Audio Player
Starting at:
Tim Palmer: Non-Locality, General Relativity, Einstein, Quantum Mechanics
April 26, 2024
•
1:48:55
•
undefined
Audio:
Download MP3
⚠️ Timestamps are hidden: Some podcast MP3s have dynamically injected ads which can shift timestamps. Show timestamps for troubleshooting.
Transcript
Enhanced with Timestamps
233 sentences
15,519 words
Method: api-polled
Transcription time: 107m 46s
The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze.
Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates.
Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a toe listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount.
Hola, Miami! When's the last time you've been to Burlington? We've updated, organized, and added fresh fashion. See for yourself Friday, November 14th to Sunday, November 16th at our Big Deal event. You can enter for a chance to win free wawa gas for a year, plus more surprises in your Burlington. Miami, that means so many ways and days to save. Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow! No purchase necessary. Visit BigDealEvent.com for more details.
Okay, we're here at the Royal Society of London with Tim Palmer, Professor Tim Palmer. Welcome. Thank you. Nice to be here. Nice to talk to you. Nice to meet you. Nice to go out for lunch earlier. And you showed me around. I appreciate that. Tell us about the state of fundamental physics today. Well, physics, I mean, in general, has been a phenomenal success story over the last, well, since my career. So, I mean, I started researching
You know, doing my PhD back in the 1970s and, you know, physics has gone from strength to strength. And in certain aspects of fundamental physics, you know, it's gone from strength to strength. You know, we have complete completed the standard model. You know, just this morning, I've been at a meeting discussing some of the results from the James Webb Telescope and the implications for our understanding of cosmology. All that's fantastic.
However, having said that some of the problems that were there at the beginning of my research career, you know, have hardly moved forward and they evolve around things like the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. What do we mean by a measurement? What is the measurement problem? How do we interpret, you know, the entanglement of particles? Is it really telling us that the universe is non-local? Does it really have the kind of spooky action of the distance?
That Einstein so hated so much and then above all, you know, we still really haven't made, uh, we haven't, at least we haven't solved the problem of how to unify all the electromagnetic and nuclear forces with gravity, you know, and that, um, some people would argue we haven't, I mean, some people argue string theory took us a long way forward. Others would say, well, we haven't actually moved forward at all since the seventies. So
It's a kind of a mixed bag, I would say. But I still think we're facing very fundamental questions, particularly in this issue of quantum mechanics and gravitational physics, where we've sort of got to get back to basics, I think, a bit more and start asking the deep questions rather than just plowing through calculations. What's the missing link then to solve the issues between quantum mechanics and general relativity?
I mean I personally think it's to do with at the sort of deepest level it's to do with understanding the if you like the holistic nature of quantum physics a bit more explicitly and we know that that's the case or many of us believe that's the case in in gravitational physics and Marx principle in gravitational physics is which I think
What is causing my arms to flail out marks principle says it's the distant mass of the universe it's the masses the totality
Of the universe that is doing that. And I think we have to, we have to kind of take that notion and move it more into the quantum regime. Um, and you know, sometimes, I mean, this is not completely new idea. People like David Bowman, Basil, highly their famous book on quantum mechanics was called the undivided universe.
So it's a concept that's sort of been around, but I think we have to take it a bit more seriously and recognize that both in the quantum world and the gravitational world, the local laws of physics are probably determined by the large scale structure of the universe. So what is Mark's principle? Can you state it rigorously or you can't? And that's the reason why it's unproved rigorously. Well, as I say, Mark's principle is that
the you see that the question is when we rotate ourselves if we spin around our arms flail out or if we drive around a curve in the in the road we we kind of get pushed to the side of the car and we say you know that's that's caused by the centrifugal force or something like that but that's just a label and the question is let's take the rotating case what actually is it that um
That determines whether you're rotating or not rotating. And Mark, I mean, this actually goes back to Bishop Barkley back, you know, in the earlier times, but in the 19th century, Mark and smart said, well, the reason why we say we're rotating is because when we rotate, we see the distant stars moving. And he said, well, that's not a coincidence. It's because of the kind of gravitational effect of the distant matter.
That defines what a non rotating frame is and a rotating frame. And this was a very big inspiration for Einstein in his coming in his developing his theory of general relativity. And indeed in general relativity, there is an effect called the lens Turing effect, where if you have a mass, a massive shell, if you like, and you rotate it,
That rotation mass drags the local frames of reference around with it. So in other words, locally, that that tells you, you know, whether you're rotating or not. Now, it then becomes a kind of. You know, then you ask the question, does does general relativity automatically? Is it is it is it internally consistent with Marx principle? Well,
You can have space times where there is no distant matter. So the Schwarzschild solution for an isolated star or black hole doesn't have doesn't have distant matter. But in some sense, you have to define then what you mean by rotating or not rotating. In the case of the Schwarzschild, it's a non-rotating solution. You kind of have to impose that non-rotating condition by a boundary condition at infinity.
But most I think most cosmologists believe that in the real world where you know we don't live in you know the earth is not an isolated mass in a otherwise empty universe it's it's it's part of the universe and I think most cosmologists would accept that that Marx principle probably is the key reason why
We experience so-called inertial forces in rotating frames of reference, because these are the ones moving with respect to the distant stars. But it's hard to prove it because we don't yet know. You know, we don't even know whether the universe is infinite or finite. We don't really know how much matter there is. So it's become marks. I like to think of it like this marks principle. Has become a little bit.
Like some of these famous sort of conjectures in number theory, like Goldbach's conjecture, you know, that every even number is a sum of two prime numbers. I mean, everybody kind of believes it's true, but nobody knows how to prove it. So it's not very high up in the research agenda because nobody knows how to prove it. And in a way, I think Mark's principle is similar. It's difficult to to know how to prove it rigorously. But but I think most cosmologists would sort of accept that it's something
There's some truth in it. And I think, as I say, I think that we've got to get to that sort of stage in thinking about quantum mechanics as well. OK, fill in this blank for me. Mock's principle is to general relativity as blank is to quantum mechanics. Well, OK, I mean, I have my own, you know, you're putting me on the spot. I mean, I have my own, you know, ideas about about quantum quantum mechanic or quantum physics, let's say.
Um, and I've tried to propose, you know, an idea which I call the cosmological invariant set postulate. And this is very much, you know, um, motivated by chaos theory, that there are systems which exhibit this extraordinarily beautiful, uh, geometric structure in their state space. And that they, you know, if you leave, if you leave these, if you start them from an arbitrary initial condition and just leave them for a
long time eventually they just evolve on this what's called invariant set or sometimes called an attractor but these are fractal attractors and my my kind of principle which would be consistent with what i'm talking about here the holistic nature of quantum physics would be the universe evolving on a cosmological invariant set so marx principle is gravity as you know
Perhaps this cosmological invariant set postulates to quantum physics. And the reason for saying that is that it can explain some of these difficult issues like entanglement and Bell's theorem without having to invoke non-locality or indeterminism, all the sort of things that Einstein hated. So professor, I'm a stickler for words. And I noticed a few times you were going to say that, okay, so I have three questions here. Einstein's theory is
is consistent with Mach's principles, then with Mach's principle, then you corrected yourself and said, is internally consistent with Mach's principle. So one of the questions I have is, well, what's the difference between being consistent and internally consistent? So we'll get to that for just a moment. So I don't forget you corrected yourself when you were saying quantum mechanics, you switched it to quantum physics. So I'm curious what the difference is there that you see. And then another time is invariant sets, which is the same as a fractal attractor.
Okay, if it's the same as a fractal attractor, why did you rename it as invariant set? Okay, so those are three questions. The first one was about internal consistency versus consistency. Okay, on the first question,
There are solutions of Einstein's equations and I mentioned earlier the isolated body and the Schwarzschild solution. Another one is what's called De Sitter space, you know, which has no matter in it and yet space is curved. It's curved by the cosmological constant. So you can come up with space times which are
Which satisfy Einstein's fields, field equations, which are not marking, you know, because there's no distant matter for them to be. However, what I'm saying is the real world. Forget what I actually said, because what I'm trying to say is the real world, which is governed, you know, which is governed by. Let's say to a good approximation, one of the Friedman Robertson Walker solutions, the cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations.
is consistent with Mark's principle. So not all solutions of Einstein's field equations are consistent with with Mark's principle, but the Freedman type of equations are. And we live in a Freedman type of universe. That is, we don't live in De Sitter space and we don't live in an isolated Schwarzschild space. We live in something which, at least on the very, very, very large scale, approximates quite well to the Freedman Robertson Walker cosmology. So from that point of view, that's consistent with
Mark's principle. Quantum physics versus mechanics. Yeah, no, quantum mechanics is a very specific theory. It's the theory that Heisenberg first proposed almost 100 years ago next year, I guess, and then Schrodinger very shortly afterwards with his wave mechanics version. So that's what we mean by quantum mechanics. It's a specific theory of quantum
quantum phenomena but i use the word quantum physics in a slightly more generic way which is you know the set of all observations of the world you know involving atoms and particles and entangled systems where maybe quantum mechanics isn't the final word i mean that would be my belief that it's not the final answer to how to describe quantum physics in as accurate a way as possible i see
Okay, now the third one was invariant sets versus a fractal attract. Yeah, well, the concept of the concept of an attractor is that if you start with any old initial condition and you run your equations, your differential equations forward in time and just leave it for, you know, a very, very, very long time, then the state gets attracted to this special, um, uh,
The special fractal. But the hypothesis I want to put forward is that the universe has always been evolving on this geometry. So it's never, it's never been attracted towards it. It was, it was always on it and it always will be on it potentially, you know, for an infinite time in the past or a finite time in the future. It might end up being cyclical. It might end up repeating itself.
at some stage but the point is i'm not invoking the concept of it being attracted the states of the universe being attracted towards this geometry but it's just this is the geometry that it evolves on and the concept behind this geometry is that it's called an invariant set because if you're on it today
You always will be on it in the future and you always have been on it in the past. So the set is in some sense or the geometry is invariant under the under time evolution. It's invariant under the propagating forwards in or indeed backwards in time. So calling it an attractor. I don't like using that word because it implies that I'm thinking about
States yeah i think you see the point is if you're outside it you're violating and this is an important point of my reason for believing why this is important for bell's theorem if you don't lie on the attractor you're inconsistent with your this basic postulate the states which don't lie on the invariant set by definition don't satisfy the postulate that that states of the world evolve on the invariant set
So the concept of being attracted towards it is, is not really a useful idea in this respect. I see. So in other words, the invariant set is the attractor, but we just, yes, our States are always on it. Exactly. That's exactly right. The invariant set is the attractor and States are on it. They always will be. They always have been at any point, any hypothetical. This is the point. If you, if you imagine a counterfactual world, a hypothetical world in your head,
Where you've slightly changed, you know, you've changed, you've slightly moved to the position of that chair. Hypothetically, you know, you haven't actually moved it, but you say, well, maybe I might've moved it. You've invented a counterfactual world, which doesn't really exist. It's a hypothetical world. Now, if that world, if that hypothetical world, if you've nudged your, the state of the universe off this invariant set, when you
You may as well have said, what if this what if this ball lifted up into the air? Like a counterfactual such as moving this chair a nudge that takes you off the tractor set or the invariant set is equivalent to saying, what if there was some elephant that just appeared here? But even in that case, there is some quantum mechanical chance that elephant can appear here. It's just minute.
well there's a quantum mechanical chance that now i mean of course there is a chance an elephant might walk into this room right in five seconds who knows i don't know it's always possible um should we wait and see no didn't happen anyway but it could have happened but that's not quite the point i'm making point i'm making is if we took the world as it was 20 seconds ago and said okay no elephant walked
Is a world where everything was the same? You and me talking, the people in London doing their shopping, the earth going around the sun, the sun going around the Milky Way, everything the same, except that an elephant walks into the room. Is that hypothetical? Well, because it is hypothetical. It's not an actual world because the elephant didn't walk in the room, right? It's just maybe we're hypothesizing the possibility
Everything stayed the same, but an elephant walked in the room. What I'm saying is, if that hypothetical state does not lie on this invariant set, and I don't, I'm not saying that it does or it doesn't, but if it didn't, then that would not be consistent with the way I formulate the laws of physics. The point about this is in quantum, in quantum physics, this notion of counterfactual, counterfactual worlds actually occurs
Quite a lot of the time and most of the, um, the so-called no-go theorems and the classic one is, is of course Bell's theorem. Um, implicitly there's an implicit assumption and it's not, you know, it's in regular proofs. If you like, it's not drawn out terribly explicitly, but there's an implicit proof when you introduce, for example, a hidden variable model that that hidden variable model has the property that you can, um,
For example, keep your hidden variables fixed, but change the actual measurement orientations that you actually did the measurement with and assume that that hypothetical counterfactual measurement is consistent with the laws of physics. That's an implicit assumption. And I'm trying to draw out an example. And my example is based on this notion of an invariant set. And therefore it brings in the, you know, the large scale structure of the universe.
Where those counterfactuals would be inconsistent with the laws of physics. Now that being the case, you no longer have to conclude that the world is non-local or indeterministic or anything like that. It's just that certain counterfactual worlds, which might seem plausible, you know, to your head in your head are actually technically inconsistent with the laws of physics. So some who shall not be named may call that conspiratorial. Okay.
I want you to explain your thoughts on that as well as tied into when people say that the universe is not locally real. What are your views? Well, just on the last point that this is, of course, is is was was the headline, if you like, when, you know, Klaus Aspey and Seilinger won the Nobel Prize a year or so ago.
