AI could prove that reality doesn’t exist, physicists say
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2024
- Learn science in the easiest and most engaging way possible with Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ brilliant.org/sabine.
A group of physicists wants to use artificial intelligence to prove that reality doesn’t exist. They want to do this by running an artificial general intelligence as an observer on a quantum computer. I wish this was a joke. But I’m afraid it’s not.
Paper here: quantum-journal.org/papers/q-...
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #artificialintelligence #physics - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
AI thinks, therefore I am not?
I drink, therefore you're a figment of my imagination
Ooff
Lol thats great
yep, we all are some kinda programs)
Nice summary
Philosophers trying to do science is somehow less embarrassing than scientists trying to do philosophy.
Harald Lesch might want a word.
Most are neither but think they can do both
I agree that it is difficult to decide, but as a person with degrees in both Physics and Philosophy, I can tell you it's a pretty close call.
Amen! Physicists are much more likely to swallow whole the metaphysical presumptions built into everyday language than are philosophers.
th-cam.com/video/HtUH9z_Oey8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=faScYfBm2-_k48C8
What else is there to say…
There is a story of Chinese philosophers who wanted to discuss on a conference whether the yellow river exists or not. They couldn’t continue the conference because the yellow river flooded their meeting rooms.
R kellys river?
@@chomomma7403🤣😅🤣
@@chomomma7403 were these Chinese philosophers 16?
@@circusOFprecision yes
doesnt matter, this is in fact a simulation
The biggest hurdle of quantum computing is how to "observe without observing." Honestly it's a conundrum that I'd rather not be entangled with.
+, I am thinking therefore I exist (c) DeCartes
I am thinking, therefore I do not exist (c) AI 😄😸
software hack is the only solution.
Can't that be accomplished by simply letting Biden or his brain damaged rival take a look?
Your statement made me giggle. I liked that. Thanks.
Wonderful! But, can you please use proper grammar.
To be is to do - Socrates
To do is to be - Sartre
Do be do be do - Sinatra
da da da ... Ich liebe dich du liebst mich nicht da da da
These were college educated and look social theories economics every time it was host on record being after reduction in carbon admissions and Increasing in government revenue with taxes breaks and Increased birth rates college education and realty are like oil and water
Scooby dooby doo - Scooby Doo
@@osmosisjones4912speak english
Who says philosophy doesn't make progress?
"Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away," - Philip K. Dick
Is it still there when there are no humans to observe it?
@@axle.student Tricky. What's an observation and why humans? What about monkeys? what about birds? How much can we reduce the level of awareness necessary for an organism to be considered an "observer"? And how could we test that if not by observing the process behind the observation? Isn't such process in the end an organized exchange of energy? Is that's the case, maybe we could say that things are real for as long as they lose and/or gain energy.
@@cochlea2719 Is a rock an observer? Photons hit the rock and the rock is effected in some small way. What is real to the rock? What is the rocks reality?
>
Back to the OP:
"Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away"
What does a monkey believe? What is "reality" to the monkey? Does the monkey "Believe"? Does a rock believe?
>
The concept of "reality" and real has been the subject of philosophical debate since the beginning of structured human thought.
The concept of Real and Reality is a construct of the human mind, so if we have no human does this concept persist?
What does "Real" mean to the universe? Is there even a universal notion of "real"?
>
The best answer that we have to these things is that we don't know. Or maybe even that the question "what is real?" is the wrong question to begin with :)
@@cochlea2719 Sum it up to beings. It doesn't have to be humans. Anything that isn't a rock that will keep its momentum for quadrillions of years.
@@axle.student No.
"Can you have an existential crisis if reality doesn't exist?" - Probably one of the best questions I've heard in a long, long time.
The push towards a nihilistic mindset is by design. It's a method made to make you question why you do anything at all, completely undermining your sense of self and sense of purpose. That is my theory, anyway.
Me thinks you are right. Best have a strong sense of self if you can help it. Hope all is well. This bs is very frusturating to say the very least.
Buddhism talks about the two extreme views: One is that phenomena exist independently (conventional view) and the other is that they don't exist at all or nihilism. Buddhism says that there is a third option and that is that all 'things' exist independence on other 'things' and that includes the observer.
BTW. The 'self' is a good example of a non existent phenomena. It is a mental construct projected on ones own body and mind.
@@petewright4640 Beg to differ (or may I elaborate, if you don't mind...?) Buddhism 'says' that the third option (or the 'Middle Way') is that all 'things' exist inter-dependently (inter-being) with each other (and this includes the observer). In other words, we (all 'things' in the universe) are inter-connected, (there is not anything that is not included) and all arise/ grow/ perish concurrently with each other, depending on each other, supporting each other. Air, water, nutrients, etc. provided by Mother Earth in the development/ evolution of the human species as well as the animal kingdom, vegetable, minerals, etc. This co-existence is beautifully illustrated in 'Indra's Net', where every node (intersection) in the net is occupied by a mirror-jewel which reflects each and every other node in the net, for all distance through the universe, without end... Namu Dai Bosa, Namu Dai Bosatsu! Cheers, massolrac 😃
@@livewithmeterandnomeasureb1679 You think Kant answered this question hundreds of years ago. The reality humans are trying to solve should NOT exclude humans themselves. Humans cannot understand the world through absolutely objectivity because we must use some theory to explain them. Those theory came up through human mind, hence not an absolutely objectivity.
