am simply arguing that there has to be a magnetic field in the region, but that it is in "equilibrium, therefore it appears as 0". I brought up another example: The Lagrange point as a classic example where something "appears" as 0, but it is simply an equilibrium of various gravitational pulls. None of this has anything to do with our discussion on "how best to make group decisions"... it was just a side note.
Thanks for this interview. I do agree that when I see some book length replies I get worried (I also tend to write them so, I must be cognizant of the potential there). But, yes, the more I interact with people on some of these channels the more I realize I encounter ideas and ideals that are just incredibly out there and ungrounded. Unfortunately, Quantum Science is one of those fields where I feel that the science doesn't seem quite right. As Christopher Ferrie mentioned the theoretical "Many worlds" idea, seems exactly as he calls it (24:30). However, it is very hard to prove something doesn't exist when it falls outside the realm of our Universe. But, I do feel it is somewhat irresponsible for some scientists to push this idea of many worlds when the evidence is sorely absent. However, I also don't have a good feel for Quantum Science overall. And my opinion is that several of the popular conclusions for experiments in quantum science are poor. It is Ironic, that I don't believe in the Many Worlds Theory, AND I also don't believe in CO2 as the driving force for Climate Change. Again, I am not saying that climate change doesn't exist... I just don't think that the driving force for it is CO2. I personally believe that there are other factors causing the average temperature of the Earth to increase. For example, what is the possibility that Nuclear Reactors are heating the Earth? Re: How many sides does a circle have:... There's 2 interesting ways to answer that: The Theoretical one: (Infinite or perhaps 1 outside or 2 for hollow)... and the "real world"... for the "real world" you must first answer an important additional question: Is there actually something we can call a "circle" if the shape is geometrically composed of sides...? I do disagree with how Christopher Ferrie views the definition of "Science"... as "a way in which we compartmentalize the world so that its easier to tell each other stories about our common existence"... I am not sure if he just accidentally decided to spew that out ... or if he actually believes it is just "stories"... but unless he is thinking "non-fiction"... he basically called science a bunch of "stories"... which is in my opinion a very poor view of science. Science is NOT just a bunch of stories... its our attempt to show that the world and existence is not merely random occurrence but rather there are specific rules that the Universe follows and if one pays close enough attention, these rules allow us to predict and to make things happen... examples of "science" we see all the time are found in how humans work in the fields of chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, etc... so, I am not happy with his definition of Science. But I am going to assume he wasn't thinking about how that came out... and probably he would go back an edit that to say it differently. Of course Science has a purpose... but it is not a specific purpose. It is a tool to help people achieve any number of goals... should the purpose include preventing the extinction of humanity? Of course... but, just like any tool... it can be used for good or bad. Is it possible that there are use cases for Nuclear Weapons that involve saving the world from annihilation? (Can they be used to divert a planet killer for example?) Luis, I think I finally see where you are coming from with regard to the Interpretations... but the thing you also include in your statements is that "the theory / interpretations are all equal" except how we view them... ie they are both "Mathematically and Experimentally Confirmed". But how does that really help us? The only difference is our "view" of them.. not the reality that they describe. Thus, wouldn't it simply be a case of self-delusion that picking the view that "Science Theory A" which purports that we won't exterminate ourselves... vs Science Theory B... which allows for the possibility? I think this: (48:32) is something I have tried to explain many times on this particular channel. It is NOT possible to do what you want to do without also destroying the foundation of what you value most... things like freedom and the freedoms to choose. While I understand that Nuclear Weapons are a tremendous issue, war of any kind... disease, famine, disaster, they ALL contribute to the risk of lost life. We can use science to reduce the risk of famine, disease, disaster etc, but there will always be cultures and countries with cultures that are vastly opposed to our own. Perhaps one way to provide less risk... would be to use it to reduce poverty, hunger, disaster, and disease to the point where abundance is so available that no one needs to be at war...
Thanks for your comment, Marc. I can't respond to everything you've written, so I will limit my response to your last point, wherein you express agreement with Ferrie about the impossibility of connecting fundamental laws to human goals (48:32). What I've tried to get across in my response to Ferrie regarding this question is that people, including accomplished scientists, disagree with Ferrie (see my talks with past channel guests Geoffrey West, Adrian Bejan, Michael Levin, Karl Friston, Vitaly Vanchurin, and Michael Freedman). Why? Because science has not provided a definitve answer to this question yet. When science has not provided definitive answers on any given question, there is room for different "stories". Ferrie is simply offering his "story". Humans disagree about "stories". In fact, the science of human disagreement is formally studied in several academic disciplines, among them political theory, game theory, and social choice theory. So the main idea being proposed here is that we should give preference to "stories" in physics that can be connected, rigorously and experimentally, to the biggest open questions in political theory, game theory and social choice, especially if these connections can be made in a way that enhance human well-being. This is a no-brainer. Let me repeat that for the sake of clarity: in physics and in any science, replicable experiments are the single most important yardstick by which to evaluate any model or "story". When experiments do not provide a definitive response to a given question, different stories and interpretations are valid and even healthy in terms of moving science forward. Among these valid scientific stories, if humans want to remain alive, we should give preference to those stories that reduce the probability of human extinction. If human existence does not matter, then of course, there is no reason to prefer one story over any other story - but nobody in their right mind, including Ferrie, believes that human existence does not matter. All of this is common sense. If anybody thinks I am missing something, I would be thrilled to talk about it on camera. I've been issueing this invitation for a very long time and have yet to find anybody who disagree. Presumably, it will be even more difficult to find anybody who disagrees and is willing to explain themselves on camera. Thanks again for your continued interest, Marc.