The headline, you know, for, for, for showing that bells inequalities for violet and the headlines, you know, the world is not locally real. So what I mean, what they mean by that is that the world is, you know, either it's not. There's something kind of inherently indeterministic about the world, or at least the world can't be described with kind of, with deterministic equations. Um, or that and possibly, and that, um,
The world is non-local. So what does that mean? The world by the world mean non-local means that the result of an experiment, which I might do here in my lab, not that we're in a lab, but if we were in the lab, the result that I get, if the world is non-local, the result that I get can depend on whether a colleague of mine
Who could be on the other side of the world or in principle on the other side of the galaxy or indeed on the other side of the universe. Um, uh, what, how he set up his measurement. So the setup of a measurement, you know, a gazillion miles away can affect the outcome of, of an experiment here. That that's what non-locality means. Now back in the thirties, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, they wrote this famous paper in
In thirty five on introducing this concept of entanglement and so on. And they just. They just said, well, that's manifest nonsense. You know, I mean, the world could never be like that. That's just crazy. And yet, you know, whatever we are now, 90. Yeah, almost 90 years later. We're somehow concluding that, yeah, the world might be non-local. The one thing that they rejected is completely
Barking mad so so this is why i you know i have been and you know kind of motivated by my background in non-linear dynamics and chaos theory and chaotic geometry i i've been kind of going back with an absolutely you know fine tooth comb through the bell bell the bell the proof of bell serum and point
pointing out this kind of implicit assumption which comes it's usually introduced when when they introduced a hidden variable model there's an implicit assumption that the hidden variable model has this property that you can hold fixed the hidden variables and change the measurement settings as you like so you say okay well I did an actual experiment
With an actual hidden variable and an actual experimental setup. But according to my model, I could have hypothetically counterfactually could have changed the measurement setting, um, keeping the hidden variable fixed and got a, and getting it, and I got a sensible result. And I'm saying, um, there are models and the one based on this invariant set idea is, is an example of that. And I, we could talk, perhaps talk about another one because it also comes out of
You get the same result if you discretize Hilbert space so we'll talk about that in a minute and that may be a more direct way of seeing it from a if you're an expert in quantum mechanics but that's you know if you if you have if you don't have this property of counterfactual definiteness then you can indeed violate these Bell inequalities without having to assume indeterminism or non-locality. Now is it conspiratorial?
No, it's not. The conspiracy argument, I mean, it arose from a paper which the philosopher Abner Shimoni wrote shortly after one of Bell's papers in the 1970s, where they introduced, it's kind of a bizarre idea in a way, but you could technically explain the Bell inequalities
If, um, if somehow you could corrupt the minds of the experimenter to perform an experiment, you know, where the experimental settings were, uh, let's put it like this. It's, you know, if you imagine the particle that was being, being, uh, measured somehow center weird message out through the ether into the brain of the experimenter.
And you know the experimenter wasn't aware that they were their brains were being corrupted and they and the message was telling them make sure you set your measuring system like this you know so that that would be a conspiracy and that would apply even in the case that the measurement was made by some random number generator well yeah um you're right so bell the reason bell
didn't run with that was precisely because sort of what you say it's it you know it invokes things you don't really want to get into like how does the brain work and what what what do we mean by free will and all sorts of sort of quite metaphysical stuff so so he in his paper hear that sound
That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the Internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms.
There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone
of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklyn. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase.
Go to shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in shopify.com slash theories. Which was the response to the shimoni paper. He said look let's forget about humans because it's just complicated and it's kind of messy and just say let's imagine that the measurement setting
Is determined by a pseudo random number generator, you know, which spits out either the number, let's say zero or one. Uh, so zero, you set it, you'll set your measuring measuring system one way and one, you set it in a different way. Um, and this pseudo random number generator is such that you feed in a kind of an input number. And what it does is it picks up on the millionth digit of the input number.
So, you know, you could you could you could imagine a computer doing a calculation of a solving a quadratic equation or something where the number was definitely an irrational number. And, you know, eventually it would come to that millionth digit. And depending on whether that millionth digit was odd or even, then the output variable would be zero or one. OK, so that that's fine. So then Bell said the crucial issue is
Is that millionth digit important for any other purpose than setting the output of the pseudo random number generator and hence setting the measurement, the measuring apparatus. Does that millionth digit serve any other purpose in the world? Okay. Now he said, you know, he said, my intuition is that it doesn't serve any other purpose.
But at the end of his paper, this is a crucial point. He said, actually, I'm not completely sure that's correct. The correct conclusion. And it may be that one day somebody does come along and explain why that millionth digit could be important for a distinctly different purpose. So Tim came along. Well, whether I came along or not, but I am claiming that you see changing that millionth digit is again, an example of a counterfactual.
And if just for the sake of argument, if that changing that millions digit took you off this invariant set, then that perturbed state of the world where the millions digit was different would be in the world. The whole world would be inconsistent with the laws of physics. So all the galaxies would vanish in a puff of smoke, you know, puff of metaphysical smoke, let's say, um,
Everything in the in the world would vanish in a puff of metaphysical smoke so that millions digit is is not only important is vital for the existence of everything in the world so that would be no right or wrong don't know but this is a country this this is this would contradict bells intuition which has a try to emphasize he wasn't hundred percent sure about that that millions digit could actually be an important
Piece of information for other purposes than just setting the apparatus. There was a philosopher named David Lewis and he had this construct called possible worlds and impossible worlds. Yes. So are you suggesting that what's not on the invariant set is then an impossible world that we thought was possible? That's exactly right. It's that's exactly right. So it looks possible and our brains, you know, which have limited computational capacity, let's say,
You know, think of it as possible, but actually it's an impossible world. Um, I just want to say one other slightly technical thing, because sometimes this is another argument people, uh, raise with me, which is that, you know, I'm, I'm seemingly invoking, um, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny perturbations, you know, to the millionth digit or to the billionth could be the billionth digit or something and saying that has a radical effect.
On the ontological status of the world and isn't that fine, isn't that very fine tuning, isn't the world very fine tuned then that you're not even allowing me to change the millionth digit. One of the things I try to emphasize in the geometry of fractals is that real numbers are actually not a very useful tool for looking at the geometry of fractals and there's a whole different type of number system called paedic numbers, which are completely bread and butter to
to number theorists, which tie much more closely to fractal geometry than real numbers. And these periodic numbers are associated with a very different type of distance function or metric compared to real numbers. So real numbers have what's called the Euclidean metric, which we're all familiar with. You know, if I, as my fingers approach each other, their Euclidean distance is getting smaller and smaller. But the periodic distance behaves a bit differently to that. And in particular,
If two points are on this invariant set, then and they're periodic, you know, their periodic distance can be small, but a point that's in the gap between them actually has a very large periodic distance to a point on the invariant set. So this is a very robust scheme from the periodic perspective. And this is one of my sort of
So explain to this face, explain how is it, how are you supposed to know that what you said was an impossible world versus a possible one a priori?
You can always say, look, what you suggested was impossible. How do you know? No, you don't. You don't know. And that's I mean, one of the one of the things about the world is we we can't compute. You know, there are certain things we just can't calculate. Compute. I I don't know. And there's no way I could know that something I might say in two minutes will cause you to be so cross with me that you'll turn down. They'll turn off the camera and storm. It almost happened two minutes ago already.
I can't prove that. But what I can compute is that if you... Let's put it in terms of EPL, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen. Normally, we've been talking about spin and things, but they framed it in terms of position and momentum. This is the original Heisenberg thing. You can measure position or you can measure momentum. Now, the way I frame this is
If you measured the position of a particle, then your measurement of the counterfactual, which is that what result would I have got had I measured the momentum of that particle? Whereas in the real world, I measured the position of that particle. I'm claiming that that would lie off the invariant set. The momentum measurement would lie off the invariant set.
When the position measurement lay on the invariant set or conversely, if you had measured momentum, then the position measurement would have lain off the invariant set. So I can't predict what you'll measure, but what I can predict is whatever you measure, the other variable, the counterfactual variable would lie off the invariant set. So as soon as you've, you could say up to the time where you did the measurement, you were free to choose position or momentum.
Choose away as you like whatever you want if you want to use the millions digit of some irrational number that's good with me if you want to use your grandmother's birthday that's good with me if you want to use the dow jones index that's good with me but so i can't i don't know and you're free to choose that but having made that choice then the counterfactual world where you say what would i have measured
Notice that so far, technically the discussion on Bell's theorem or Bell's inequalities has lasted maybe 20 minutes. Some people who are physicists may understand it, some people who aren't may not. But why is it the case that it's taken so long to explain something minute about Bell's theorem when in math,
If you have a proof of something, it's quite clear. Now, maybe it's difficult because you're not technically proficient, like Andrew Wiles' proof took quite some time to go through, but this isn't at the level of Andrew Wiles' proof in terms of abstraction or mathematical ability or what's required mathematically. So explain to people who are unfamiliar, why is it that you said you went through this with a fine tooth comb? Many others have gone through his theorem or his proof with a fine tooth comb.
Why does it even take going through with a fine-tooth comb tens, decades later? Well, I can only hypothesize about this, right? I don't know for a fact, but I think most physicists tend to associate, let's say,
So one of one of the, you know, one of the conditions of Bell's theorem is about, you know, is the world deterministic or indeterministic? Now, what do we mean by determinism? And I think most physicists tend to think of it as and indeed, you know, many examples are like this as initial value problems. You give me some initial condition, you know, at some initial time. And I have a, you know, a computer or I, you know, I can do a calculation in my head or something like that.
And I tell you, given that initial condition, what's happening in the future? I mean, weather forecasting, you know, you take a gazillion weather measurements and use those to determine an initial state of the atmosphere, the atmosphere today. You stick all that into a big computer, chunters away, comes out with a state tomorrow. Now, when you frame it like that, then
There's no reason at all why counterfactual worlds aren't consistent with the laws of physics because I can change. I can change the initial state, you know, as I like. I mean, you know, the initial conditions are usually
You know, just given give their prescribed by by you or by somebody. And then you do your time evolution. If you want to have a different initial condition, that's fine. Um, or, or in fact, what you can do is with deterministic equations, you can say, um, you know, let's say, I mean, today we're looking out over central London. It's a reasonably, um,
Reasonably sunny day for England. You could imagine. Okay. Well, let's imagine it's raining. Okay. I'm going to, I'm going to sort of so unlikely in London though. Well, you know, sometimes it rains. So I'm going to, I'm going to take, I'm going to put, I'm going to change all of the isobars, the pressure. Uh, so there's a big low pressure system right over, over the UK. Okay. I could take the laws of.
The Navier-Stokes equations the laws of you know classical physics fluid mechanics and so on and I can sort of you know work them backwards in time to produce an initial state let's say two days earlier that would lead to it being raining today and that you know that that what would happen is that somewhere over the North Atlantic the pressure fields and the wind fields would be slightly different what they were but you know there's nothing
There's nothing in those laws, those classical laws of physics that would say, okay, that that slightly different initial state was somehow inconsistent with the laws of physics. So when you have, when you have like standard and a standard initial value problem, what I'm saying about
Counterfactual sometimes being inconsistent with the laws of physics never arises because you can always change the initial state you can perturb as you like. So this only comes about and this is what so this is my argument is only comes about because I am. Moving away from that paradigm to where my definition of the laws of physics is this geometry of the invariant set the dynamics is encoded.
In the sort of periodic type of equations which encode the geometry of this invariant set. So I'm moving away from the, you know, the standard initial value problem to saying this is actually a problem in geometry. And when you do that, then, then you have this possibility that states which don't counterfactual states, which don't lie on the invariant set, then becoming consistent with the laws of physics.
So my answer to your question is, I think it's because people have thought somewhat narrowly about what a, you know, what a hidden variable model or what a deterministic model of quantum physics would look like. Um, but this in turn then brings me to the point where we started with, which is, you know, what is this invariant set? It's invariant set of the whole damn universe.
It's the totality of everything. It's thinking of the whole universe as a dynamical system evolving on some cosmological invariant set. So that's why I'm saying you cannot dissociate the local laws of physics which govern how a Bell experiment would work in the lab.
From the very large scale structure of the universe, because that's where the invariant set concept comes in. And that's why I say that is the kind of parallel, if you like, with with Marx principle for gravity. So, OK. Being on the attractor set, evolving it forward, you mentioned that you can continue it at infinitum and evolve it backward at infinitum, which has inside it infinite and infinitum. So let's talk about infinity. Yeah.
Some people think of infinity as just a placeholder, like a heuristic for this is a sufficiently large number beyond our grasp. Right. Okay. The computationalists are, are fond of that. What do you make of the concept of infinity in physics? The concept of infinity in physics is really interesting. And let me ask you a question, Kurt, because we have, um, you know, we have classical physics, um, you know, the laws of fluid mechanics.
um for example is a good example of classical system and then we have quantum mechanics which replaced it now you have so if you ask about infinity as you say there you have two possibilities one is that actually in physics we know infinity sort of exists as a concept in mathematics of course it does but in physics
Is infinity when we use infinity or conversely one over infinity and infinitesimal. When we use these concepts do we really mean infinity is absolutely literally infinitely big bigger than any finite number or is it just a placeholder for a very big number but we don't particularly care. Exactly how big it is but it is a very big number and you know the laws the laws of physics.
Don't depend sensitively on that number and you know all experiments it doesn't really matter if that number is like. Google or google play something like that so do you think there's a difference between how infinity is used in classical physics and quantum physics and if so how would you see how would you see it.
Do you think infinity is more of a, you know, as an, as a number of, let's say infinity as a number that's bigger than any finite number. So not a placeholder. Do you think that's more of a concept in classical physics or in quantum physics? In quantum physics, there are infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. And then because of that, there's something like the stone von Neumann theorem. And that's one of the reasons why you can't, why QFT is not so trivial compared to quantum mechanics.