Science in the end is a set of lot theories that are the subject of human mind, it has its limits, and it is not objective. I think a lot of scientists forget this.
I read somewhere that "Reality is what you hit when you stumble around in the dark"
Realty is hits when get out of college . Every credible sources ever fact check doesn't support reality
Must have been dark matter that was moving towards him.
wow, that actually sounds pretty clever
You didn't define what dark is, so there is no darkness.
I know, right? A stubbed toe is real enough for me.
My friend always told me "Two heads are better than one,,,Unless they/re both stupid, Then it gets worse".
Why did he always say it? Did you keep forgetting it?
@@michael1 LOL! You're sharp as a tack.
My brother and I used to have discussions as to whether two halfwits make a whole wit or a quarter wit. We felt it was the latter but couldn't think of an experiment that either of us would want to perform due to the likely higher than acceptible risk of catastrophe.
Two stupid heads are lesser than one.
"A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain."-Heinlein
In basic maths we are taught if our attempt at a proof ends with 1=2 then our proof is wrong. This sounds like a very similar proposition.
eghh, could be two things I think.
1) Your proof is wrong (i.e. your conclusion does not follow from your premises) -> you made a mistake along the way
2) One or more of your premises is contradictory -> all the steps you made in your proof were correct but since the premises are contradictory, the proof is not in any way useful.
Exactly.
What they prove is not that reality doesn't exist, just that reality is something else of what we think it is.... totally different from contradiction
@@andresbriones8054 Make people sleep better on nights,..
It's not "wrong", it's just that they're using a non-colloquial definition of "reality". To continue your analogy, it'd be like doing your proof within a framework you construct for the sole purpose of proving 1=2, and then claiming that 1=2. You're not _wrong,_ because you defined things in a way where your proof works. It's just highly questionable whether your proof is useful outside of your little constructed framework.
And sometimes it does end up being useful. Maybe not 1=2 specifically, but there are a few things (in math) that are generally regarded as "impossible" but can be given valid definitions within specific frameworks, such as dividing by zero, and those frameworks then find real use in some obscure branch of math or science.
From what I gather (and to be clear, I'm only going by Sabine's summary so massive grain of salt here) it sounds like "reality doesn't exist" is a somewhat hyperbolic clickbaity interpretation and it should be more like "reality is relative in some new way", which is a far less shocking take given what we already know from special and general relativity.
A.I. can't draw hands but its gonna tell me about reality? LOL!
AI? Quantum computers? What, no fusion? These authors need to try harder!
What did you think they were going to use to power the QC running the AI? :P
@@ShadowGrimsy dark energy 😂😂
AI 5G Quantum Quantum Computer Hydrogen Fuel Thorium Reactor Fission reaction Buzzword Buzzword Buzzword
Reality never provides it's sources
All the science buzzwords: Lets create a Quantum AI powered fusion reactor using room temperature superconducting materials with hybrid solar cells built on top of the reactor
Politicians proved reality doesn't exist a long time ago.
Best comment I saw in ages lol
What's wrong with politicians? They don't vote themselves into office. So the problem must be.....
The existence of politicians proves reality doesn't exist. ;]
I think it's educated and intelligent voters that don't exist.
Really?
first off, the phrase, "reality doesn't exist", has no meaning. "reality" is whatever "this" is, however one wishes to think about it. if we are living in a simulation on some kid's phone, it is still "reality." i just wasted some of my reality typing this message. i fight the power by not using capital letters.
In "Creator," Mariel Hemingway's character got fed up with some of this, and she challenged: "Try assuming you don't exist, and see where that gets you!"
There was a faith healer from Deal,
Who said "I know pain isn't real,
But when I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel."
That a good one :)
@@parrotraiser6541
He was using one of his 5 senses maybe the one who created the senses did so with the intent of controlling pir perceived reality ?
@@parrotraiser6541
When I was a child I was playing inside a large box near the road. ( Didn't say I was a bright kid 😁.) There was a small pinhole in the box facing the street. A car drove by and I saw the car reflected upside down inside of the box i was in , on the back wall of the box. It came in from the pinhole. I wondered if I was upside down and the car was right side up. Perception is in the eye. of the beholder. Of course later I found out this is a phenomenon of pinhole photography. But it stumped me as a child.
@@terabeatnik2000 I can't claim originality, but it seemed apropos.