@@eismscience Hello Luis. Yes, we should give preference to the stories that reduce the probability of Human Extinction. My question to you is which story has a higher "chance" of success. So, yes, give preference to the stories that reduce the probability of human extinction, but at least look at the options by sorting them in some useful way and remove the "options" that do so much damage that they would not be worth using. For example: Solutions that involve going to war wouldn't really be a beneficial solution since the method to get the end result is terrifying. And to my point, solutions that involve quantum physics minutiae are so far below other possible methods to reduce the risk, given that there is little to no evidence at all that this affects human behavior in a global fashion or has any protective effect on "anything". Unless, you happen to have a science paper that shows such for a population of humans? So I could be agreeable to this idea of physics minutiae affecting behavior if you had some scientific literature that showed a beneficial effect on a population of humans that underwent some sort of "Physics" manipulation, and then the incidence of (War, Morbidity, Mortality) all decreased.
@@marcfruchtman9473 Thanks for your eminently reasonable response. Two comments: 1. You ask for a paper on the puported connection between fundamental physics and social science. Here are two: tinyurl.com/42e3ywbv arxiv.org/abs/2209.08144. 2. Given the work referenced above, a proper scientific response, in my view, is to either demonstrate where the logic or proposed science fails, and/or (prefereably and) propose a better alternative to safeguard human existence. If I am missing something, I would be open to what that might be. Thanks again.
@@eismscience Hello Luis, the scientific paper (Prospecting a Possible Quadratic Wormhole Between Quantum Mechanics and Plurality) is presenting a "mathematical analogy". It is not a paper demonstrating "cause and effect". Specifically, "the analogy between norm-squared of the sum of amplitudes in quantum mechanics and the square of the sum of weighted contributions in quadratic finance. ". To give a "joking analogy": Imagine there is a basic observable law that states the strength of gravitation varies inversely with the square of the distance. Now imagine I wrote a paper showing that rich people get richer by the square of their investment and claimed that the mathematical analogy was present and therefore gravity and Wealth are now connected by a "wormhole"... (as announced in that paper) so with joking respect... that is ridiculous (I mean the gravity and the wealth connection)... So, I cannot possibly accept that the paper as presented is reasonable evidence that a solid connection between Quadratic Funding and Quantum Mechanics exists other than to say, the "math" is similar? And of course that pretty much everything is subject to QM and Physics (with Free-will being an example of an external factor IMHO) but that is not enough to show a significant cause effect relationship. (No more than blowing on a dandelion in Canada has an effect on weather patterns in Zimbabwe).
I like this guy but im amazed how he got the comparison to climate change exactly opposite of reality. In reality climate science is boring but the people getting all of the air time on the subject are the alarmists and extremists. His comparison is accurate but in the opposite way if how he explained it.
Whatever. I assume De Broglie's pilot wave theory (not Bohm's pilot wave theory) is the best theory. It is deterministic, it allows a very interesting reinterpretation of Born's fundamental QM rule, which is a rule that may not be universally valid for all quantum systems, which means that pilot wave theory is a more general theory than standard Copenhagen QM theory, that treats Born's rule as fundamental and universally true for all quantum systems. See the papers by dr. Antony Valentini.
I wonder if Mr Ferrie will read Robert Sapolsky's book on free will or what he proposes the lack thereof. I tend to put more weight behind a neuroscientist than a physicist on that topic.
Thanks for your input. I don't think it's the academic discipline that is moving your beliefs on free wiill. Your feelings about free will are probably more a matter of ideology or preference or emotion. Our interview with respected neuroscientst Kevin Mitchell, who debated directly with Sapolsky, would help you see that - maybe.