Because you have the conjugate variables of X and P. OK, well, look, I think I agree with your answer, but I think you're making it too complicated. I think you're right with what you say. But let me let me put it like this. So. If we, you know, even at high school, when we learn Newton's laws of motion, we, you know, they're framed in terms of the calculus F equals, I mean, I'm assuming that that's
I'm not even sure today whether high school students do the calculus or not. But anyway, it was certainly first year university. Yeah. Say four sequence mass times acceleration and acceleration is the second, you know, rate of change position with respect to time. So we use Newton's calculus, Newton Leibniz calculus and the calculus involves, you know, infinitesimal numbers like D by DT. DT is an infinitesimal number in calculus. So
So you might think that, you know, infinity or an infinitesimal plays an essential role in classical physics, but, you know, people might think, well, in quantum physics, it's all about discrete jumps. You know, everything's discrete jumps of energy and therefore it's all somehow finite. Everything is finite, but actually it's completely the other way around. Um, because in classical physics, I can take a differential equation, um,
You know for for I mean we do this with weather forecasting of course where the you know that we have partial differential equations that underlie the movement of air but they're represented on a computer with finite derivatives so that we don't have like d by dt we have delta by delta t and these deltas are finite things and you know we know that at least
short range forecasts that does pretty well. So there's no kind of essential reason in classical physics why we need to be working with a continuum, the real number continuum. We can just work with discrete numbers and we get answers. If we want to get a slightly more accurate answer we'll halve the time step or quarter the time step but
You tell me how accurate you want to know it and I'll tell you the discretization length and the discretization time that will give me an answer to the accuracy you want. But in quantum mechanics, it's completely different because the basic concept behind a quantum state is sort of, you mentioned this effectively, is it's an element of a Hilbert space and a Hilbert space is a vector space. In fact, in quantum mechanics, it's a vector space over the complex numbers.
Um, but the point of it being a vector space is that you, you want to be, we need to be able to add together two vectors, in other words, two different quantum states and the resulting addition is itself a quantum state. So that's a, that's a really important property. Now, if you start discretizing Hilbert space.
You will typically lose that property. You'll add together two vectors and the resulting vector will kind of lie in between two of your points in your discretized space. Wait, that's not so obvious. So let's say you make a grid.
I mean make a grid and take a vector say you have an origin and you have two vectors which point to two of the points on the grid and add them together that the sum of the two is going to split the difference unless you've got a grid point which splits the difference then your vector will no longer be
Let's say you have something that's unit one in length and then another that's unit one in length, then you get something that's unit two in length, but along the same axis. But what's wrong with that? No, that, that, that, that might work. But if you, if you imagine, um, uh, well, if you imagine to, you know, if you, if you discretize say a circle and you imagine two vectors pointing to, let's say neighboring grid, grid points and then add together,
You're going to split that difference and your your vector will will typically then not lie on that on that on either. OK, OK. So it depends on your discretization. It will depend on the discretization. But the but. The generically to get, you know, these algebraic properties, you need a continuum space.
Actually, I'm not the first to make this point. This was made by Lucien Hardy from Perimeter some years ago when he came up with what he called reasonable axioms for quantum mechanics. One is this notion that is called the continuity notion that you don't have a space where you can get
discrete jumps, even though quantum mechanics is all about discrete jumps in the so-called unitary phase of quantum evolution, you actually need continuity. It's a critical property. Um, now, but then the question is, why is it a critical property? And it's only a critical property. If you believe that these Hilbert spaces and Hilbert vectors are the fundamental objects of your theory.
In other words, if you say, what is that, you know, if I, if I have my theory of quantum physics, what is at the deepest level now in quantum mechanics at the deepest level is Hilbert space. That is the, that doesn't go any deeper than that. That's it. Okay. So then you have to have the continuum of, of Hilbert space, of Hilbert's, um, Hilbert states rather, um, to describe quantum mechanics. On the other hand, if you say, well,
um uh if you say that um which is sort of what i'm trying to suggest by virtue of this cosmological invariant set postulate that there there may well be something deterministic that underpins quantum physics hear that sound
That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms.
There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone.
of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklyn. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com
Close your eyes.
Visit 1800contacts.com today to save on your first order.
Then the Hilbert states are not really fundamental. All they're doing is they're the mathematical quantities that you would use when you know that there is some inherent uncertainty in your knowledge of the system and you want to represent that uncertainty in a kind of statistical way. So Hilbert states coupled with born's rule, which is about probabilities of outcomes.
then just becomes if you like it's not a fundamental property of your theory it's just something which is useful to use when you want to describe things in a statistical way and this is actually again where periodic numbers come in because on a fractal you can you know you can add and multiply using these periodic numbers and the result is a periodic number so you have this
closure under addition and multiplication at this deeper deterministic level. So I have a scheme which leads to a particular type of discretization which I feel might be a bit too much technically to talk about here but it
It exactly has all these properties that you add to vectors, and typically the sum doesn't lie in the discretized space. However, it has this deeper deterministic underpinning. But importantly, it has exactly this property that when you look at the count, if you try and estimate the, sorry, if you try to
define the quantum states associated with entangled particles where you do these counterfactual measurements then to describe the Hilbert states you will need strictly irrational numbers either for the amplitudes or the phases of the quantum state and those are things that are forbidden in the discretization so this captures precisely this notion
Moving off the invariant set, but now it's framed in terms of rational versus irrational numbers in the definition of the, of the Hilbert state. Um, so I think actually that is a, probably a more, an easier way to, you know, for, let's say for a practicing quantum theorist to kind of get to the type of model I'm trying to propose here.
So you have two theories, one called rational quantum mechanics and another called invariant set theory. Right. Are those two the same? I think they're the same. I think they're the same, but I have to confess. They're still, you know, I, I believe they're the same. It's a bit like, why are you, why are you not sure? Well, because there are some technical details, which I, which I,
I'm rising above my station now considerably, but if you'll forgive me for saying this, because I'm sounding a bit big headed to say, but I'm kind of a little bit reminded of the, you know, in 1946 or seven or whatever it was when Feynman came up with his theory of QED and Schwinger had a theory of QED and everyone said, well, these look completely different. And then Freeman Dyson actually sat down and looked at them carefully and said, actually, no, they're the same thing.
And I think the same is true here, but, but I need a Freeman Dyson to have hints of this unity. Yeah. And what would those hints be? Um, are they just at the level of intimations or feelings? It's no, no, no, it's not. No, it's at the level of, um, as I say, it's at the level of, um, no, it's had a sort of more technical level than that and it's to do with these
The link with the fractals, the first link is P-adic numbers. P-adic numbers have certain representations in terms of digits, where the digit takes a number 0, 1, 2, 3, up to P. And that number P gives you a
If you like, the number P describes the discretization of the Hilbert vector. So there are, there are, there are, I can kind of see the pathway to making it completely correct, but I, I, you know, some of the details have yet to be filled. Has Sabine Hassenfelder worked on this with you? No, I mean, Sabina and I are both convinced
That this is the broadly speaking, I mean, so my proposal about counterfactuals would the way it comes into the bell inequality is through what's called the measurement independence or sometimes called statistical independence. I've come to the conclusion of statistical independence is a, is not actually a very good phrase, but it's quite measurement independence postulate. And that's the thing that basically says.
The measurement independence postulate says I can keep my hidden variable fixed and and vary the measurement settings. And this is what and that. So we Sabina and I both agree that is the key assumption that is false in in Bell's theorem. And I think she she I think she agrees with me that my ideas about counterfactual definiteness in this
Invariant set stuff are plausibly correct, but we haven't worked in. No, we haven't done any anything technically yet on linking the the discrete Hilbert space idea to that. I mean, she has her own. She has her own agenda, of course. So I don't want to force. I don't force anybody to work on what I do. When you say agenda, you mean she has her own point of view and her own? No, she has her own interests. You know, she has she has things she wants to do.
And of course, she's got a fantastic outreach channel as well. So, you know, she, she, um, uh, yeah, people, uh, people, people do what they want to do. Okay. So in your book, yes, the primacy of doubt. Yes. Either in the preface or the introducing chapter, the introduction, you say something like,
Quantum mechanics and general relativity are not merged because of conceptual difficulties, and people don't want to deal with these conceptual difficulties. Now, me and you talked about an hour ago now, approximately, off air. You mentioned some conference where Aisham spoke. You were relating this to how when I spoke to Neil deGrasse Tyson, he was more on the shut up and calculate side, and I was trying to dissuade him from just being merely on that side. Can you talk about that?
Lecture that happened approximately, no, exactly 50 years ago this year. Yeah. And how that relates to the conceptual difficulties and conceptual difficulties even mean. Right. I mean, this was literally the first conference I ever went to. So I was at that stage, still actually an undergraduate, but I was I knew I was about to start a PhD program in general relativity at Oxford. And I'd been invited
Basically by my physics tutor, I was an undergraduate at Bristol University and my actually mathematics tutor had suggested, well, since you're interested in relativity, you should come to this conference. And it was called the first Oxford Quantum Gravity Conference in 1974. So literally 50 years ago. And it was just phenomenal.
You know Stephen Hawking who hadn't lost his voice then so he could still speak he announced his famous Evaporating black hole result at the conference John Wheeler spoke about You know his ideas on quantum gravity Roger Penrose talked about twister theory Abda Salam who was Nobel Prize winner for Weak interactions spoke about his ideas. So, you know, it's just full of
Amazing people but Chris Isham who was a professor at Imperial College at the time theoretical physics gave a kind of an opening survey of the of the field and you know there were different approaches to quantum to quantum gravity but they were all sort of variations of quantum field theory and they all were quite
you know technical and it all involved around whether you know the theory was re normalizable or whatever and so on so forth and he kind of ended up by saying well you know it's kind of the sexy thing to do are all these complicated calculations but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are profound conceptual problems with quantum gravity and that we kind of if we ignore these conceptual problems we do so at our peril
And that, you know, people may end up, you know, um, you know, sort of, I'd say, wait, I'd say wasting their lives, but they may do, they may end up really not making much of an advance because we have, they haven't really solved the, the tech, the conceptual problems. So by conceptual problems, I mean, you know, it, quantum mechanics is basically a linear theory. The Schrodinger equations, linear theory.
It's not especially geometric. It's not really deterministic. It's about probabilities. That's what comes out of Born-Troll. General relativity is geometric. It's certainly deterministic. It's nonlinear, profoundly nonlinear. It's sort of like almost everything you think about quantum mechanics and general relativity are kind of 180 degrees opposite to each other. And
All he was pointing out was, you know, you shouldn't just ignore these conceptual problems and just launch into very complicated calculations because you might end up not getting anywhere. That doesn't sound like a conceptual problem. Sounds like a mathematical problem. So what was his definition of a conceptual problem? Well, a conceptual problem could be a superposition. I mean, we live with superpositions of
of electrons going through interferometers and things like that quite happily but when we talk about you know a gravitating object and its effect on space time it's something very definite you know we don't talk about we don't even know what it means to talk about a superposition of space times i mean it just you know so
But that's what I mean, I, you know, by conceptual and technical, I do mean by conceptual, I mean, I do mean in a sense. What is. You know, it's like how Einstein came to general relativity, it wasn't about doing complicated calculations, it was thinking about what would happen if I was being towed in outer space in an enclosed, you know,
What does it mean to say. And thinking about maybe this idea of
So explain how there can be a relationship between local laws and some large scale structure.
What does that mean? What does that look like? Well, we spoke earlier about Mark's principle. You see, I mean, you know, um, when I turn, if I rotate round and round, my arms flail out and I attribute that to some kind of centrifugal force, but what is the origin? What, what, what determines the fact that when I spin round, I'm in a rotating frame of reference and
You know when i don't spin around i mean why isn't it the other way around when is it when i'm and in fact to some extent you know because the earth rotates and we see the effect of the earth's rotation through the structure of weather systems you know the coriolis force is a big plays a big role in the structure of weather systems but what is what determines that the earth is in a rotating frame of reference you see where we don't we don't directly perceive the rotation of the earth you know i can't tell the earth's rotating now um
So unless I do careful experiments. So but what is it that that makes the Coriolis force act in one frame of reference and not another frame of reference? That's a local question. I mean, that's a question which you can address in a laboratory. But the answer to the question, if we accept Mark's principle, which I do myself, is that
Whether you're in a rotating frame or a non-rotating frame depends on whether the so-called fixed stars, the distant universe, is you're rotating with respect to it or not. And why is that important? Because the distant universe can exert some effectively gravitational force on you here in the laboratory.
So yeah, we can frame things in terms of centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces, but they're just stop. Those are stopgap, you know, um, words, if you like, uh, that we, we won't get a deeper understanding of until we, until we understand our position in the relation to the bigger universe. And that's sort of the argument that, you know, we can do all these bell experiments in the lab.
But we won't really understand what they're telling us unless we understand the relationship of the lab with respect to the bigger universe. Is this the whole ism that you refer to? It is. Yeah, that's, that's absolutely what it means. Yeah. And when people say in the popular press, the word fractal, generally they're referring to something of self-similar nature, but fractal doesn't always mean that in fact, generically it doesn't. So when you're using the word fractal and whole ism and
What I'm really referring to is this notion of an invariant set, which we referred to earlier. When you have nonlinear dynamical systems and you can start them from any initial condition and just let them run for
a long period of time. They will tend to asymptote if you like to one of three different types of invariant sets. One is a fixed point so that the system just grinds to a halt and stays there as a fixed point in state space. The other is where it actually just evolves cyclically going round and round in the sort of
Yeah, sort of cyclical motion repeating itself like Groundhog Day or something every. Would it technically be repeating itself or just sufficiently close to it? No, no, no, precisely. The invariant set is a circle or topological circle and it just repeats itself. OK, so that's not a fractal. That's not a fractal. I see. But the third possibility, which is when you have chaotic dynamics, which is, you know, we live in a world which is chaotic. We have any number of
Application on any number of illustrations of that the most dramatic being billiard balls, which we could talk about if you like The world is is chaotic and the invariant set for these chaotic systems is a is a is a fractal I mean the fact it's a fractal is kind of Doesn't really matter that much. It's just it's a It's a it's a it's a geometry that doesn't Isn't described topologically as a point or a or a circle. It's something more complex
Okay, let's talk about billiard balls and infinity. Right. So many people think that something being non computational has in it embedded the notion of infinity. And that's one of the ways that Penrose goes off the rail when he makes a non computability argument about the mind from girdles incompleteness theorem because girdles girdle has in it infinity. Talk about Barry's billiard ball thought experiment.