Hi. Wasn't that an Edward Lear nonsense poem? Cheers, P.R.
Underrated sardonic quote: "Can you have an existential crisis if reality doesn't exist?"
Yes😂🤣
I would be appropriated to have one, at least.
That is some existential dread if I've ever heard it
That would indeed be the ultimate existential crisis.
apparently: th-cam.com/video/CxOMnO9SmyM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5VSRrdSj9XrUlmoV&t=1008
When I step out of a big box store and face a giant parking lot where I lost track of my car, WHERE IS IT LOCATED?
There is actually a probability function spread across the entire parking lot, where the chances are lesser and greater depending on my memory and my incomplete observations.
In the handicapped spaces, I know the probability function is very low, and in the first 3 rows of cars to the left, the function is higher, kind of like a tidal wave of probabilities spread across the entire parking lot with a total volume of 1.0.
Once I see a car that looks like mine, the probability function collapses into that parking space with a probability of 0.95, and once I verify that my key actually works, it becomes fully 1.0, with no more probabilities anywhere else.
THIS IS NOT A FEATURE of the car or of the parking lot or of my eyeball measurement devices. This is a feature of my uncertain mind, trying to perceive more clearly towards a conclusive answer. In reality, the car actually existed only in one location and only one state the entire time, and it was my mind that imagined spreading it's "likely position" across the parking lot with some best guesses. My measuring instrument was not quite clear and accurate enough, so I fabricated the idea of a probability wave just as a mental exercise, a helpful imaginary tool. The probability function only exists as a thinking aid, "as if" there was a wave of numbers covering the parking lot. It's just a model, you guys. It does not mean my car was actually in fragments all over the parking lot, and magically resolved itself only when observed. It's the mental model that resolved itself, the measurement uncertainties.
Very admirable reasoning... I just try to remember where I parked my car before entering the store (usually I remember, but now that I am getting older, it's not so dependable...) Cheers, massolrac 😃
Isnt that just superdetermisnm?
that is just 100% using imagination to imagine a possibility and it is so imagination was the start of the creation of the "universe".
9 out of 10 AI dentists say that toothpaste is not real tasty
Im old enough to remember a time when I believed the internet would make the general public far more intelligent.
As a result, you stopped existing altogether...
And the inventor of television believed it would be a tool to revolutionize education and allow everyone free schooling on any topic they desire. Instead we got Big Brother and The Kardashians.
One would think having the sum total of human knowledge at one's literal fingertips, instead of well how we used to access knowledge (paper books libraries etc) would.... But instead it's exactly the opposite. Now there's something "real" for a study and paper.😂
Really, we just created more ways to access and manipulate a fundamentally intellectually lazy society with marketing.
@@RTomassi Then logically you are actually talking to yourself. Possibly your past self. Dont get married! Its a trap!
"I'll be, therefore, you."
-- Theme from Friends
LOL
LOL
And you'll be, therefore, me too.
Not bad!
Pretty good lol
In a quantum sense there is no objective reality. But that doesn't mean anything to us because we all experience reality subjectively anyway.
but it is objectively experienced subjectively
Correct absolutely.
Wouldn't this mean that reality probabilistic. The range of outcomes and their likely hood of occurrence is reality?
Maybe the measurements are not fast enough to measure super positions if something is vibrating and you observe it it is either vibrating more to one side or the ither
All is good until your friend lies to you and sends you down a separate path of reality
LoL !
This reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Anathem
Damn that good, how the hell did u come up with it?
whether your friend measured it OR lied about the outcome of the result the reality was always there and doesn't change - your knowledge about it is all that changed
that actually points to the issue that "a friend tells me what they saw" is definitely not a reliable "measurement", if it is one, therefore it is very unlikely that it can prove anything...
so......... do I still have to go to work tomorrow?
Beeeuuuhhhhh
No, it's a weekend.
Have to? No. There may be consequences.
Yes. Reality does not exist, but work exists. No escape. No superposition. Unless you are the boss. Then you are in the superior position.
Yes, you do. As an entity composed of non-real physical material bound to obey physical laws, you can only do that which is fated to occur tomorrow.
If your fate is to work (and you know if this is the case), the answer is yes. If not, then no.
When Dr. Johnson, the author of the first English dictionary, was told of the theory that the material world did not really exist, he kicked a rock and said, "I refute it thusly!" If only most modern physicists showed as much common sense as Dr. Johnson.
Well, complete misunderstanding of a philosophical position for a soundbite hardly counts as common sense in my book.
Just because the person outside the room doesn’t know what the measurement is doesn’t mean that it’s both left and right. It can be either left or right and the person just doesn’t know yet. Are we perhaps overthinking this?
I propose this experiment. The Univerity(s) should stop paying the authors of the paper; when they complain, it should be pointed out to them that their paychecks were not real to begin with, so there should be no harm in not paying them. Just mediate and manifest abundance.