It's actually a step in the right direction. A tiny, wobbly step that lands the walker flat on their arse but a step none the less. It is wildly inaccurate, misinterpreted, misrepresented, partially conceived etc etc but at least it begins the legitimate conversation that the spectrum of reality extends far beyond the physical plane of existence that our sensory perception and societal conditioning lead us to perceive inadvertently conceive as being the totality of a tangible reality. The fact the Standard Model, Thermodynamics, Cosmology etc etc, all irrefutably demand the physical universe and it's apparent forces are absolutely a closed system does not help either. At least Quantum Quackery will inevitably insist the door to be acknowledged as open and the real discussions and investigations can begin. Besides, it is no less comical/depressing than the current state of theoretical mathematics and what passes for scientific rigour and method these days. 0, Infinity, multiplication, base 10, equations which MUST balance perfectly and have a qualitative value for any remainder, individual units which all combine to infer the sum and value of the whole.... And don't get me started on the principles and 'laws' of 'known facts' Scientific celebrity like NDGT irritate me more than what is a probably a reasonable amount. Makes my blood boil, especially when proclaiming to be a prodigy of Sagan and be following in his footsteps. 😡 Even if you want to develop the fringe sciences, you are hopelessly constrained from taking any reasonably authentic perspective as the unquestionable 'laws' (with no valid proof or explanation, or even a model capable of accurately predicting what it declares itself capable of.) corrupt the very essence of the matter which is trying to be explored and/or improved. Infuriating..... So as ridiculous and retarded as QT is, at least it's a step beyond the dogmatic prison of the last 80-100yrs. Eventually the reinterpretations and rebranding will not hold water and the truth of the matter will have to be admitted in order to progress further.
You talk a lot about political science, which is fine, though I think is a bit off-topic.. Is there some precedent that has been set which gives you the opinion that political science is something whose causality can be fundamentally traced through modern scientific methodologies (quantum or otherwise)?
Thanks for asking. Apart from the fact that all of nature is fundamentally quantum, and humans are part of nature, and thus everything human is fundamentally quantum, yes, there is a precdent that one could arguably trace back to the Greeks through to Spinoza to, more recently, the work and ideas of a number of channel guests (see my talks with Geoffrey West, Adrian Bejan, Michael Levin, Karl Friston, and Vitaly Vanchurin, among others). Lastly, and more directly to the point, I wrote my PhD thesis on the physical foundations of management ( tinyurl.com/42e3ywbv ) and Fields Medalist, Michael Friedman, also a past channel guest, published a paper connecting the Born rule to political theory ( arxiv.org/abs/2209.08144 ). Thanks again for asking and don't hesitate to let me know if you would like to talk about any of this on camera.
@@eismscience quantum... finance...? Interesting topic, though WAY more cited than I can give real merit for. After all, I'm a nobody. I'll never win a bibliography contest with a PhD ;) In an attempt to paraphrase your key statement from what you shared here... You're saying that there is a synthesis which can be made between disciplines in regards to scientific methodologies, specifically quantum theories, and the financing models for funding scientific research? Trying to bring this back to the whole nuclear thing... So, the political problem is the manner in which we empower scientific exploration, and how it is strongly influenced by donors, whose values may not be in alignment with the common good and, (I'm assuming this next part due to lack of reading on the subject) quantum theory when applied as a model for financing scientific research, offers some sort of guaranteed common good while simultaneously being a more pragmatic funding model? I'm attempting to fill in the blanks on this narrative. Sorry if I'm getting something wrong here. On an unrelated topic, I'm now reading through your work now on management as a science. I've read a fair amount on the subject of management and business leadership practices. I think that's an important topic to share and evolve. I would be happy to take you up on the offer to discuss that, quantum theories, or other philosophies with you, on or off-camera. I'm not shy :). Personally, I have a strong interest in information theory, and would like to someday flesh out my own thesis on that subject. However, I am not a professional academic, and I am not so fully educated on these subjects as to maintain many strong opinions.
I like the coverage of the purpose of science. Eliminating nuclear weapons should take into consideration that it was science that developed nuclear weapons. I see a possible contradiction of effort. Basically, this resolves to: we might expect science to remove something it has produced, which is asking scientists to nullify something they have produced. Also considering that it was a political situation that led to the decision to develop nuclear weaponry. Slightly paradoxical.