Right, yes, because I think there's a very nice example of, you know, of non-computability, which Michael Berry, theoretical physicist, incidentally, one of my very early tutors in my undergraduate days at Bristol University, very inspirational person. No, he, you know, he just asked, you know, imagine the game of billiards or snooker or pool, whichever you like.
um and um he asked a question how many collisions with a snooker ball have to have undergone before its motion is sensitive to the gravitational effect of somebody who is say you know a few hundred yards away or something just waving their arms around and it's surprisingly small it's about i can't remember the precise say 15 or so collisions then the
Whether that person waves their arm or not would influence the motion of the ball after the 15th collision. Well, then Barry goes on to say, well, okay, well, what about, um, how many collisions would it have to make, um, before the motion of the ball was sensitive to the position of an electron, single electron at the edge of the visible universe? And the answer actually only goes up to about 50.
You know, I can't remember the exact number again. This is all to do with the power of the exponential. If you have a doubt, you know, exponential growth, this this is a this is a consequence of exponential growth, by the way, which is, you know, lies at the heart of chaos theory. The uncertainty grows exponentially. But this has the, you know, the implication that
If you, you might imagine, well, I'm going to try and compute, you know, say just before the billiable is set off, you try to do a computation. So you set up your computer and you have it running away. You know, maybe, maybe you don't, you know, you, you don't, you don't do the computation here. You do it in the other side of the world. Doesn't make any difference. The fact you set up your computer.
You know where is again a little bit counterfactual the fact you have set up the computer. To do the calculation that will affect the result of the of the collisions of the of the acceptable cause the orientation of not only electrons for atoms and you know everything will be different by virtue the fact you've done that computation.
So really what we're talking about here this is actually an example of what Stephen Wolfram would call computationally irreducible because basically we're saying you know maybe the whole universe as a whole as a holistic whole might be computational but any but what does even what does that mean i don't know because any any attempt to compute part of it if you like in other words you know you
Or compute it with a simpler system than itself will fail. It won't give you the same result. Um, but I think for all practical purposes, this is a non computational system, because if you set up your computer to do the calculation, just the very fact you set up your computer to do the calculation will affect the, uh, the, the, the, the snooker ball or billiard ball after the fiftieth collision. Um,
And again, you know, this is a lovely, beautiful example of of holism at work. This is, you know, you're saying if you want to know precisely what goes on, it does depend on stuff that's potentially distant, not in a not in a non-local way. It's not there's no violation of causality or, you know, things going faster than the speed of light here. But it's just saying you have to take account of, you know,
What happens in the Andromeda right right right you know will propagate the gravitational waves will propagate and they will affect the motion of the snooker balls after 50 collisions or so now is this related to predestination not equaling determinism yeah i think it is because this is i mean that you know this this is a this is a difficult um issue but i you see i i
I mean, I know there's been a lot of discussion recently, books have come out about free will and, and determinism and, you know, I think a lot of scientists seem to think that, um, if the world is deterministic, we can't have free will. But for me, that again, um, is predicated on.
This notion that a deterministic system is one where you have an initial condition that somehow given God gives you the initial condition or somebody gives you the initial condition and then you have evolution equations which take it forward in time. So that's that's the that's the kind of canonical way of thinking about determinism. The problem I have with that, you know, just as a human level is that I just find it unacceptable
You know, for somebody like Adolf Hitler, let's say to sort of say, well, I had no choice but to commit genocide because it was all in the initial conditions. You know, I don't blame me, blame whoever set the initial conditions. I mean, that's totally, that's totally unacceptable. So the question is, is there an alternative? Well, you could say, okay, random, you know, do we, I mean, random doesn't help it either. It doesn't help the case either because then he says, oh, well,
Uh, I didn't really want to kill all those people, but a random, you know, a random flip in my brain made it happen. And that was just, that was again, beyond my ability to control it. So anyway, so all those, so, okay. So how do we deal with this situation? I think the problem is again, this sort of, um, conflation, if you like, of predestination with determinism and the billiard ball is, is, is, is an example.
But in a way, my whole cosmological invariant set thing is, you see, that is a deterministic system. But the way I. You see what? Let me let me just I've tried to say earlier. From a mathematical point of view, we've talked a little bit about real numbers and periodic numbers, and I'm saying periodic numbers are are kind of the way to
to describe fractals. So let me just try and explain how that works, because with a real number, I mean, typically what will happen is, you know, if you specify the initial conditions to, you know, 10 significant places or something, you could maybe make a reasonable prediction a little time ahead with your evolution equations. If you want to make a prediction longer into the future, you have to know that initial condition even more accurately.
So in some sense, the way you see real numbers, real numbers fit into that paradigm of the initial conditions and the evolution equations quite well. And basically the more, the more information about the real number initial condition you have, the more the further ahead you can forecast. So that's, that's, that's the kind of picture with periodic numbers.
It's quite different. So the way periodic numbers work is that. They describe the totality. I'm just going to say this in words without going into details, but they basically describe the totality of the whole fractal attractor or the fractal invariant set, as I prefer to call it. But the more digits you specify. The sharper that.
Picture becomes so you know with with a very few digits in your specification of the periodic number you just have a very kind of fuzzy view of the whole but it's always. You see it all at once it's always that you see it all but it's just you see with different resolution you see it all at once but you see it more and more with more and more so in other words if you just have a few digits you just see what one of the trajectories is like thick blobs and then as you get more
num more digits you know those blobs break up into smaller okay lines that sort of thing so and that's different to the actually that's different to the real numbers where all when you specify more of the real numbers you just know more of the initial conditions and that allows you to predict a bit further ahead you never have a you never have a picture of of the whole attractor at once so the point is that these
Fractal invariant sets. These are deterministic structures. There's nothing random. There's no randomness in it. Everything is deterministic. But the way, the way the, the, the periodic picture is that the more information you specify in the periodic number, the sharper the whole structure becomes, but you're always seeing the whole structure. You just see the whole thing at different levels of, of, of accuracy and, and granularity, if you like.
So the point is that you never it's deterministic but you never frame the problem in terms of initial conditions and in fact with the billiard you see the billiable problem is a good example of where that is a futile it gets you nowhere if you could specify the initial conditions as accurately as you like but unless you've got that electron in the last corner of the universe you're never going to
Do anything. So I'd like to see my invariant set postulate as something which is deterministic, but where things are not predestined, there's no predestined nature to fit. So, you know, so I would like to think, you know, when if Adolf Hitler had been in the in the dock and he had pled, you know, his innocence because of being predestined by the Big Bang or something.
I, if I had been the judge, I would have said, look, I'm sorry, but you don't have to look at it that way. You can look at it from this invariant set way. And that doesn't resolve you or you have moral responsibility in that picture because there is no predestination. You know, it's all at once. It's all everything is there. And just the information in the panic numbers gives you more and more structure. Look, I'm not saying that this is an easy
I'm trying to kind of write this in a way which is perhaps understandable but I just feel it comes back to the point that we've discussed that most people treat as sort of synonymous this notion of determinism with the initial value problem. It's a kind of manifestation of what it means to be deterministic and what I'm saying is that
That doesn't have to do that. The invariant set is a completely different perspective on this problem of determination. So there's another physicist named Chiara Marletto and David Deutsch who have constructor theory and they don't like the initial boundary approach plus evolution. Right. And so firstly, is there a relationship between your theory and constructor theory? Yeah, I've heard David talk and I've heard Chiara talk and a lot of the words resonate, but I haven't yet.
Like at a technical level, I haven't yet found the connection, but, but I think a lot of what they say is consistent. Yeah. So I need to get back to them. Actually. I mean, David was, um, David was, he and I, um, had a joining offices in Oxford. We did our PhDs exactly at the same time. So, um, I almost wrote a paper with him on, uh, causality conditions in
General relativity but never quite finished it to my regret actually it's one of the things I would have liked to have done the tow door is open if you both want to talk on tow I am down. Okay have I been miss naming invariant set theory and it should be called cosmological invariant set well I I well I wouldn't call it theory because it's I mean that kind of
I always feel that that elevates your theory. Well, OK, well, I didn't mean to. I mean, I just call it a postulate. I mean, you know, when something becomes a theory, I don't quite know when something becomes a theory, maybe model or something. But yeah, cosmological. I mean, I mean, I use the word cosmological to emphasize this holistic aspect because it is it is a it is a geometry of the whole universe and it's not decomposable. You know, I can't kind of like break it up into
Speaking of cosmology, downstairs right now there's a conference on the problems with the standard model of cosmology. So earlier you spoke about the
FRW, I don't recall the initials what they stand for. Friedman-Robertson-Walkinger. They're equations and you said that they're valid at the at the large scales. But I know that there's some controversy there. It's not clear if there's an anisotropy in the universe or sorry. Yes, it's not clear if the universe is homogenous. Right. It's not clear if this dust postulate is the correct framing. Right. So I don't know if that was a controversial statement or if it's considered consensus and it's only a few
Heretics who don't believe in the lambda CDM or the or the frw. Yes Well, the thing that the thing that I the one of the reasons I went to it is less to do with that but more to do with the lambda because my So yeah, so this is this is quite an important point my model of quantum physics you see requires
As i was mentioning to the universe to be somehow evolving on this cosmological invariant set now. If the universe had started at a big bang and expanded and is now accelerating to some sort of heat death where every atom is infinitely dilute somehow then that's the complete antithesis of an invariant set then
I mean, basically the universe is heading towards, I mean, the invariant set of the universe would then be a fixed price. It would, it would just be a static fixed point where everything was infinitely dilute. So this is the absolute, I could almost say if that really is the way the universe is evolving, then my model is, is wrong or there's something I not understood. All right. So,
In the Friedman Robertson Walker, there's the other, you know, I mean, Friedman himself, who, by the way, started off life as a meteorologist. I always think that's rather nice and did his work on cosmological models in his spare time almost. So you did the opposite. I did the opposite. Yeah. I have affinity for people who change like that. Um, um, I mean, he discovered these two solution, two types of solution, two topologically different types of solution. One is where.
The universe, um, yeah, kind of expands forever. And the other way it has this cyclical, um, behavior. So, um, now up until now, most people with the discovery of dark energy, um, accelerating the universe have suggested that, or, I mean, it points to this, uh, uh, you know,
It points to the universe just expanding forever. By the way I should say we don't know whether the universe is infinite in scale or finite because its spatial curvature is flat as far as we can tell. Now if it's flat minus epsilon if you like it then it's a sphere but a very large one and if it's flat plus epsilon or something then it's infinite. So we don't know that. But the question is
Is it accelerating away? Now, the interesting thing is that the very, very, very latest sort of cosmological observations from this start from this was it called dark energy survey desi suggests just came out a week ago. I kind of pointing to the possibility that that dark energy is not constant. Interesting. I don't say this too strongly, because I think
The statistics are weak and the answer is we don't know, but there is a possibility, which I would like to believe is the case. So I'm looking forward to the day when we have more of these observations, but the indications are that the dark energy might be weakening. So the deceleration is weakening. Now, what you would need for a... Hear that sound.
That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms.
There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone
of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklyn. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase.
Go to Shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in Shopify.com slash theories.
This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Listening to this podcast? Smart move. Being financially savvy? Smart move. Another smart move? Having State Farm help you create a competitive price when you choose to bundle home and auto. Bundling. Just another way to save with a personal price plan. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings, and eligibility vary by state.
A cyclical universe is something where the dark energy actually eventually change sign and it became an attractive force so it caused the universe to collapse. Now the point is you wouldn't expect each cycle to be exactly the same. It wouldn't be like Groundhog Day because the system is chaotic. So what the cyclical model would suggest is very much along the lines of this
chaotic invariant set type of concept but it does require if again this is another falsifiable thing if if it really is the case that dark energy is just the cosmological constant and it's constant then then that puts my ideas in trouble but I'm sort of I was pleased to see this morning that that's not the latest results although the statistical significance is still weak but the latest results
Give some hope that dark energy may be weakening. Now the Hilbert way of deriving general relativity from varying the action and you get the cosmological constant. It's a constant. It must be because if you make it somehow a field or something that varies, then you introduce an extra structure. Yeah. Well, I mean, people have done this. I mean, the famously Turek and Steinhardt have, you know, they call it quintessence, which is a field, you know, they introduce it as a scalar field, which has its own
So I think it's, it's just, it wouldn't be called a cosmological constant in that case. But you know, you'd lump it more on the right hand side of the field equations on the left hand side.
For people who are interested, Neil Turok was just on theories of everything, talking about the current state of theoretical physics and his minimal model of cosmology. Now, you mentioned the cyclical model. Right. So as a closing quotation, I want to bring up Roger Penrose. Yeah. I think the universe has a purpose. It's not somehow just there by chance. Some people, I think,
Okay. Um,
Well, let me say this. I've spent most of my research career, professional career, like most scientists, writing research papers and getting them published in journals and things. And these would be read by my peers and colleagues and stuff like that. When COVID kept us all at home,
I suddenly thought, well, you know, I've had the idea in the back of my mind to write a popular book. You know, if I'm ever going to do it, this is the time to do it. So I did. I wrote this book called The Primacy of Doubt, which is, let's say broadly about the science of uncertainty. And I tried to cover a range of topics from, you know, economics, climate change and quantum physics, even consciousness.