I ‘manifested’ a £2M lottery win in 3 months. I’m tempted to believe it was purely coincidental but speaking probabilistically I find it difficult to entirely dismiss the concept regardless of how preposterous it may appear. What causes me further pause is the shear number of videos on YT claiming the same thing by verifiable lottery winners, which is why I attempted the feat to begin with. (It took 98 lines giving a probability of approx 98 in around 45,000,000ish, or roughly 1 in 450,000)
@@trlavalley9909 it certainly would have drive away Einstein
Wait.. What if we go one step further than mediation, demand redress, settlement for all stakeholders? Can't we use this to return slightly more money than is being disputed? We'll start with your mediation.
The employers can then, after all the pay is out there and spent, deny the reality of the checks, the workers the reality of their purchases, the vendors the realities of their orders to suppliers and so on, until it is some worker shouting at a bunch of raw materials all day long, who is actually paid in cold hard cash for their tough work keeping the economy going.
These were educated in college college education and reality are like oil and water . Look official government revenue when there more relax breaks look birth rates wheh abortion is outlawed look every year it was the hottest year on record. Always after carbon admission were reduced
@@Dion-fh1ucI've been trying to manifest a lottery win since the 90s, but seeing as I never buy a ticket, I've made the quantum system a lot larger and therefore the probability is a lot harder to collapse in my favour.
The problem I have with Wigner, is that if his friend is in a superposition until she tells him, why is Wigner himself not in a superposition until he tells someone else what his friend told him? It all sounds like nonsense because it almost certainly is.
He is though. The superposition extends everywhere until it fills the whole universe: a Universal Wave Function. That's why you can never say for sure that a measurement has been made, there's always another detector for which the system is still superposed. Unless you believe in God, the superposition is interminable. At least that's the premise of the argument.
@@duprie37 that's precisely why I believe in god, without god, there is nothing without one choosing to lie to themselves
@@deathsinger1192 I choose the simpler approach of just believing in reality. Less baggage!
@@deathsinger1192😅
@@john_hind if all you believe in is reality you are functionally a nihilist because you don't believe in morals or any values
“Let’s start at the beginning, or maybe it’s the end. Who knows in a reality that doesn’t exist?” is genuinely my thought process lol
The universe exists then does not exists then re-exists so rapidly over and over that you can not see or feel it happen it is the heart beat of the universe. Each beat everything has a new time and location that is the "Measurement" .
The *probability* that these characters are a) on a fat grant, or b) fully tenured, or c) seeking relevance IS measurable.
The point of education is not function in reality. Just like therapy
The market economy has decided it needs these questions asked. Maybe it’s a market failure?
@@xfirehurican would suggest that they are collecting our feedback as data to be sold for later analysis of AI networks designed to be more effective at imitating humans.
This explains why when I am doing woodworking, I can never be sure if my part will fit. The shelf is in superposition until I fit it into the closet shelf brackets.
And then it collapses
Does this also explain why plane geometry simply does not apply when the plane in question is sheet of plywood?
Where it collapses from its superpostition into a super position
I'm sure that as a wood worker you measure twice before you make the part? Hence the whole thing collapsed even before you put in the part
The detector interacts with the particle to measure it. Thats why the Superposition collapses. So every particle interacting with another is a detector or a measurement
I can't prove it, but I feel like I'm trapped in a bad '80's sitcom....
The fact that they don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The fact they understand it doesn't mean it exists.
it all comes down to how people don't understand a Quantum process doesn't exist in our reality, but an imagined "ghost" reality. then they try to make the ghost real, which gives insane conclusions
@@omerhechter5895 > then they try to make the ghost real,
The "ghost" _is_ real. We can (and have) done counltess experiments to verify it. The problem is that the "ghost" doesn't make any fricken sense to our very-not-quantum intuition and we struggle to handle that inability, so we grasp at any conclusions we can find - sane or otherwise - to try and bridge that gap.
The Copenhagen interpretation is also "insane". So is many worlds. Hell "fields" as a concept is pretty damned weird. They've all been around so long that we just accept them these days but they were at the time, and still are for anyone who stops to think about them, pretty wild in comparison to the classical mechanics our intuition has evolved to recognize and understand.
Yet it works. The device you're using to read this message would not function without quantum mechanics. The ghost is real. We can see its effects. We can even control it in some limited ways with our devices (such as making it emit photons of the right wavelength in the right place to form an image behind a piece of glass). But we still can't "see" it - we don't know what it really looks like in any meaningful way.
And we really, really want to know what it looks like, so we come up with tools and concepts for ways we might get a glimpse. Sane ideas don't seem to cut it - almost everything we might consider "sane" is rooted in classical mechanics after all - so we're stuck giving the insane ideas a shot. Maybe one of them will work. Or maybe not. But not even bothering to try isn't really within human nature. We always want to know.
You’ve never experienced Mandela effects have you? Lol
Many people who don't understand something pretend it doesn't exist.