The false vacuum is the tension/pressure acting on the node point of natures spectrum of reality which our plane of physical existence occupies. It lies at the intersection of two equally confounding harmonics which although 'central' to the overall spectrum, the differing magnitudes of scale effectively place us within the crux of the scale. At the intersection point which is the perfectly imbalanced, balance of the fundamental reality/frequency/thought/sound/wave..... Oh, and the 'big bang' is not a infinitesimally small 1D point that grows outwards to create all that encompasses our existences 'being' it is the whole which diverges into the principle component forms to instill the divine imbalance into its bare form and which in itself garuntees the coherence of its internal components down to the essence of itself and which in itself create the way from which the whole is constituted. In effect, it creates the end which allows the beginning to come into being and shape its divergent condition. How? Because it has tried every possible way and this is the only way that allows it to be. The Universe existing in the perfect way it does, that allows everything to come into being isnt by chance, its the way it is because it is the only way it can be. Even an immeasurably and vanishingly small deviation either side of the divine imbalance and the harmonic coherence is insufficient to sustain the reiterating divergence to its end state in the manner that facilitates the manifestation of the whole and all from it and since what our rudimentary perception conceives as 'time' has no quantitative point of reference in scopes of realities magnitude of scope (the absolute potential of one maxim and absolute perfection of the opposite, with both still containing the harmonic principles which retain thier intrinsic coherence with each other.) it has no qualitative condition whatsoever in such frames of reference. This means the whole can try every possible manner of divergence simultaneously and instantly in pursuit of the divine imbalance, and ascertaining it instantly also. With every conceivable variation along that transition from absolutely hopeless to absolutely perfect playing out as the internal experience of 'time' has for its compositional constitution. There may be a start and finish. An unimaginably immeasurable number of them at that, that take an equally unimaginable amd immeasurable 'length' of 'time' to progress until finality, BUT.... There is no 'beginning' and there is no 'end' Only the eternal oneness of the all and the eternal process of coming into being and coming to completely know oneself... As so one can ultimately find the answer and absolute truth required to go completely within oneself and let go of knowing in order to authentically experience the being of truth.
00:00 -- EISM logo and website sequence
00:28 -- Introduction and key takeaways by Razo
02:01 -- The two kinds of quantum nonsense
02:46 -- When science and nature allow different interpretations
03:16 -- BS is often in the eye of the beholder
03:41 -- The question to measure both types of quantum BS
05:20 -- Conversation begins
05:53 -- Was Ferrie funny as a kid?
06:32 -- Have Ferrie's kids inherited his sense of humor?
07:23 -- How Ferrie's approach to writing came about
08:45 -- Ferrie talks about his approximately 60 books
09:36 -- Ferries says the best way to learn is to teach
10:59 -- Ferrie comments on how he covers science and philosophy
13:09 -- Ferrie's more serious activity as an academic
14:41 -- Ferrie's distinction between quantum bullshit and horseshit in media
17:08 -- Which quantum approach is the most promising?
19:02 -- How quantum concepts are misused to bamboozle the public
21:32 -- What has been the response to Ferrie's "exposé" of quantum BS?
22:33 -- Ferrie comments on the nonsensical theories he gets from the public
24:00 -- The link between popular quantum BS and academic interpretations
24:28 -- The many worlds interpretation of quantum theory
26:31 -- Ferrie on how quantum BS gets pushed by the academic community
29:02 -- Ferrie on quasi-retired physicists getting together at conferences
29:57 -- BS physics polls by, for example, Max Tegmark
31:08 -- The Dirac / Von Neumann interpretation of quantum physics
33:23 -- Ferrie explains the many-worlds interpretation
34:15 -- Ferrie explains quantum baysesian interpretation
36:09 -- Razo asks, what is the purpose of studying physics?
37:11 -- Feyman's approach to interpretation and story telling in physics
38:16 -- Razo on what humans universally agree we DON'T want to happen
41:29 -- Ferries separates physics from politics and psychology
43:50 -- Razo on why human survival should be a guide to evaluate stories
45:10 -- Ferrie explains how education is the most promising approach
45:48 -- The equivalence of different pictures or stories of nature
46:32 -- Ferrie prefers to teach that there is no right approach or story
49:50 -- Ferrie on the uncrossable gulf between physics and human goals
50:27 -- Razo on human disagreement, physics, and politics (voting theory)
53:02 -- Ferrie on the limits of making analogies a la Deepak Chopra
53:56 -- Ferrie on the quantum BS of Michael Freedman
54:36 -- Ferrie on the limits of the "physicalist" approach to the world
56:29 -- Razo on the centrality of disagreements and political theory
57:45 -- Razo asks Ferrie about his quantum take on free will
1:00:40 -- Ferrie on how humans "volitionally" project into the future
1:02:03 -- Razo on Aharanov's two-time approach to free will and time
1:03:29 -- Where to follow Ferrie and next steps for Ferrie's book
Thanks to you both for a fascinating hour about many things including the book I am reading now.
Perfect, I haven’t found a single thing that has improved our lives since quantum theories , computing, and mechAnics,
On the topic brought up about extinction, it seems obvious that we don't all want to avoid extinction. There are some among us who have promoted global warming through deforestation (usually for economic reasons), which could be an issue of greed.
To influence scientists towards moral and ethical methods (those that result in our continued thriving as a biosphere) of developing technologies and performing research seems the most logical answer to the problem of perverse incentives to develop and publish research.