What's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up
Just as a note for people who are interested in your previous Theories of Everything podcast, that's with Tim Maudelin and the link is on screen. Also the book, The Primacy of Doubt, the link is in the description and it's on screen right now. Fantastic. And I recommend you read it or listen to it. I listen to it. Yeah, I even read it. You even read it yourself? Well, my son said you can't let somebody else read the book. You've got to read it yourself. So that was quite hard work.
But you know, if you're if you're interested in, you know, brushing up on your English accent, then you can listen to the book. Anyway, it got me thinking about, you know, do I have enough in me to write a second book? And that's what I've literally been doing the last few months. And it's been focused on. Sort of the Penrose quote, you know, is life
You know, cause if you take the standard model of cosmology, not only are we humans and irrelevance, we're an irrelevance for an infinite testimony, small amount of time. You know, the universe is going through this infinite phase of becoming infinitely dilute. And we're around just for this finite period, which in the length of the, of this universe is an infinitesimal period. Um,
Is that all there is to it? Now, I know, you know, people would say, well, you know, you should believe in God should believe in a creator. OK, I don't particularly. That that doesn't appeal to me. I have to say, you know, I'm I'm what I'm doing here is. You know, for right or wrong, I I've I've kind of developed a
Scientific intuition about things and people will agree or disagree with me about them, which is fine. But my, my sense of scientific intuition is that there is something more, um, to the world and to our existence in the world than either, you know, a product of some external creator or as just a complete irrelevance, you know, the product of some random Darwinian mutation that
You know, we will have our day and then we'll fade into nothing and the rest of the universe will carry on without us. So, Kurt, I'm going to studiously avoid answering your question in detail, but I'm going to put forward some possibilities, let's say, to answer this question, because I think Penrose's intuition is probably not that much different to a lot of scientists that
They kind of don't feel comfortable with either of the it's God or we're an irrelevance. There's something in the middle. My impression is that the majority of scientists are extremely comfortable with we're an irrelevance. I don't think that's so Lawrence Krauss like revels in it. Yeah. Well, Lawrence, maybe, maybe a unique, I suspect you see the problem is that there is a bit of a stigma. I mean, if you
If you start giving ground, then you people say, oh, well, he's gone soft, you know, he's halfway to becoming a religious person. So anyway, look, I lay my cards on the table. I'm not a religious person at all. I don't believe in God. However, I have some other ideas which are scientific. They're based on scientific principles, which I think could well
Give and Penrose himself has said, you know, he's not a believer in God. So, you know, somebody as clever as him saying that there might be something more to it. I think we have to take that seriously. And I'm going to try and put forward some proposals in the book. So that's what I'm writing now. It'll be. At least a year or two before it comes out, we can have another chat. I'll be very happy to talk in more depth about it. I'm trying to sort out the details at the moment.
So you have a third option that is not meaningless chance. And it's not the other thing is to say it's not like panpsychism or anything. So you have a fourth option. It's a fourth option. Exactly. So I go through the three options, which is religion, sort of spiritualism, panpsychism, that sort of mysticism type stuff.
Or just sort of in irrelevant scientific irrelevant. So I'm trying to put forward a fourth option. That's right. Was there a Freudian slip? The reason why you used your middle finger for the scientific irrelevance. I don't know. Well, the other option, of course, is agnosticism. And I mean, for years, I would have probably called myself an agnostic. But in a way, that's a bit of a cop out. It's a bit of that wouldn't be a single position here would just be uncertainty between choosing one of these, though. OK, well, maybe. Yeah.
I don't know but anyway that that's yeah we'll see we'll see how it goes. Professor has been a blast thank you it's been great yeah I hope well I hope we meet again and I hope we have another chat and you know I feel you know you put me on the spot and I always feel
I don't come over as humbly as I should do, because I'm putting my points of view more forthrightly than perhaps is fully justified. But I'm glad to have the opportunity anyway to do so. And also I want to thank the guy who's behind the camera. You can't see him. It's Dougal McQueen of the Royal Society of London. And he has helped set all of this up. So thank you, Dougal. That's it. Thank you.
Firstly, thank you for watching, thank you for listening. There's now a website, curtjymungle.org, and that has a mailing list. The reason being that large platforms like YouTube, like Patreon, they can disable you for whatever reason, whenever they like.
That's just part of the terms of service. Now, a direct mailing list ensures that I have an untrammeled communication with you. Plus, soon I'll be releasing a one-page PDF of my top 10 toes. It's not as Quentin Tarantino as it sounds like. Secondly, if you haven't subscribed or clicked that like button, now is the time to do so. Why? Because each subscribe, each like helps YouTube push this content to more people like yourself
Plus, it helps out Kurt directly, aka me. I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, which means that whenever you share on Twitter, say on Facebook or even on Reddit, etc., it shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about this content outside of YouTube.
which in turn greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, there's a remarkably active Discord and subreddit for theories of everything where people explicate toes, they disagree respectfully about theories and build as a community our own toe. Links to both are in the description. Fourthly, you should know this podcast is on iTunes. It's on Spotify. It's on all of the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in theories of everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gained from rewatching lectures and podcasts.
I also read in the comments that hey, toll listeners also gain from replaying. So how about instead you re-listen on those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, whichever podcast catcher you use. And finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like this, more content like this, then do consider visiting patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal and donating with whatever you like. There's also PayPal. There's also crypto.
There's also just joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on toe full time. You also get early access to ad free episodes, whether it's audio or video. It's audio in the case of Patreon video in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode that you're listening to right now was released a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more than you think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you so much.
Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal. Now what to do with your unwanted bills? Ever seen an origami version of the Miami Bull? Jokes aside, Verizon has the most ways to save on phones and plans where you can get a
The local Miami Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal. Rankings based on root metric true score report dated at 1-8-2025. Your results may vary. Must provide a post-paid consumer mobile bill dated within the past 45 days. Bill must be in the same name as the person who made the deal. Additional terms apply.
▶ View Full JSON Data (Word-Level Timestamps)
{
"source": "transcribe.metaboat.io",
"workspace_id": "AXs1igz",
"job_seq": 5796,
"audio_duration_seconds": 6465.69,
"completed_at": "2025-11-30T23:56:00Z",
"segments": [
{
"end_time": 20.896,
"index": 0,
"start_time": 0.009,
"text": " The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science they analyze."
},
{
"end_time": 36.067,
"index": 1,
"start_time": 20.896,
"text": " Culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates."
},
{
"end_time": 64.514,
"index": 2,
"start_time": 36.34,
"text": " Where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policy makers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically an extremely high quality podcast. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a toe listener, you get a special discount. Head over to economist.com slash TOE to subscribe. That's economist.com slash TOE for your discount."
},
{
"end_time": 93.49,
"index": 3,
"start_time": 66.852,
"text": " Hola, Miami! When's the last time you've been to Burlington? We've updated, organized, and added fresh fashion. See for yourself Friday, November 14th to Sunday, November 16th at our Big Deal event. You can enter for a chance to win free wawa gas for a year, plus more surprises in your Burlington. Miami, that means so many ways and days to save. Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow! No purchase necessary. Visit BigDealEvent.com for more details."
},
{
"end_time": 122.176,
"index": 4,
"start_time": 94.531,
"text": " Okay, we're here at the Royal Society of London with Tim Palmer, Professor Tim Palmer. Welcome. Thank you. Nice to be here. Nice to talk to you. Nice to meet you. Nice to go out for lunch earlier. And you showed me around. I appreciate that. Tell us about the state of fundamental physics today. Well, physics, I mean, in general, has been a phenomenal success story over the last, well, since my career. So, I mean, I started researching"
},
{
"end_time": 152.244,
"index": 5,
"start_time": 122.875,
"text": " You know, doing my PhD back in the 1970s and, you know, physics has gone from strength to strength. And in certain aspects of fundamental physics, you know, it's gone from strength to strength. You know, we have complete completed the standard model. You know, just this morning, I've been at a meeting discussing some of the results from the James Webb Telescope and the implications for our understanding of cosmology. All that's fantastic."
},
{
"end_time": 180.333,
"index": 6,
"start_time": 152.671,
"text": " However, having said that some of the problems that were there at the beginning of my research career, you know, have hardly moved forward and they evolve around things like the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. What do we mean by a measurement? What is the measurement problem? How do we interpret, you know, the entanglement of particles? Is it really telling us that the universe is non-local? Does it really have the kind of spooky action of the distance?"
},
{
"end_time": 208.319,
"index": 7,
"start_time": 181.135,
"text": " That Einstein so hated so much and then above all, you know, we still really haven't made, uh, we haven't, at least we haven't solved the problem of how to unify all the electromagnetic and nuclear forces with gravity, you know, and that, um, some people would argue we haven't, I mean, some people argue string theory took us a long way forward. Others would say, well, we haven't actually moved forward at all since the seventies. So"
},
{
"end_time": 233.166,
"index": 8,
"start_time": 208.865,
"text": " It's a kind of a mixed bag, I would say. But I still think we're facing very fundamental questions, particularly in this issue of quantum mechanics and gravitational physics, where we've sort of got to get back to basics, I think, a bit more and start asking the deep questions rather than just plowing through calculations. What's the missing link then to solve the issues between quantum mechanics and general relativity?"
},
{
"end_time": 261.408,
"index": 9,
"start_time": 235.52,
"text": " I mean I personally think it's to do with at the sort of deepest level it's to do with understanding the if you like the holistic nature of quantum physics a bit more explicitly and we know that that's the case or many of us believe that's the case in in gravitational physics and Marx principle in gravitational physics is which I think"
},
{
"end_time": 292.125,
"index": 10,
"start_time": 262.295,
"text": " What is causing my arms to flail out marks principle says it's the distant mass of the universe it's the masses the totality"
},
{
"end_time": 318.404,
"index": 11,
"start_time": 292.585,
"text": " Of the universe that is doing that. And I think we have to, we have to kind of take that notion and move it more into the quantum regime. Um, and you know, sometimes, I mean, this is not completely new idea. People like David Bowman, Basil, highly their famous book on quantum mechanics was called the undivided universe."
},
{
"end_time": 345.947,
"index": 12,
"start_time": 318.746,
"text": " So it's a concept that's sort of been around, but I think we have to take it a bit more seriously and recognize that both in the quantum world and the gravitational world, the local laws of physics are probably determined by the large scale structure of the universe. So what is Mark's principle? Can you state it rigorously or you can't? And that's the reason why it's unproved rigorously. Well, as I say, Mark's principle is that"
},
{
"end_time": 375.589,
"index": 13,
"start_time": 346.937,
"text": " the you see that the question is when we rotate ourselves if we spin around our arms flail out or if we drive around a curve in the in the road we we kind of get pushed to the side of the car and we say you know that's that's caused by the centrifugal force or something like that but that's just a label and the question is let's take the rotating case what actually is it that um"
},
{
"end_time": 406.357,
"index": 14,
"start_time": 376.664,
"text": " That determines whether you're rotating or not rotating. And Mark, I mean, this actually goes back to Bishop Barkley back, you know, in the earlier times, but in the 19th century, Mark and smart said, well, the reason why we say we're rotating is because when we rotate, we see the distant stars moving. And he said, well, that's not a coincidence. It's because of the kind of gravitational effect of the distant matter."
},
{
"end_time": 433.507,
"index": 15,
"start_time": 406.715,
"text": " That defines what a non rotating frame is and a rotating frame. And this was a very big inspiration for Einstein in his coming in his developing his theory of general relativity. And indeed in general relativity, there is an effect called the lens Turing effect, where if you have a mass, a massive shell, if you like, and you rotate it,"
},
{
"end_time": 465.094,
"index": 16,
"start_time": 435.247,
"text": " That rotation mass drags the local frames of reference around with it. So in other words, locally, that that tells you, you know, whether you're rotating or not. Now, it then becomes a kind of. You know, then you ask the question, does does general relativity automatically? Is it is it is it internally consistent with Marx principle? Well,"
},
{
"end_time": 495.435,
"index": 17,
"start_time": 466.152,
"text": " You can have space times where there is no distant matter. So the Schwarzschild solution for an isolated star or black hole doesn't have doesn't have distant matter. But in some sense, you have to define then what you mean by rotating or not rotating. In the case of the Schwarzschild, it's a non-rotating solution. You kind of have to impose that non-rotating condition by a boundary condition at infinity."
},
{
"end_time": 524.36,
"index": 18,
"start_time": 496.544,
"text": " But most I think most cosmologists believe that in the real world where you know we don't live in you know the earth is not an isolated mass in a otherwise empty universe it's it's it's part of the universe and I think most cosmologists would accept that that Marx principle probably is the key reason why"
},
{
"end_time": 555.23,
"index": 19,
"start_time": 525.896,
"text": " We experience so-called inertial forces in rotating frames of reference, because these are the ones moving with respect to the distant stars. But it's hard to prove it because we don't yet know. You know, we don't even know whether the universe is infinite or finite. We don't really know how much matter there is. So it's become marks. I like to think of it like this marks principle. Has become a little bit."
},
{
"end_time": 585.93,
"index": 20,
"start_time": 556.049,
"text": " Like some of these famous sort of conjectures in number theory, like Goldbach's conjecture, you know, that every even number is a sum of two prime numbers. I mean, everybody kind of believes it's true, but nobody knows how to prove it. So it's not very high up in the research agenda because nobody knows how to prove it. And in a way, I think Mark's principle is similar. It's difficult to to know how to prove it rigorously. But but I think most cosmologists would sort of accept that it's something"
},
{
"end_time": 613.524,
"index": 21,
"start_time": 586.476,
"text": " There's some truth in it. And I think, as I say, I think that we've got to get to that sort of stage in thinking about quantum mechanics as well. OK, fill in this blank for me. Mock's principle is to general relativity as blank is to quantum mechanics. Well, OK, I mean, I have my own, you know, you're putting me on the spot. I mean, I have my own, you know, ideas about about quantum quantum mechanic or quantum physics, let's say."