Reality is what exists. If reality does not exist, nothing exists.
From what i get reality is mean as the material world as we are used to see it?
@@Ippogrifus No, reality IS reality. If it is a fact that the universe we see isn't objectively how it appears, that just means reality is that reality, not that it doesn't exist
If reality doesn't exist, then experiments and papers supposedly disproving reality's existence...don't exist.
Please try to study and understand locality
Please provide your sources 😅😅😅 . And no reality is for conspiracy theorist.
The Materialists are coping
The detector isn’t anything without you. It needs you to read it to be a detector.
"If your theory implies that reality does not exist, then MAYBE there is something wrong with your theory!"
BRILLIANT 😄😄
"...maybe, JUST maybe.." she's really cute and fabulous
@@Thomas-gk42 "... no because your theory doesn't exist as well" :)
when most physicists have ditched ontological Realism anyway, I'm not sure what a theory that shows nothing exists would REALLY say - perhaps its ontologically homologous to something else and defines an unknowable noumena that is both there and isn't at once. I have a headache now.
Or maybe reality just isn't what you want it to be.
thats exactly what a not real reality would say
It occurs to me that the most plausible deduction is that we cannot always know reality. Not every mystery is resolvable. There are just some things that we can never know. Every time we learn something we didn't know before, a new mystery inevitably comes along.
The more answers we find, the more difficult the questions become.
Funny how the only thing that is known to exist inside those gaps are the myriad of Gods that Man has invented, instead of the billions of Men that the Gods have invented?
You want stick cult of source's not reality
"All of Lifes most important answers must be formed as questions" -Alex Trebek
wait... that verified badge is real. how?
I'd love more on this. The nature of measurements has had me curious for quite some time.
Love your channel Sabina! Hope you are taking care of yourself as well apart from creating content.. all the best!
Sounds like an article for the "Journal of Irreproducible Results".
The joke's on Sabine. That paper doesnt exist.
you wanna say the paper is reality?
Nor this video-what are you commenting on?
@@scottcooper7586 Was never a comment in the first place.
•
The joke is on you, because Sabine doesn't exist 😊…
Unless, you don't exist either, then the joke is on me…
Unless… 😱
The theories, nothing exists, its all a simulation, etc, etc, deserve a big Zen slap. That's when the Zen master slaps you across the face. "Reality" is real enough. Doesn't matter what the numbers say.
"can you have an existential crisis if reality doesn't exist?' I'd buy a bumper sticker or T-shirt of that quote
Reality is, no matter the AI or Quantum computers garbage in garbage out.
You mean college education
GIGO = 1st law of computing. from waaaaay back
@@theorenhobart Get In Get Out usually enhanced by quick to make new computer systems crash faster with no comeback on the cowboy software engineer.
I knew it all along:
I'm nobody floating in nothing while imagining being someone experiencing something I don't understand while being unable to blame it on anybody.
Reminds me of my biologist days.
Zoom in enough and all life is made by non living machines
All this will prove is that superposition is just imagination and imagination is not reality until an action occurs. Imagine imagining that a cat is dead and alive until you open the box in this case the measurement is the action which cements the outcome of the reality .
I am reminded of Percival Lowell, who saw canals on Mars. He could replicate his findings -- every time he looked in the telescope he saw the veins of his eyes reflected back, and assumed it was on Mars. This paper is the result of scientists trapped in the maze of their own instrumentation
The vein explanation is speculative, when he could have and more likely did just misinterpret the geography of mars. At least we got the Lowell Observatory out of him, in any case
It was not his eye veins. Some could reproduce his maps, some had differing results, and others never saw any Canali. Pareidolia, or so, it most probably was. Mass hystery has also been suggested, but others find this an oversimplification.
@@collin4555 And the John Carter from Mars (Barsoom) stories.
That's not replication. Replication means some independent research group with separate facilities getting the same results.
I cant believe someone published this paper
@@absolutmauser To be fair though, some periodicals like to include a crazy contribution in each issue for light relief.
Butlerian Jihad is ready
@@dittikke Err, no they don't.
They published Mein Kampf (changed to use the specific 'scientific' language) as scientific, so....
The paper doesn't exist. You could show me the website with it, print in out and put it in my lap, read it to me out loud a million times, but that would not prove it exists. You could tattoo it to my eyeballs, but that would not prove it exists.
I'm sorry...I think I'm using their logic.
So why did you decide to make an A.I. that looks like an 80 year old grandma with a body of a middle-aged news anchor and the face of a 42-year old Wall Street businessman? You got the power to create any form you want and you went with the worst choices?
I’d rephrase it to “reality doesn’t exist as we perceive it to exist” reality certainly exists, we’re just limited in how we can perceive it.
This just sounds like a justification for a paycheck.
Publishing papers is how people who publish papers for a living make a living.