Science departments use undergrads, doc's and post-doc's for the sole purpose of securing research funding. When the impetus is to develop knowledge that furthers our thriving as a biosphere, we will collect information assisting us in attaining a worthwhile goal.
Thank you for hosting this discussion, BTW.
Christopher is great & down to earth. I’d love to hear his take on the recent Nobel prize debacle on non-locality…
Ferrie is adorable! 😁Definitely getting the book to enlighten myself more!
I have one for you, can anyone explain thru math or science why there is homelessness? Or the benefits of our worlds political structure, in fact, I think even a simple child can explain or describe simple ideas of far better use and application, I go to Williamsburg Virginia w my family often for vacation, there is a colonial era hospital as an attraction, I watched the will Ferrell movie Sherlock Holmes, the statement he makes are what ull see at the hospital, the complete certainty of their medical knowledge and practices, yet now we literally are repulsed and horrified by the methods used as so called health, as example look at George Washingtons death,
Thank you very much for sharing your insights and wisdoms filled videos and conversations !! Intelligent and educational !! Outstanding !!
Greetings from California … I wish you and folks and all good health, success and happiness !! Much Love ✌️😎💕
Thanks for your interest and thanks for the nice comment.
Hello Louis, as a tangent to our discussion below, I have analyzed the Aharanov-Bohm effect and I find that at least the explanation that I am reading about it seems to be in error.
I submit the following: similar to "the Lagrange" point, this is the point where gravity is in an "equilibrium" state. I submit therefore, that the conclusion of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect is not a novel quantum effect where magnetic field does not exist but simply the fact that the magnetic fields are in equilibrium. They are however, still present. (this was just my observation). I don't anticipate that this affects the overall theme of the main discussion.
If I remember right, I brought up the Aharanov-Bohm effect and the role that the square root of -1 plays in quantum mechanics to respond to your contention that math is "just an anology". If I understand your most recent comment above, you are saying that the Aharanov-Bohm effect and quantum phase spaces are "just analogies"? If you can elaborate, I will respond as soon as I can. Thanks.
@@eismscience I had spent some time examining Aharanov-Bohm Effect as a "novel quantum effect" simply out of curiosity when I realized that the paper itself describing the effect probably made a fairly large error (although I am not an expert on physics, so the error could be mine)... but basically, the paper describes the quantum effect as novel effect. The essentials of the experiment are: That charged particles passing between 2 wires experience a (quantum) phase shift due to the electromagnetic potential and very specifically "in the absence of a magnetic field in the region" where the particles are moving.
It is my conjecture that something must be "incorrect" with the theory that a "region" had no magnetic field, and instead the region must have a magnetic field, but perhaps the magnetic field was in equilibrium... similar to how gravity has Lagrange points. In that case if the region actually had a magnetic field in equilibrium it wouldn't be a novel effect but more like Aharonov-Casher effect? (At least that is my supposition). On the other hand, I could be wrong, and the authors might be well aware that the magnetic field was in equilibrium. I am simply arguing that there has to be a magnetic field in the region, but that it is in "equilibrium, therefore it appears as 0".
I brought up another example: The Lagrange point as a classic example where something "appears" as 0, but it is simply an equilibrium of various gravitational pulls.
None of this has anything to do with our discussion on "how best to make group decisions"... it was just a side note.
Thanks for this interview. I do agree that when I see some book length replies I get worried (I also tend to write them so, I must be cognizant of the potential there). But, yes, the more I interact with people on some of these channels the more I realize I encounter ideas and ideals that are just incredibly out there and ungrounded. Unfortunately, Quantum Science is one of those fields where I feel that the science doesn't seem quite right. As Christopher Ferrie mentioned the theoretical "Many worlds" idea, seems exactly as he calls it (24:30). However, it is very hard to prove something doesn't exist when it falls outside the realm of our Universe. But, I do feel it is somewhat irresponsible for some scientists to push this idea of many worlds when the evidence is sorely absent. However, I also don't have a good feel for Quantum Science overall. And my opinion is that several of the popular conclusions for experiments in quantum science are poor.
It is Ironic, that I don't believe in the Many Worlds Theory, AND I also don't believe in CO2 as the driving force for Climate Change. Again, I am not saying that climate change doesn't exist... I just don't think that the driving force for it is CO2. I personally believe that there are other factors causing the average temperature of the Earth to increase. For example, what is the possibility that Nuclear Reactors are heating the Earth?
Re: How many sides does a circle have:... There's 2 interesting ways to answer that: The Theoretical one: (Infinite or perhaps 1 outside or 2 for hollow)... and the "real world"... for the "real world" you must first answer an important additional question: Is there actually something we can call a "circle" if the shape is geometrically composed of sides...?