},
{
"end_time": 643.37,
"index": 22,
"start_time": 614.07,
"text": " Um, and I've tried to propose, you know, an idea which I call the cosmological invariant set postulate. And this is very much, you know, um, motivated by chaos theory, that there are systems which exhibit this extraordinarily beautiful, uh, geometric structure in their state space. And that they, you know, if you leave, if you leave these, if you start them from an arbitrary initial condition and just leave them for a"
},
{
"end_time": 671.937,
"index": 23,
"start_time": 643.729,
"text": " long time eventually they just evolve on this what's called invariant set or sometimes called an attractor but these are fractal attractors and my my kind of principle which would be consistent with what i'm talking about here the holistic nature of quantum physics would be the universe evolving on a cosmological invariant set so marx principle is gravity as you know"
},
{
"end_time": 700.452,
"index": 24,
"start_time": 672.449,
"text": " Perhaps this cosmological invariant set postulates to quantum physics. And the reason for saying that is that it can explain some of these difficult issues like entanglement and Bell's theorem without having to invoke non-locality or indeterminism, all the sort of things that Einstein hated. So professor, I'm a stickler for words. And I noticed a few times you were going to say that, okay, so I have three questions here. Einstein's theory is"
},
{
"end_time": 729.292,
"index": 25,
"start_time": 700.862,
"text": " is consistent with Mach's principles, then with Mach's principle, then you corrected yourself and said, is internally consistent with Mach's principle. So one of the questions I have is, well, what's the difference between being consistent and internally consistent? So we'll get to that for just a moment. So I don't forget you corrected yourself when you were saying quantum mechanics, you switched it to quantum physics. So I'm curious what the difference is there that you see. And then another time is invariant sets, which is the same as a fractal attractor."
},
{
"end_time": 759.36,
"index": 26,
"start_time": 729.531,
"text": " Okay, if it's the same as a fractal attractor, why did you rename it as invariant set? Okay, so those are three questions. The first one was about internal consistency versus consistency. Okay, on the first question,"
},
{
"end_time": 787.602,
"index": 27,
"start_time": 760.009,
"text": " There are solutions of Einstein's equations and I mentioned earlier the isolated body and the Schwarzschild solution. Another one is what's called De Sitter space, you know, which has no matter in it and yet space is curved. It's curved by the cosmological constant. So you can come up with space times which are"
},
{
"end_time": 817.773,
"index": 28,
"start_time": 787.858,
"text": " Which satisfy Einstein's fields, field equations, which are not marking, you know, because there's no distant matter for them to be. However, what I'm saying is the real world. Forget what I actually said, because what I'm trying to say is the real world, which is governed, you know, which is governed by. Let's say to a good approximation, one of the Friedman Robertson Walker solutions, the cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations."
},
{
"end_time": 847.415,
"index": 29,
"start_time": 818.473,
"text": " is consistent with Mark's principle. So not all solutions of Einstein's field equations are consistent with with Mark's principle, but the Freedman type of equations are. And we live in a Freedman type of universe. That is, we don't live in De Sitter space and we don't live in an isolated Schwarzschild space. We live in something which, at least on the very, very, very large scale, approximates quite well to the Freedman Robertson Walker cosmology. So from that point of view, that's consistent with"
},
{
"end_time": 872.261,
"index": 30,
"start_time": 848.012,
"text": " Mark's principle. Quantum physics versus mechanics. Yeah, no, quantum mechanics is a very specific theory. It's the theory that Heisenberg first proposed almost 100 years ago next year, I guess, and then Schrodinger very shortly afterwards with his wave mechanics version. So that's what we mean by quantum mechanics. It's a specific theory of quantum"
},
{
"end_time": 900.964,
"index": 31,
"start_time": 872.637,
"text": " quantum phenomena but i use the word quantum physics in a slightly more generic way which is you know the set of all observations of the world you know involving atoms and particles and entangled systems where maybe quantum mechanics isn't the final word i mean that would be my belief that it's not the final answer to how to describe quantum physics in as accurate a way as possible i see"
},
{
"end_time": 930.265,
"index": 32,
"start_time": 901.408,
"text": " Okay, now the third one was invariant sets versus a fractal attract. Yeah, well, the concept of the concept of an attractor is that if you start with any old initial condition and you run your equations, your differential equations forward in time and just leave it for, you know, a very, very, very long time, then the state gets attracted to this special, um, uh,"
},
{
"end_time": 960.333,
"index": 33,
"start_time": 930.759,
"text": " The special fractal. But the hypothesis I want to put forward is that the universe has always been evolving on this geometry. So it's never, it's never been attracted towards it. It was, it was always on it and it always will be on it potentially, you know, for an infinite time in the past or a finite time in the future. It might end up being cyclical. It might end up repeating itself."
},
{
"end_time": 983.712,
"index": 34,
"start_time": 960.674,
"text": " at some stage but the point is i'm not invoking the concept of it being attracted the states of the universe being attracted towards this geometry but it's just this is the geometry that it evolves on and the concept behind this geometry is that it's called an invariant set because if you're on it today"
},
{
"end_time": 1009.872,
"index": 35,
"start_time": 984.258,
"text": " You always will be on it in the future and you always have been on it in the past. So the set is in some sense or the geometry is invariant under the under time evolution. It's invariant under the propagating forwards in or indeed backwards in time. So calling it an attractor. I don't like using that word because it implies that I'm thinking about"
},
{
"end_time": 1036.698,
"index": 36,
"start_time": 1010.776,
"text": " States yeah i think you see the point is if you're outside it you're violating and this is an important point of my reason for believing why this is important for bell's theorem if you don't lie on the attractor you're inconsistent with your this basic postulate the states which don't lie on the invariant set by definition don't satisfy the postulate that that states of the world evolve on the invariant set"
},
{
"end_time": 1066.596,
"index": 37,
"start_time": 1037.039,
"text": " So the concept of being attracted towards it is, is not really a useful idea in this respect. I see. So in other words, the invariant set is the attractor, but we just, yes, our States are always on it. Exactly. That's exactly right. The invariant set is the attractor and States are on it. They always will be. They always have been at any point, any hypothetical. This is the point. If you, if you imagine a counterfactual world, a hypothetical world in your head,"
},
{
"end_time": 1093.456,
"index": 38,
"start_time": 1067.568,
"text": " Where you've slightly changed, you know, you've changed, you've slightly moved to the position of that chair. Hypothetically, you know, you haven't actually moved it, but you say, well, maybe I might've moved it. You've invented a counterfactual world, which doesn't really exist. It's a hypothetical world. Now, if that world, if that hypothetical world, if you've nudged your, the state of the universe off this invariant set, when you"
},
{
"end_time": 1124.155,
"index": 39,
"start_time": 1094.411,
"text": " You may as well have said, what if this what if this ball lifted up into the air? Like a counterfactual such as moving this chair a nudge that takes you off the tractor set or the invariant set is equivalent to saying, what if there was some elephant that just appeared here? But even in that case, there is some quantum mechanical chance that elephant can appear here. It's just minute."
},
{
"end_time": 1153.49,
"index": 40,
"start_time": 1124.855,
"text": " well there's a quantum mechanical chance that now i mean of course there is a chance an elephant might walk into this room right in five seconds who knows i don't know it's always possible um should we wait and see no didn't happen anyway but it could have happened but that's not quite the point i'm making point i'm making is if we took the world as it was 20 seconds ago and said okay no elephant walked"
},
{
"end_time": 1182.551,
"index": 41,
"start_time": 1154.241,
"text": " Is a world where everything was the same? You and me talking, the people in London doing their shopping, the earth going around the sun, the sun going around the Milky Way, everything the same, except that an elephant walks into the room. Is that hypothetical? Well, because it is hypothetical. It's not an actual world because the elephant didn't walk in the room, right? It's just maybe we're hypothesizing the possibility"
},
{
"end_time": 1213.2,
"index": 42,
"start_time": 1183.302,
"text": " Everything stayed the same, but an elephant walked in the room. What I'm saying is, if that hypothetical state does not lie on this invariant set, and I don't, I'm not saying that it does or it doesn't, but if it didn't, then that would not be consistent with the way I formulate the laws of physics. The point about this is in quantum, in quantum physics, this notion of counterfactual, counterfactual worlds actually occurs"
},
{
"end_time": 1242.432,
"index": 43,
"start_time": 1213.422,
"text": " Quite a lot of the time and most of the, um, the so-called no-go theorems and the classic one is, is of course Bell's theorem. Um, implicitly there's an implicit assumption and it's not, you know, it's in regular proofs. If you like, it's not drawn out terribly explicitly, but there's an implicit proof when you introduce, for example, a hidden variable model that that hidden variable model has the property that you can, um,"
},
{
"end_time": 1272.227,
"index": 44,
"start_time": 1242.995,
"text": " For example, keep your hidden variables fixed, but change the actual measurement orientations that you actually did the measurement with and assume that that hypothetical counterfactual measurement is consistent with the laws of physics. That's an implicit assumption. And I'm trying to draw out an example. And my example is based on this notion of an invariant set. And therefore it brings in the, you know, the large scale structure of the universe."
},
{
"end_time": 1302.193,
"index": 45,
"start_time": 1272.551,
"text": " Where those counterfactuals would be inconsistent with the laws of physics. Now that being the case, you no longer have to conclude that the world is non-local or indeterministic or anything like that. It's just that certain counterfactual worlds, which might seem plausible, you know, to your head in your head are actually technically inconsistent with the laws of physics. So some who shall not be named may call that conspiratorial. Okay."
},
{
"end_time": 1327.039,
"index": 46,
"start_time": 1302.483,
"text": " I want you to explain your thoughts on that as well as tied into when people say that the universe is not locally real. What are your views? Well, just on the last point that this is, of course, is is was was the headline, if you like, when, you know, Klaus Aspey and Seilinger won the Nobel Prize a year or so ago."
},
{
"end_time": 1357.244,
"index": 47,
"start_time": 1327.671,
"text": " The headline, you know, for, for, for showing that bells inequalities for violet and the headlines, you know, the world is not locally real. So what I mean, what they mean by that is that the world is, you know, either it's not. There's something kind of inherently indeterministic about the world, or at least the world can't be described with kind of, with deterministic equations. Um, or that and possibly, and that, um,"
},
{
"end_time": 1385.998,
"index": 48,
"start_time": 1357.756,
"text": " The world is non-local. So what does that mean? The world by the world mean non-local means that the result of an experiment, which I might do here in my lab, not that we're in a lab, but if we were in the lab, the result that I get, if the world is non-local, the result that I get can depend on whether a colleague of mine"
},
{
"end_time": 1415.589,
"index": 49,
"start_time": 1387.09,
"text": " Who could be on the other side of the world or in principle on the other side of the galaxy or indeed on the other side of the universe. Um, uh, what, how he set up his measurement. So the setup of a measurement, you know, a gazillion miles away can affect the outcome of, of an experiment here. That that's what non-locality means. Now back in the thirties, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, they wrote this famous paper in"
},
{
"end_time": 1444.497,
"index": 50,
"start_time": 1415.947,
"text": " In thirty five on introducing this concept of entanglement and so on. And they just. They just said, well, that's manifest nonsense. You know, I mean, the world could never be like that. That's just crazy. And yet, you know, whatever we are now, 90. Yeah, almost 90 years later. We're somehow concluding that, yeah, the world might be non-local. The one thing that they rejected is completely"
},
{
"end_time": 1473.439,
"index": 51,
"start_time": 1444.701,
"text": " Barking mad so so this is why i you know i have been and you know kind of motivated by my background in non-linear dynamics and chaos theory and chaotic geometry i i've been kind of going back with an absolutely you know fine tooth comb through the bell bell the bell the proof of bell serum and point"
},
{
"end_time": 1502.312,
"index": 52,
"start_time": 1473.882,
"text": " pointing out this kind of implicit assumption which comes it's usually introduced when when they introduced a hidden variable model there's an implicit assumption that the hidden variable model has this property that you can hold fixed the hidden variables and change the measurement settings as you like so you say okay well I did an actual experiment"
},
{
"end_time": 1531.578,
"index": 53,
"start_time": 1503.012,
"text": " With an actual hidden variable and an actual experimental setup. But according to my model, I could have hypothetically counterfactually could have changed the measurement setting, um, keeping the hidden variable fixed and got a, and getting it, and I got a sensible result. And I'm saying, um, there are models and the one based on this invariant set idea is, is an example of that. And I, we could talk, perhaps talk about another one because it also comes out of"
},
{
"end_time": 1561.459,
"index": 54,
"start_time": 1532.739,
"text": " You get the same result if you discretize Hilbert space so we'll talk about that in a minute and that may be a more direct way of seeing it from a if you're an expert in quantum mechanics but that's you know if you if you have if you don't have this property of counterfactual definiteness then you can indeed violate these Bell inequalities without having to assume indeterminism or non-locality. Now is it conspiratorial?"
},
{
"end_time": 1592.739,
"index": 55,
"start_time": 1562.824,
"text": " No, it's not. The conspiracy argument, I mean, it arose from a paper which the philosopher Abner Shimoni wrote shortly after one of Bell's papers in the 1970s, where they introduced, it's kind of a bizarre idea in a way, but you could technically explain the Bell inequalities"
},
{
"end_time": 1622.381,
"index": 56,
"start_time": 1593.114,
"text": " If, um, if somehow you could corrupt the minds of the experimenter to perform an experiment, you know, where the experimental settings were, uh, let's put it like this. It's, you know, if you imagine the particle that was being, being, uh, measured somehow center weird message out through the ether into the brain of the experimenter."