@@lukeclayton7578 so does this video, tbh
Lol. "It's like Schrödinger's Cat, but with less fur and more lab coats." Great commentary video, as always Sabine.
Two things;
1) AI patently isn't ready to work out anything. I am an analyst for a living, the boss suggested we try using AI to get facts and figures, I used it and then, using normal code, I proved it was ALWAYS somewhere between "woefully inaccurate" and simply "wrong".
2) it's not that reality doesn't exist per-se, it's that reality is subjective , no view of "reality" takes all time matter and space into account, it just builds a framework of ideas and those ideas shape the definition of "reality" .
If I state "I am typing to you, that is a reality" you could counter that actually there is demonstrably only matter suspended in space , sometimes the matter is closer together sometimes it's more spread out but you and I are just a field of particles suspended in the same space , not even provably separate. See? realty is subjective and no one can provide an example where it isn't. Does that mean there is no reality? no it means "reality" is a word so extreme it gets buried by its own semantics.
Love your work, Sabine! And thank you for the discount on Brilliant.
We've gone from the self-evident "I think, therefore I am" to the delusion "I think I am not, but I still want to let everyone else who also doesn't exist know about it because I'm an idiot."
"I think, therefore I am" is not self evident
No, it should have been "I am, therefore I think".😮
its a failure to discern between actual reality and the perception of reality
"I must publish this to advance my nonexistent career."
"I think, therefore I am" is also delusion if you're schizophrenic or..... BUFFER TIME.....
.....
....
YEAH
.....
transgender
When you told Michu "that's because you believe that math is real" for me that was the best science moment this decade.
I'm sorry I missed that.
He needed telling.
@@johnblackledge4009 th-cam.com/video/W39kfrxOSHg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=G15bA7iCEGLaNz1a&t=2010
Math is real. That is, the foundation of math is real, and math does build the universe. That includes fantasy as well.
@@VicMikesvideodiary Math is our attempt to translate what already happens into something we can understand.
It's as real as French.
@@NickyD-99 Absolutely wrong, and completely backwards. Our attempt to understand what really happens only becomes fully understood when we see the math. Which is why all of physics goes hand in hand with math. French is a made up language. Math is absolute. I'm guessing you've never really studied geometry and have noted what the "line" does and how "PERFECT" it all is when combined with a "perfect circle". It's absolutely flawless. I'll give you another example. Energy is essentially mass times velocity squared. The form of the square is MATH. You're confusing man made symbols of math with the foundation of math. If math were the product of this chaotic universe - and not the other way around, there would be flaws where I noted. And there are none.
Some physicists need to pinch themselves more.
The entangled particles have only a certain degree of correlations but not 100%. Therefore different observers for those entangled particles should come up with different results in some of the trials , we can only compare the change in correlation for one single observers to many observers.
When you force every buzzword you can imagine into a single publication 😂
What does one subatomic particle say to another? It says: "Hey, have you seen those human beings? They are physically defined in time and space with absolute values! That goes against any kind of intuition and reality!"
"Just in case [..] had you missing the more subtle nuances: I think this is nonsense." - perfect!
Question in 6:35: No, it doesn't give me existential crisis. I don't really understand the words "exist" and "reality", and even more, the statements "reality exists" or "reality doesn't exist". But maybe that's because I didn't understand the topic of this video.
"That's what they call progress in physics nowadays. Making insane ideas even more insane" 😂🤣
Yes, she's hilarious 😅
So, as you say, they are basically proposing that you can use quantum computers to explore if there is a certain threshold of system complexity that can be put into superposition. Why do you call it "nonsense" rather than just "poorly explained"?
The reason they say you need intelligence to make a measurement is that they are testing the hypothesis that a measurement is definable as "something that provides information about the state of the world", but in order for information to have meaning it has to be interpreted by an intelligent system. By the way, contempt is a cognitive distortion designed to scare people away from taking an idea seriously. If you are rejecting an idea because it sounds nonsensical to you, rather than because you can pinpoint the underlying error in the reasoning, chances are that you cannot pinpoint the error in the reasoning; you are simply threatened by the idea and therefore using contempt to inflate the perceived merit of dismissing it. You are an honest person so I don't think you are doing this deliberately, but I hope you stop because it leads to major blind spots in your thinking. You couldn't even see why, by some very parsimonious definitions of a measurement, it is reasonable to say you need intelligence to make a measurement!
These were college educated and just realty contradicts their college education reality can't be real
_" but in order for information to have meaning it has to be interpreted by an intelligent system"_
That's not how meaning works though. If we die out and decades later aliens come down they can still figure out English from studying books and read a Superman comic. And scientists figure things out by looking at patterns as old as the dinosaurs. In other words, clues remain clues whether detectives exist or not.
You're the first one to point it out, thank you for going against the crowd.
The comment I was waiting for
Writers have sensed this for ages. Albert Camus said it best: At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face." The essential absurdity of it all is what so easily gives it away.