I do disagree with how Christopher Ferrie views the definition of "Science"... as "a way in which we compartmentalize the world so that its easier to tell each other stories about our common existence"... I am not sure if he just accidentally decided to spew that out ... or if he actually believes it is just "stories"... but unless he is thinking "non-fiction"... he basically called science a bunch of "stories"... which is in my opinion a very poor view of science. Science is NOT just a bunch of stories... its our attempt to show that the world and existence is not merely random occurrence but rather there are specific rules that the Universe follows and if one pays close enough attention, these rules allow us to predict and to make things happen... examples of "science" we see all the time are found in how humans work in the fields of chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, etc... so, I am not happy with his definition of Science. But I am going to assume he wasn't thinking about how that came out... and probably he would go back an edit that to say it differently. Of course Science has a purpose... but it is not a specific purpose. It is a tool to help people achieve any number of goals... should the purpose include preventing the extinction of humanity? Of course... but, just like any tool... it can be used for good or bad. Is it possible that there are use cases for Nuclear Weapons that involve saving the world from annihilation? (Can they be used to divert a planet killer for example?)
Luis, I think I finally see where you are coming from with regard to the Interpretations... but the thing you also include in your statements is that "the theory / interpretations are all equal" except how we view them... ie they are both "Mathematically and Experimentally Confirmed". But how does that really help us? The only difference is our "view" of them.. not the reality that they describe.
Thus, wouldn't it simply be a case of self-delusion that picking the view that "Science Theory A" which purports that we won't exterminate ourselves... vs Science Theory B... which allows for the possibility?
I think this: (48:32) is something I have tried to explain many times on this particular channel. It is NOT possible to do what you want to do without also destroying the foundation of what you value most... things like freedom and the freedoms to choose. While I understand that Nuclear Weapons are a tremendous issue, war of any kind... disease, famine, disaster, they ALL contribute to the risk of lost life. We can use science to reduce the risk of famine, disease, disaster etc, but there will always be cultures and countries with cultures that are vastly opposed to our own. Perhaps one way to provide less risk... would be to use it to reduce poverty, hunger, disaster, and disease to the point where abundance is so available that no one needs to be at war...
Thanks, Marc. I'll come back to this asap.
Thanks for your comment, Marc. I can't respond to everything you've written, so I will limit my response to your last point, wherein you express agreement with Ferrie about the impossibility of connecting fundamental laws to human goals (48:32).
What I've tried to get across in my response to Ferrie regarding this question is that people, including accomplished scientists, disagree with Ferrie (see my talks with past channel guests Geoffrey West, Adrian Bejan, Michael Levin, Karl Friston, Vitaly Vanchurin, and Michael Freedman). Why? Because science has not provided a definitve answer to this question yet. When science has not provided definitive answers on any given question, there is room for different "stories". Ferrie is simply offering his "story".
Humans disagree about "stories". In fact, the science of human disagreement is formally studied in several academic disciplines, among them political theory, game theory, and social choice theory. So the main idea being proposed here is that we should give preference to "stories" in physics that can be connected, rigorously and experimentally, to the biggest open questions in political theory, game theory and social choice, especially if these connections can be made in a way that enhance human well-being. This is a no-brainer.
Let me repeat that for the sake of clarity: in physics and in any science, replicable experiments are the single most important yardstick by which to evaluate any model or "story". When experiments do not provide a definitive response to a given question, different stories and interpretations are valid and even healthy in terms of moving science forward. Among these valid scientific stories, if humans want to remain alive, we should give preference to those stories that reduce the probability of human extinction. If human existence does not matter, then of course, there is no reason to prefer one story over any other story - but nobody in their right mind, including Ferrie, believes that human existence does not matter.
All of this is common sense. If anybody thinks I am missing something, I would be thrilled to talk about it on camera. I've been issueing this invitation for a very long time and have yet to find anybody who disagree. Presumably, it will be even more difficult to find anybody who disagrees and is willing to explain themselves on camera.
Thanks again for your continued interest, Marc.
@@eismscience Hello Luis. Yes, we should give preference to the stories that reduce the probability of Human Extinction. My question to you is which story has a higher "chance" of success. So, yes, give preference to the stories that reduce the probability of human extinction, but at least look at the options by sorting them in some useful way and remove the "options" that do so much damage that they would not be worth using. For example: Solutions that involve going to war wouldn't really be a beneficial solution since the method to get the end result is terrifying. And to my point, solutions that involve quantum physics minutiae are so far below other possible methods to reduce the risk, given that there is little to no evidence at all that this affects human behavior in a global fashion or has any protective effect on "anything". Unless, you happen to have a science paper that shows such for a population of humans?
So I could be agreeable to this idea of physics minutiae affecting behavior if you had some scientific literature that showed a beneficial effect on a population of humans that underwent some sort of "Physics" manipulation, and then the incidence of (War, Morbidity, Mortality) all decreased.