},
{
"end_time": 1652.637,
"index": 57,
"start_time": 1623.046,
"text": " And you know the experimenter wasn't aware that they were their brains were being corrupted and they and the message was telling them make sure you set your measuring system like this you know so that that would be a conspiracy and that would apply even in the case that the measurement was made by some random number generator well yeah um you're right so bell the reason bell"
},
{
"end_time": 1677.722,
"index": 58,
"start_time": 1653.456,
"text": " didn't run with that was precisely because sort of what you say it's it you know it invokes things you don't really want to get into like how does the brain work and what what what do we mean by free will and all sorts of sort of quite metaphysical stuff so so he in his paper hear that sound"
},
{
"end_time": 1704.821,
"index": 59,
"start_time": 1678.66,
"text": " That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the Internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms."
},
{
"end_time": 1730.896,
"index": 60,
"start_time": 1704.821,
"text": " There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone"
},
{
"end_time": 1756.664,
"index": 61,
"start_time": 1730.896,
"text": " of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklyn. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase."
},
{
"end_time": 1780.964,
"index": 62,
"start_time": 1756.664,
"text": " Go to shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in shopify.com slash theories. Which was the response to the shimoni paper. He said look let's forget about humans because it's just complicated and it's kind of messy and just say let's imagine that the measurement setting"
},
{
"end_time": 1809.172,
"index": 63,
"start_time": 1781.323,
"text": " Is determined by a pseudo random number generator, you know, which spits out either the number, let's say zero or one. Uh, so zero, you set it, you'll set your measuring measuring system one way and one, you set it in a different way. Um, and this pseudo random number generator is such that you feed in a kind of an input number. And what it does is it picks up on the millionth digit of the input number."
},
{
"end_time": 1836.237,
"index": 64,
"start_time": 1809.991,
"text": " So, you know, you could you could you could imagine a computer doing a calculation of a solving a quadratic equation or something where the number was definitely an irrational number. And, you know, eventually it would come to that millionth digit. And depending on whether that millionth digit was odd or even, then the output variable would be zero or one. OK, so that that's fine. So then Bell said the crucial issue is"
},
{
"end_time": 1867.346,
"index": 65,
"start_time": 1839.292,
"text": " Is that millionth digit important for any other purpose than setting the output of the pseudo random number generator and hence setting the measurement, the measuring apparatus. Does that millionth digit serve any other purpose in the world? Okay. Now he said, you know, he said, my intuition is that it doesn't serve any other purpose."
},
{
"end_time": 1897.159,
"index": 66,
"start_time": 1867.807,
"text": " But at the end of his paper, this is a crucial point. He said, actually, I'm not completely sure that's correct. The correct conclusion. And it may be that one day somebody does come along and explain why that millionth digit could be important for a distinctly different purpose. So Tim came along. Well, whether I came along or not, but I am claiming that you see changing that millionth digit is again, an example of a counterfactual."
},
{
"end_time": 1921.203,
"index": 67,
"start_time": 1897.466,
"text": " And if just for the sake of argument, if that changing that millions digit took you off this invariant set, then that perturbed state of the world where the millions digit was different would be in the world. The whole world would be inconsistent with the laws of physics. So all the galaxies would vanish in a puff of smoke, you know, puff of metaphysical smoke, let's say, um,"
},
{
"end_time": 1949.684,
"index": 68,
"start_time": 1921.988,
"text": " Everything in the in the world would vanish in a puff of metaphysical smoke so that millions digit is is not only important is vital for the existence of everything in the world so that would be no right or wrong don't know but this is a country this this is this would contradict bells intuition which has a try to emphasize he wasn't hundred percent sure about that that millions digit could actually be an important"
},
{
"end_time": 1978.148,
"index": 69,
"start_time": 1950.043,
"text": " Piece of information for other purposes than just setting the apparatus. There was a philosopher named David Lewis and he had this construct called possible worlds and impossible worlds. Yes. So are you suggesting that what's not on the invariant set is then an impossible world that we thought was possible? That's exactly right. It's that's exactly right. So it looks possible and our brains, you know, which have limited computational capacity, let's say,"
},
{
"end_time": 2007.961,
"index": 70,
"start_time": 1978.899,
"text": " You know, think of it as possible, but actually it's an impossible world. Um, I just want to say one other slightly technical thing, because sometimes this is another argument people, uh, raise with me, which is that, you know, I'm, I'm seemingly invoking, um, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny perturbations, you know, to the millionth digit or to the billionth could be the billionth digit or something and saying that has a radical effect."
},
{
"end_time": 2038.046,
"index": 71,
"start_time": 2008.319,
"text": " On the ontological status of the world and isn't that fine, isn't that very fine tuning, isn't the world very fine tuned then that you're not even allowing me to change the millionth digit. One of the things I try to emphasize in the geometry of fractals is that real numbers are actually not a very useful tool for looking at the geometry of fractals and there's a whole different type of number system called paedic numbers, which are completely bread and butter to"
},
{
"end_time": 2067.619,
"index": 72,
"start_time": 2038.37,
"text": " to number theorists, which tie much more closely to fractal geometry than real numbers. And these periodic numbers are associated with a very different type of distance function or metric compared to real numbers. So real numbers have what's called the Euclidean metric, which we're all familiar with. You know, if I, as my fingers approach each other, their Euclidean distance is getting smaller and smaller. But the periodic distance behaves a bit differently to that. And in particular,"
},
{
"end_time": 2094.667,
"index": 73,
"start_time": 2068.848,
"text": " If two points are on this invariant set, then and they're periodic, you know, their periodic distance can be small, but a point that's in the gap between them actually has a very large periodic distance to a point on the invariant set. So this is a very robust scheme from the periodic perspective. And this is one of my sort of"
},
{
"end_time": 2123.439,
"index": 74,
"start_time": 2095.981,
"text": " So explain to this face, explain how is it, how are you supposed to know that what you said was an impossible world versus a possible one a priori?"
},
{
"end_time": 2153.439,
"index": 75,
"start_time": 2124.172,
"text": " You can always say, look, what you suggested was impossible. How do you know? No, you don't. You don't know. And that's I mean, one of the one of the things about the world is we we can't compute. You know, there are certain things we just can't calculate. Compute. I I don't know. And there's no way I could know that something I might say in two minutes will cause you to be so cross with me that you'll turn down. They'll turn off the camera and storm. It almost happened two minutes ago already."
},
{
"end_time": 2183.882,
"index": 76,
"start_time": 2154.07,
"text": " I can't prove that. But what I can compute is that if you... Let's put it in terms of EPL, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen. Normally, we've been talking about spin and things, but they framed it in terms of position and momentum. This is the original Heisenberg thing. You can measure position or you can measure momentum. Now, the way I frame this is"
},
{
"end_time": 2210.077,
"index": 77,
"start_time": 2184.343,
"text": " If you measured the position of a particle, then your measurement of the counterfactual, which is that what result would I have got had I measured the momentum of that particle? Whereas in the real world, I measured the position of that particle. I'm claiming that that would lie off the invariant set. The momentum measurement would lie off the invariant set."
},
{
"end_time": 2239.906,
"index": 78,
"start_time": 2211.22,
"text": " When the position measurement lay on the invariant set or conversely, if you had measured momentum, then the position measurement would have lain off the invariant set. So I can't predict what you'll measure, but what I can predict is whatever you measure, the other variable, the counterfactual variable would lie off the invariant set. So as soon as you've, you could say up to the time where you did the measurement, you were free to choose position or momentum."
},
{
"end_time": 2267.244,
"index": 79,
"start_time": 2240.572,
"text": " Choose away as you like whatever you want if you want to use the millions digit of some irrational number that's good with me if you want to use your grandmother's birthday that's good with me if you want to use the dow jones index that's good with me but so i can't i don't know and you're free to choose that but having made that choice then the counterfactual world where you say what would i have measured"
},
{
"end_time": 2297.654,
"index": 80,
"start_time": 2268.422,
"text": " Notice that so far, technically the discussion on Bell's theorem or Bell's inequalities has lasted maybe 20 minutes. Some people who are physicists may understand it, some people who aren't may not. But why is it the case that it's taken so long to explain something minute about Bell's theorem when in math,"
},
{
"end_time": 2326.613,
"index": 81,
"start_time": 2298.131,
"text": " If you have a proof of something, it's quite clear. Now, maybe it's difficult because you're not technically proficient, like Andrew Wiles' proof took quite some time to go through, but this isn't at the level of Andrew Wiles' proof in terms of abstraction or mathematical ability or what's required mathematically. So explain to people who are unfamiliar, why is it that you said you went through this with a fine tooth comb? Many others have gone through his theorem or his proof with a fine tooth comb."
},
{
"end_time": 2352.09,
"index": 82,
"start_time": 2327.073,
"text": " Why does it even take going through with a fine-tooth comb tens, decades later? Well, I can only hypothesize about this, right? I don't know for a fact, but I think most physicists tend to associate, let's say,"
},
{
"end_time": 2382.193,
"index": 83,
"start_time": 2352.363,
"text": " So one of one of the, you know, one of the conditions of Bell's theorem is about, you know, is the world deterministic or indeterministic? Now, what do we mean by determinism? And I think most physicists tend to think of it as and indeed, you know, many examples are like this as initial value problems. You give me some initial condition, you know, at some initial time. And I have a, you know, a computer or I, you know, I can do a calculation in my head or something like that."
},
{
"end_time": 2411.203,
"index": 84,
"start_time": 2382.585,
"text": " And I tell you, given that initial condition, what's happening in the future? I mean, weather forecasting, you know, you take a gazillion weather measurements and use those to determine an initial state of the atmosphere, the atmosphere today. You stick all that into a big computer, chunters away, comes out with a state tomorrow. Now, when you frame it like that, then"
},
{
"end_time": 2437.108,
"index": 85,
"start_time": 2412.312,
"text": " There's no reason at all why counterfactual worlds aren't consistent with the laws of physics because I can change. I can change the initial state, you know, as I like. I mean, you know, the initial conditions are usually"
},
{
"end_time": 2465.35,
"index": 86,
"start_time": 2438.319,
"text": " You know, just given give their prescribed by by you or by somebody. And then you do your time evolution. If you want to have a different initial condition, that's fine. Um, or, or in fact, what you can do is with deterministic equations, you can say, um, you know, let's say, I mean, today we're looking out over central London. It's a reasonably, um,"
},
{
"end_time": 2491.084,
"index": 87,
"start_time": 2466.323,
"text": " Reasonably sunny day for England. You could imagine. Okay. Well, let's imagine it's raining. Okay. I'm going to, I'm going to sort of so unlikely in London though. Well, you know, sometimes it rains. So I'm going to, I'm going to take, I'm going to put, I'm going to change all of the isobars, the pressure. Uh, so there's a big low pressure system right over, over the UK. Okay. I could take the laws of."
},
{
"end_time": 2520.538,
"index": 88,
"start_time": 2491.766,
"text": " The Navier-Stokes equations the laws of you know classical physics fluid mechanics and so on and I can sort of you know work them backwards in time to produce an initial state let's say two days earlier that would lead to it being raining today and that you know that that what would happen is that somewhere over the North Atlantic the pressure fields and the wind fields would be slightly different what they were but you know there's nothing"
},
{
"end_time": 2544.923,
"index": 89,
"start_time": 2521.698,
"text": " There's nothing in those laws, those classical laws of physics that would say, okay, that that slightly different initial state was somehow inconsistent with the laws of physics. So when you have, when you have like standard and a standard initial value problem, what I'm saying about"
},
{
"end_time": 2574.241,
"index": 90,
"start_time": 2545.845,
"text": " Counterfactual sometimes being inconsistent with the laws of physics never arises because you can always change the initial state you can perturb as you like. So this only comes about and this is what so this is my argument is only comes about because I am. Moving away from that paradigm to where my definition of the laws of physics is this geometry of the invariant set the dynamics is encoded."
},
{
"end_time": 2602.056,
"index": 91,
"start_time": 2575.043,
"text": " In the sort of periodic type of equations which encode the geometry of this invariant set. So I'm moving away from the, you know, the standard initial value problem to saying this is actually a problem in geometry. And when you do that, then, then you have this possibility that states which don't counterfactual states, which don't lie on the invariant set, then becoming consistent with the laws of physics."
},
{
"end_time": 2629.599,
"index": 92,
"start_time": 2602.449,
"text": " So my answer to your question is, I think it's because people have thought somewhat narrowly about what a, you know, what a hidden variable model or what a deterministic model of quantum physics would look like. Um, but this in turn then brings me to the point where we started with, which is, you know, what is this invariant set? It's invariant set of the whole damn universe."
},
{
"end_time": 2654.616,
"index": 93,
"start_time": 2630.213,
"text": " It's the totality of everything. It's thinking of the whole universe as a dynamical system evolving on some cosmological invariant set. So that's why I'm saying you cannot dissociate the local laws of physics which govern how a Bell experiment would work in the lab."
},
{
"end_time": 2682.261,
"index": 94,
"start_time": 2655.128,
"text": " From the very large scale structure of the universe, because that's where the invariant set concept comes in. And that's why I say that is the kind of parallel, if you like, with with Marx principle for gravity. So, OK. Being on the attractor set, evolving it forward, you mentioned that you can continue it at infinitum and evolve it backward at infinitum, which has inside it infinite and infinitum. So let's talk about infinity. Yeah."
},
{
"end_time": 2712.227,
"index": 95,
"start_time": 2683.063,
"text": " Some people think of infinity as just a placeholder, like a heuristic for this is a sufficiently large number beyond our grasp. Right. Okay. The computationalists are, are fond of that. What do you make of the concept of infinity in physics? The concept of infinity in physics is really interesting. And let me ask you a question, Kurt, because we have, um, you know, we have classical physics, um, you know, the laws of fluid mechanics."