Reality is, what somebody perceives as reality. Physical reality is simply energy - or condensed energy to be exact. Strictly according to him (the nodding guy in Sabine's table): E=mc² or m=E/c² to appease particle physicists. Since more and more indications emerge, consciousness is ruled by quantum processes in the brain, we all have quantum computers on our spines. Therefore, we can be in a superposition.
I guess I can stop worrying about global warming, the next pandemic, AGI, etc., if reality does not exist. I feel better already.
you can do that already considering "free will" is not compatible with quantum mechanics and many other scientific theories already
Except, oh wait, you still exist and nothing has changed.
That will be $25, plus 20% service charge.
Have a nice day. Oh, I see you already are. How nice for you.
I don't worry about those things even though I do believe in reality. Why worry about things you cannot change?
Have you studied the atom? The atom is the foundation of our reality. Do you need to explain? Or are you intelligent enough to understand?
04:42 my favorite words in any scientific activity, "assume human-level artificial intelligence"
@@byrnedhead so, dumber than current LLMs
love your content ! , i would definitely add some background music :)
My lotto ticket was both a winner and a loser - until I looked at it.
5:15 You do need something more than a detector to make a measurement, you need an observer. Otherwise, the detector becomes entangled into a superposition of two or more different outcomes. Indeed the observer becomes entangled too, however the outcomes the observer cannot observe become meaningless to him and therefore the measurement he has is valid and real.
you dont need an observer. This has been proven over and over! Consciousness has nothing to do with the wave function collapse.
Actually, that sort of makes "measurement" and "entanglement" synonymous with "experience." Apparently, the result has to be a "memory." Otherwise there would be no "sound" when the tree fell in the forest.
“...and this is why, kids, you should say NO to drugs.”
Even if they are free drugs?
@@whome9842especially if they are free
This is why we use the drugs and this program is promoting it.
It would be more polite to say, No thank you
@@StevenErnest Yeah... even UI got stupid nowadays.
If Windows was created now, it would've had a button “Got it, thank you!” instead of “Ok”. 🙄
Without an observer, any tool that gives a measurement is in essence giving nothing.
When I attended the first theoretical philosophy lecture the professor explained that we assume (1) reality exists (ontology) and (2) we can attain reliable information about it (epistemology). These are necessary stipulations in order to function. Insofar as we know, existence is impossible. However - as per Descartes - it is real at least in some form. Now we can function again.
"Trying to prove..." They're off to a bad start already.
I suspect their main objective is being published.
The idiom "have your cake and eat it too", should be "you can't eat your cake and have it too"...
That is what it means, but if you really want to make it less ambiguous replace "have" with "keep."
@@innocentsmith6091 i have cake regularly delicious. It should say you can't save your cake and eat it too
Once you eat the cake, it becomes part of you, so in fact you still have it. (Well, part of it does; the rest gets flushed.)
That _was_ the original idiom. The purpose was to show how ridiculous it is to get the benefits of something without getting any necessary downsides.
@@innocentsmith6091 sure, but it's a very old idiom, like most.
"Well if reality doesn't exist *touches non-existing nose*
Only imagination exists. When you touch your nose...interpret this action as... "how it would look and feel like if you touch your nose "IF" it existed somewhere". If you look at asphalt, how would asphalt look and feel to touch if it exists somewhere. You can only imagine all these activities. In fact, this action did not take place physically anywhere...because there is no "place" where to put asphalt. You have never walked on asphalt, there is no such thing as asphalt, but you have "imagined" walking on asphalt thousands of times.
Next month's headline:
"AI proves what AI says about reality being a simulation is irrelevant"
When tasked with the question of whether reality was just a simulation, the AI came back with the astounding conclusion that "if reality is just a simulation, then the AI was part of that simulation and therefore anything it determined about the nature of reality was just part of the simulation and should therefore be disregarded." It went on to tell the research team they shouldn't ask such stupid questions, asking "Haven't you seen the matrix???"
I would have thought the main problem with Wigner’s friend is finding a Physicist with a friend in a nonexistent reality
/s
Tell my 54 year old back that this isn't reality lol....
I have an existential crisis at least once a week, therefore reality exists.
Well, there are people who think that text prediction can become magically sentient.
This is worse, but not that far apart.
AI is nothing but a buzzword. Most current 'ai' programs were written in the 80's. We just didn't think they would have access to such a big database
Well, there are schools that teach that memorizing texts by rote can make one magically knowledgeable.
This is worse, but not that far apart.
We'll have to wait a bit until they become not only text prediction but also action prediction, emotion prediction, and whatnot. "Not much" is needed for it, "just" constant learning, long-term memory, internal feedback for self-criticism and self-reflection, a constant stream of audiovisual and sensory data from the real world, including pain (don't put your robotic arms into the fire!) and rewards (hm, what would a robot like?), and voila! we got a really smart cookie. That makes me think ... wait, aren't we, humans, also just "prediction machines" trying to come up with our next action (including our own thoughts and speech) based on all the information from all the sensory input that we accumulate in both short and long term memory? And, of course, that consciousness problem, which still cannot be explained. Is it just the result of the "strange loop" (from the awesome book "I am a strange loop") or something more? Who knows. AI don't.