@@marcfruchtman9473 Thanks for your eminently reasonable response. Two comments:
1. You ask for a paper on the puported connection between fundamental physics and social science. Here are two: tinyurl.com/42e3ywbv arxiv.org/abs/2209.08144.
2. Given the work referenced above, a proper scientific response, in my view, is to either demonstrate where the logic or proposed science fails, and/or (prefereably and) propose a better alternative to safeguard human existence.
If I am missing something, I would be open to what that might be.
Thanks again.
@@eismscience Hello Luis, the scientific paper (Prospecting a Possible Quadratic Wormhole Between Quantum Mechanics and Plurality) is presenting a "mathematical analogy". It is not a paper demonstrating "cause and effect". Specifically, "the analogy between norm-squared of the sum of amplitudes in quantum mechanics and the square of the sum of weighted contributions in quadratic finance. ".
To give a "joking analogy": Imagine there is a basic observable law that states the strength of gravitation varies inversely with the square of the distance. Now imagine I wrote a paper showing that rich people get richer by the square of their investment and claimed that the mathematical analogy was present and therefore gravity and Wealth are now connected by a "wormhole"... (as announced in that paper) so with joking respect... that is ridiculous (I mean the gravity and the wealth connection)...
So, I cannot possibly accept that the paper as presented is reasonable evidence that a solid connection between Quadratic Funding and Quantum Mechanics exists other than to say, the "math" is similar? And of course that pretty much everything is subject to QM and Physics (with Free-will being an example of an external factor IMHO) but that is not enough to show a significant cause effect relationship. (No more than blowing on a dandelion in Canada has an effect on weather patterns in Zimbabwe).
I like this guy but im amazed how he got the comparison to climate change exactly opposite of reality. In reality climate science is boring but the people getting all of the air time on the subject are the alarmists and extremists. His comparison is accurate but in the opposite way if how he explained it.
Whatever. I assume De Broglie's pilot wave theory (not Bohm's pilot wave theory) is the best theory. It is deterministic, it allows a very interesting reinterpretation of Born's fundamental QM rule, which is a rule that may not be universally valid for all quantum systems, which means that pilot wave theory is a more general theory than standard Copenhagen QM theory, that treats Born's rule as fundamental and universally true for all quantum systems. See the papers by dr. Antony Valentini.
I wonder if Mr Ferrie will read Robert Sapolsky's book on free will or what he proposes the lack thereof. I tend to put more weight behind a neuroscientist than a physicist on that topic.
Thanks for your input. I don't think it's the academic discipline that is moving your beliefs on free wiill. Your feelings about free will are probably more a matter of ideology or preference or emotion. Our interview with respected neuroscientst Kevin Mitchell, who debated directly with Sapolsky, would help you see that - maybe.
It's actually a step in the right direction. A tiny, wobbly step that lands the walker flat on their arse but a step none the less. It is wildly inaccurate, misinterpreted, misrepresented, partially conceived etc etc but at least it begins the legitimate conversation that the spectrum of reality extends far beyond the physical plane of existence that our sensory perception and societal conditioning lead us to perceive inadvertently conceive as being the totality of a tangible reality. The fact the Standard Model, Thermodynamics, Cosmology etc etc, all irrefutably demand the physical universe and it's apparent forces are absolutely a closed system does not help either. At least Quantum Quackery will inevitably insist the door to be acknowledged as open and the real discussions and investigations can begin.
Besides, it is no less comical/depressing than the current state of theoretical mathematics and what passes for scientific rigour and method these days. 0, Infinity, multiplication, base 10, equations which MUST balance perfectly and have a qualitative value for any remainder, individual units which all combine to infer the sum and value of the whole....
And don't get me started on the principles and 'laws' of 'known facts' Scientific celebrity like NDGT irritate me more than what is a probably a reasonable amount. Makes my blood boil, especially when proclaiming to be a prodigy of Sagan and be following in his footsteps. 😡
Even if you want to develop the fringe sciences, you are hopelessly constrained from taking any reasonably authentic perspective as the unquestionable 'laws' (with no valid proof or explanation, or even a model capable of accurately predicting what it declares itself capable of.) corrupt the very essence of the matter which is trying to be explored and/or improved.
Infuriating.....
So as ridiculous and retarded as QT is, at least it's a step beyond the dogmatic prison of the last 80-100yrs. Eventually the reinterpretations and rebranding will not hold water and the truth of the matter will have to be admitted in order to progress further.
he is surprised about people believing the bullshit, but unfortunately people wants to believe in that magic conclusions
You talk a lot about political science, which is fine, though I think is a bit off-topic.. Is there some precedent that has been set which gives you the opinion that political science is something whose causality can be fundamentally traced through modern scientific methodologies (quantum or otherwise)?
Thanks for asking. Apart from the fact that all of nature is fundamentally quantum, and humans are part of nature, and thus everything human is fundamentally quantum, yes, there is a precdent that one could arguably trace back to the Greeks through to Spinoza to, more recently, the work and ideas of a number of channel guests (see my talks with Geoffrey West, Adrian Bejan, Michael Levin, Karl Friston, and Vitaly Vanchurin, among others). Lastly, and more directly to the point, I wrote my PhD thesis on the physical foundations of management ( tinyurl.com/42e3ywbv ) and Fields Medalist, Michael Friedman, also a past channel guest, published a paper connecting the Born rule to political theory ( arxiv.org/abs/2209.08144 ).
Thanks again for asking and don't hesitate to let me know if you would like to talk about any of this on camera.
@@eismscience quantum... finance...? Interesting topic, though WAY more cited than I can give real merit for. After all, I'm a nobody. I'll never win a bibliography contest with a PhD ;)
In an attempt to paraphrase your key statement from what you shared here... You're saying that there is a synthesis which can be made between disciplines in regards to scientific methodologies, specifically quantum theories, and the financing models for funding scientific research? Trying to bring this back to the whole nuclear thing... So, the political problem is the manner in which we empower scientific exploration, and how it is strongly influenced by donors, whose values may not be in alignment with the common good and, (I'm assuming this next part due to lack of reading on the subject) quantum theory when applied as a model for financing scientific research, offers some sort of guaranteed common good while simultaneously being a more pragmatic funding model? I'm attempting to fill in the blanks on this narrative. Sorry if I'm getting something wrong here.
On an unrelated topic, I'm now reading through your work now on management as a science. I've read a fair amount on the subject of management and business leadership practices. I think that's an important topic to share and evolve. I would be happy to take you up on the offer to discuss that, quantum theories, or other philosophies with you, on or off-camera. I'm not shy :). Personally, I have a strong interest in information theory, and would like to someday flesh out my own thesis on that subject. However, I am not a professional academic, and I am not so fully educated on these subjects as to maintain many strong opinions.
@@nicolaswolf5412 Thanks again. Please let me come back to this asap.
@@eismscience No pressure! This is all elective discovery on my part. I'm also getting a better understanding of your premises from your book anyway.
14:35
21:13
I like the coverage of the purpose of science. Eliminating nuclear weapons should take into consideration that it was science that developed nuclear weapons. I see a possible contradiction of effort. Basically, this resolves to: we might expect science to remove something it has produced, which is asking scientists to nullify something they have produced. Also considering that it was a political situation that led to the decision to develop nuclear weaponry. Slightly paradoxical.
The false vacuum is the tension/pressure acting on the node point of natures spectrum of reality which our plane of physical existence occupies. It lies at the intersection of two equally confounding harmonics which although 'central' to the overall spectrum, the differing magnitudes of scale effectively place us within the crux of the scale. At the intersection point which is the perfectly imbalanced, balance of the fundamental reality/frequency/thought/sound/wave.....
Oh, and the 'big bang' is not a infinitesimally small 1D point that grows outwards to create all that encompasses our existences 'being' it is the whole which diverges into the principle component forms to instill the divine imbalance into its bare form and which in itself garuntees the coherence of its internal components down to the essence of itself and which in itself create the way from which the whole is constituted. In effect, it creates the end which allows the beginning to come into being and shape its divergent condition. How? Because it has tried every possible way and this is the only way that allows it to be.
The Universe existing in the perfect way it does, that allows everything to come into being isnt by chance, its the way it is because it is the only way it can be.
Even an immeasurably and vanishingly small deviation either side of the divine imbalance and the harmonic coherence is insufficient to sustain the reiterating divergence to its end state in the manner that facilitates the manifestation of the whole and all from it and since what our rudimentary perception conceives as 'time' has no quantitative point of reference in scopes of realities magnitude of scope (the absolute potential of one maxim and absolute perfection of the opposite, with both still containing the harmonic principles which retain thier intrinsic coherence with each other.) it has no qualitative condition whatsoever in such frames of reference. This means the whole can try every possible manner of divergence simultaneously and instantly in pursuit of the divine imbalance, and ascertaining it instantly also. With every conceivable variation along that transition from absolutely hopeless to absolutely perfect playing out as the internal experience of 'time' has for its compositional constitution.
There may be a start and finish. An unimaginably immeasurable number of them at that, that take an equally unimaginable amd immeasurable 'length' of 'time' to progress until finality, BUT....
There is no 'beginning' and there is no 'end' Only the eternal oneness of the all and the eternal process of coming into being and coming to completely know oneself...
As so one can ultimately find the answer and absolute truth required to go completely within oneself and let go of knowing in order to authentically experience the being of truth.
Horeseshit, bullshit & more shit?