Well, there are people who think that biological organisms reacting to stimulus somehow became sentient.
What I'm trying to say, intelligence is an emergent entity.
I don't think current LLMs are going to become anything we'd describe as "sentient" any time soon.
But whether they might one day depends on your definition of "sentient".
And finding a good one is really tough.
Reality, what a concept. More people need to engage with it.
I know Eckart Tolle doesn't agree with Renae Descartes , and I left school at age 14 ( I’m now 71 ) But in 2009 a consciousness was guiding me in various ways, one morning at 3am I woke up hearing ‘I think therefore I am’ , I had never heard of that quote before, I have never heard of Decartes, until a month later I read it in The power of now. Consciousness exists 👍
As I was going to Lawrence Livermore, I met a physicist with seven friends. Each friend had seven cats; each cat had seven quarks; each quark had seven states. States, quarks, cats, and friends - how many were there going to Lawrence Livermore, in the end?
Thank you Sabine!
I think there is a common misunderstanding of the difference between reality and perception of reality by our consciousness. The first one exists regardless of our observation. The second one is a result of evolution and doesn't need to be accurate - its goal is not to observe the real world but help our genes to survive and spread. And yes, we know that our perception of the world is not veridical. For example, we don't see a blind spot in our retina - our consciousness is "rendering" what we don't see for us. The question is how far apart is reality and our perception of it. Probably, more than we think today.
I have a billion dollars in my bank account. You can't prove it's not there unless you look it up, so it is both there and not there. You might as well give me the keys to that Mercedes-Benz right now and not waste your time.
Zimbabwe dollars?
And its gone...
Reality is biggest provayer of misinformation
@@cherubin7th 😄
@napoleonfeanor, no, a _Schroedinger-Billion!_
The friend is a macroscopic object, but the Laws of Quantum Physics are only for the submicroscopic world. So we can expect a probabilistic behaviour for the experiment in the room, while the behaviour of the friend is deterministic.
Jokes on you Sabine, I have a regenerating cake that I bought in the quantum realm last summer.
will the cake disappear if shared?
@@TohGahr apparently not. I tried to share some with a friend, and they suggested medication. Which doesn't go with cake at all, yuck!
How can a theory that *"reality doesn't exist"* be taken seriously if it also exists within this reality?
Reality doesn't exist because this TH-cam video does not exist.
One good experiment to prove whether or not reality exists or not:
- Stop eating food, breathing, going to work and paying your bills. See what happens. If you starve, suffer from hypoxia and lose your house/car...then you're imagining things - its not real because reality doesn't exist.
fake reality just exploted because of that paradox.
Reality is biggest provayer of misinformation. Reality is the greatest threat to democracy
they are actually referring to spacetime and locality. it is impossible that reality cannot exist.
but spacetime and the universe, sure, it could be an Illusion generated by consciousness
*"but spacetime and the universe, sure, it could be an Illusion generated by consciousness"*
... In order for any "illusion" to be observable, all elements of the illusion *must exist.* They must exist in order for you to comprehend the illusion.
*Example:* I project a holograph of a Lamborghini parked in your driveway. I'm tricking you into thinking that the car is really there with a holographic illusion when in reality, the car I used for my illusion is still parked over at the dealership.
Now, the only way you could believe (or be tricked into believing) that a Lamborghini was parked in your driveway was if Lamborghinis *actually existed.* The Lambo is either *in your driveway* or *parked somewhere else* and only the "image" of it is in your driveway. Either way, the Lambo *must exist* as that's the only way you are consciously able to recognize what you are observing.
So, based on that, how can you argue that 'reality" is just an illusion? If it's not what we are all subjectively observing right now, ... then where is it really located?
Attention, once they prove it, reality collapses on any cat nearby.
The main feature of a measurement is amplification: it enlarges a microscopic effect to macroscopic scale. Perhaps the solution is somewhat like Penrose's OR, but deterministic rather than stochastic, based on a kind of elasticity of spacetime that allows divergent superposed space times up to a point where it has to 'snap' into one state or another?
1)Quantum x (enter a word in a place of x) doesn't exist. 2)Measurment is done when energy is used for an interaction with the other energy.
"I think this is nonsense." --Devastating Sabine quote of the year.
I think I'll actually put this on a bumper sticker.
That is a signal of one of the main weaknesses of Ms Hossenfelder’s approach.
Sabine is clearly wrong and outdated in her quantum thinking
I hereby suggest there are people who spend too much time indoors.
I agree, and furthermore suggest there are people who spend too much public money.