},
{
"end_time": 2740.572,
"index": 96,
"start_time": 2712.824,
"text": " um for example is a good example of classical system and then we have quantum mechanics which replaced it now you have so if you ask about infinity as you say there you have two possibilities one is that actually in physics we know infinity sort of exists as a concept in mathematics of course it does but in physics"
},
{
"end_time": 2769.872,
"index": 97,
"start_time": 2741.049,
"text": " Is infinity when we use infinity or conversely one over infinity and infinitesimal. When we use these concepts do we really mean infinity is absolutely literally infinitely big bigger than any finite number or is it just a placeholder for a very big number but we don't particularly care. Exactly how big it is but it is a very big number and you know the laws the laws of physics."
},
{
"end_time": 2790.964,
"index": 98,
"start_time": 2770.23,
"text": " Don't depend sensitively on that number and you know all experiments it doesn't really matter if that number is like. Google or google play something like that so do you think there's a difference between how infinity is used in classical physics and quantum physics and if so how would you see how would you see it."
},
{
"end_time": 2817.927,
"index": 99,
"start_time": 2791.954,
"text": " Do you think infinity is more of a, you know, as an, as a number of, let's say infinity as a number that's bigger than any finite number. So not a placeholder. Do you think that's more of a concept in classical physics or in quantum physics? In quantum physics, there are infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. And then because of that, there's something like the stone von Neumann theorem. And that's one of the reasons why you can't, why QFT is not so trivial compared to quantum mechanics."
},
{
"end_time": 2843.66,
"index": 100,
"start_time": 2818.439,
"text": " Because you have the conjugate variables of X and P. OK, well, look, I think I agree with your answer, but I think you're making it too complicated. I think you're right with what you say. But let me let me put it like this. So. If we, you know, even at high school, when we learn Newton's laws of motion, we, you know, they're framed in terms of the calculus F equals, I mean, I'm assuming that that's"
},
{
"end_time": 2874.616,
"index": 101,
"start_time": 2845.435,
"text": " I'm not even sure today whether high school students do the calculus or not. But anyway, it was certainly first year university. Yeah. Say four sequence mass times acceleration and acceleration is the second, you know, rate of change position with respect to time. So we use Newton's calculus, Newton Leibniz calculus and the calculus involves, you know, infinitesimal numbers like D by DT. DT is an infinitesimal number in calculus. So"
},
{
"end_time": 2903.524,
"index": 102,
"start_time": 2875.179,
"text": " So you might think that, you know, infinity or an infinitesimal plays an essential role in classical physics, but, you know, people might think, well, in quantum physics, it's all about discrete jumps. You know, everything's discrete jumps of energy and therefore it's all somehow finite. Everything is finite, but actually it's completely the other way around. Um, because in classical physics, I can take a differential equation, um,"
},
{
"end_time": 2929.411,
"index": 103,
"start_time": 2904.121,
"text": " You know for for I mean we do this with weather forecasting of course where the you know that we have partial differential equations that underlie the movement of air but they're represented on a computer with finite derivatives so that we don't have like d by dt we have delta by delta t and these deltas are finite things and you know we know that at least"
},
{
"end_time": 2953.473,
"index": 104,
"start_time": 2929.684,
"text": " short range forecasts that does pretty well. So there's no kind of essential reason in classical physics why we need to be working with a continuum, the real number continuum. We can just work with discrete numbers and we get answers. If we want to get a slightly more accurate answer we'll halve the time step or quarter the time step but"
},
{
"end_time": 2983.729,
"index": 105,
"start_time": 2953.865,
"text": " You tell me how accurate you want to know it and I'll tell you the discretization length and the discretization time that will give me an answer to the accuracy you want. But in quantum mechanics, it's completely different because the basic concept behind a quantum state is sort of, you mentioned this effectively, is it's an element of a Hilbert space and a Hilbert space is a vector space. In fact, in quantum mechanics, it's a vector space over the complex numbers."
},
{
"end_time": 3007.312,
"index": 106,
"start_time": 2984.411,
"text": " Um, but the point of it being a vector space is that you, you want to be, we need to be able to add together two vectors, in other words, two different quantum states and the resulting addition is itself a quantum state. So that's a, that's a really important property. Now, if you start discretizing Hilbert space."
},
{
"end_time": 3026.817,
"index": 107,
"start_time": 3007.739,
"text": " You will typically lose that property. You'll add together two vectors and the resulting vector will kind of lie in between two of your points in your discretized space. Wait, that's not so obvious. So let's say you make a grid."
},
{
"end_time": 3048.814,
"index": 108,
"start_time": 3027.551,
"text": " I mean make a grid and take a vector say you have an origin and you have two vectors which point to two of the points on the grid and add them together that the sum of the two is going to split the difference unless you've got a grid point which splits the difference then your vector will no longer be"
},
{
"end_time": 3079.428,
"index": 109,
"start_time": 3049.701,
"text": " Let's say you have something that's unit one in length and then another that's unit one in length, then you get something that's unit two in length, but along the same axis. But what's wrong with that? No, that, that, that, that might work. But if you, if you imagine, um, uh, well, if you imagine to, you know, if you, if you discretize say a circle and you imagine two vectors pointing to, let's say neighboring grid, grid points and then add together,"
},
{
"end_time": 3105.043,
"index": 110,
"start_time": 3080.06,
"text": " You're going to split that difference and your your vector will will typically then not lie on that on that on either. OK, OK. So it depends on your discretization. It will depend on the discretization. But the but. The generically to get, you know, these algebraic properties, you need a continuum space."
},
{
"end_time": 3129.155,
"index": 111,
"start_time": 3106.084,
"text": " Actually, I'm not the first to make this point. This was made by Lucien Hardy from Perimeter some years ago when he came up with what he called reasonable axioms for quantum mechanics. One is this notion that is called the continuity notion that you don't have a space where you can get"
},
{
"end_time": 3158.933,
"index": 112,
"start_time": 3130.981,
"text": " discrete jumps, even though quantum mechanics is all about discrete jumps in the so-called unitary phase of quantum evolution, you actually need continuity. It's a critical property. Um, now, but then the question is, why is it a critical property? And it's only a critical property. If you believe that these Hilbert spaces and Hilbert vectors are the fundamental objects of your theory."
},
{
"end_time": 3189.343,
"index": 113,
"start_time": 3159.36,
"text": " In other words, if you say, what is that, you know, if I, if I have my theory of quantum physics, what is at the deepest level now in quantum mechanics at the deepest level is Hilbert space. That is the, that doesn't go any deeper than that. That's it. Okay. So then you have to have the continuum of, of Hilbert space, of Hilbert's, um, Hilbert states rather, um, to describe quantum mechanics. On the other hand, if you say, well,"
},
{
"end_time": 3213.37,
"index": 114,
"start_time": 3189.94,
"text": " um uh if you say that um which is sort of what i'm trying to suggest by virtue of this cosmological invariant set postulate that there there may well be something deterministic that underpins quantum physics hear that sound"
},
{
"end_time": 3239.872,
"index": 115,
"start_time": 3213.695,
"text": " That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms."
},
{
"end_time": 3265.947,
"index": 116,
"start_time": 3239.872,
"text": " There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone."
},
{
"end_time": 3289.189,
"index": 117,
"start_time": 3265.947,
"text": " of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklyn. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com"
},
{
"end_time": 3303.712,
"index": 118,
"start_time": 3289.189,
"text": " Close your eyes."
},
{
"end_time": 3329.565,
"index": 119,
"start_time": 3304.087,
"text": " Visit 1800contacts.com today to save on your first order."
},
{
"end_time": 3363.131,
"index": 120,
"start_time": 3333.643,
"text": " Then the Hilbert states are not really fundamental. All they're doing is they're the mathematical quantities that you would use when you know that there is some inherent uncertainty in your knowledge of the system and you want to represent that uncertainty in a kind of statistical way. So Hilbert states coupled with born's rule, which is about probabilities of outcomes."
},
{
"end_time": 3393.166,
"index": 121,
"start_time": 3363.643,
"text": " then just becomes if you like it's not a fundamental property of your theory it's just something which is useful to use when you want to describe things in a statistical way and this is actually again where periodic numbers come in because on a fractal you can you know you can add and multiply using these periodic numbers and the result is a periodic number so you have this"
},
{
"end_time": 3420.043,
"index": 122,
"start_time": 3393.353,
"text": " closure under addition and multiplication at this deeper deterministic level. So I have a scheme which leads to a particular type of discretization which I feel might be a bit too much technically to talk about here but it"
},
{
"end_time": 3450.043,
"index": 123,
"start_time": 3420.589,
"text": " It exactly has all these properties that you add to vectors, and typically the sum doesn't lie in the discretized space. However, it has this deeper deterministic underpinning. But importantly, it has exactly this property that when you look at the count, if you try and estimate the, sorry, if you try to"
},
{
"end_time": 3478.933,
"index": 124,
"start_time": 3450.503,
"text": " define the quantum states associated with entangled particles where you do these counterfactual measurements then to describe the Hilbert states you will need strictly irrational numbers either for the amplitudes or the phases of the quantum state and those are things that are forbidden in the discretization so this captures precisely this notion"
},
{
"end_time": 3505.213,
"index": 125,
"start_time": 3479.224,
"text": " Moving off the invariant set, but now it's framed in terms of rational versus irrational numbers in the definition of the, of the Hilbert state. Um, so I think actually that is a, probably a more, an easier way to, you know, for, let's say for a practicing quantum theorist to kind of get to the type of model I'm trying to propose here."
},
{
"end_time": 3528.746,
"index": 126,
"start_time": 3505.862,
"text": " So you have two theories, one called rational quantum mechanics and another called invariant set theory. Right. Are those two the same? I think they're the same. I think they're the same, but I have to confess. They're still, you know, I, I believe they're the same. It's a bit like, why are you, why are you not sure? Well, because there are some technical details, which I, which I,"
},
{
"end_time": 3559.326,
"index": 127,
"start_time": 3529.36,
"text": " I'm rising above my station now considerably, but if you'll forgive me for saying this, because I'm sounding a bit big headed to say, but I'm kind of a little bit reminded of the, you know, in 1946 or seven or whatever it was when Feynman came up with his theory of QED and Schwinger had a theory of QED and everyone said, well, these look completely different. And then Freeman Dyson actually sat down and looked at them carefully and said, actually, no, they're the same thing."
},
{
"end_time": 3586.357,
"index": 128,
"start_time": 3560.009,
"text": " And I think the same is true here, but, but I need a Freeman Dyson to have hints of this unity. Yeah. And what would those hints be? Um, are they just at the level of intimations or feelings? It's no, no, no, it's not. No, it's at the level of, um, as I say, it's at the level of, um, no, it's had a sort of more technical level than that and it's to do with these"
},
{
"end_time": 3616.493,
"index": 129,
"start_time": 3586.869,
"text": " The link with the fractals, the first link is P-adic numbers. P-adic numbers have certain representations in terms of digits, where the digit takes a number 0, 1, 2, 3, up to P. And that number P gives you a"
},
{
"end_time": 3644.633,
"index": 130,
"start_time": 3616.647,
"text": " If you like, the number P describes the discretization of the Hilbert vector. So there are, there are, there are, I can kind of see the pathway to making it completely correct, but I, I, you know, some of the details have yet to be filled. Has Sabine Hassenfelder worked on this with you? No, I mean, Sabina and I are both convinced"
},
{
"end_time": 3672.21,
"index": 131,
"start_time": 3645.725,
"text": " That this is the broadly speaking, I mean, so my proposal about counterfactuals would the way it comes into the bell inequality is through what's called the measurement independence or sometimes called statistical independence. I've come to the conclusion of statistical independence is a, is not actually a very good phrase, but it's quite measurement independence postulate. And that's the thing that basically says."
},
{
"end_time": 3700.896,
"index": 132,
"start_time": 3672.534,
"text": " The measurement independence postulate says I can keep my hidden variable fixed and and vary the measurement settings. And this is what and that. So we Sabina and I both agree that is the key assumption that is false in in Bell's theorem. And I think she she I think she agrees with me that my ideas about counterfactual definiteness in this"
},
{
"end_time": 3729.377,
"index": 133,
"start_time": 3701.391,
"text": " Invariant set stuff are plausibly correct, but we haven't worked in. No, we haven't done any anything technically yet on linking the the discrete Hilbert space idea to that. I mean, she has her own. She has her own agenda, of course. So I don't want to force. I don't force anybody to work on what I do. When you say agenda, you mean she has her own point of view and her own? No, she has her own interests. You know, she has she has things she wants to do."
},
{
"end_time": 3751.63,
"index": 134,
"start_time": 3730.179,
"text": " And of course, she's got a fantastic outreach channel as well. So, you know, she, she, um, uh, yeah, people, uh, people, people do what they want to do. Okay. So in your book, yes, the primacy of doubt. Yes. Either in the preface or the introducing chapter, the introduction, you say something like,"
},
{
"end_time": 3781.254,
"index": 135,
"start_time": 3752.073,
"text": " Quantum mechanics and general relativity are not merged because of conceptual difficulties, and people don't want to deal with these conceptual difficulties. Now, me and you talked about an hour ago now, approximately, off air. You mentioned some conference where Aisham spoke. You were relating this to how when I spoke to Neil deGrasse Tyson, he was more on the shut up and calculate side, and I was trying to dissuade him from just being merely on that side. Can you talk about that?"
},
{
"end_time": 3810.367,
"index": 136,
"start_time": 3781.63,
"text": " Lecture that happened approximately, no, exactly 50 years ago this year. Yeah. And how that relates to the conceptual difficulties and conceptual difficulties even mean. Right. I mean, this was literally the first conference I ever went to. So I was at that stage, still actually an undergraduate, but I was I knew I was about to start a PhD program in general relativity at Oxford. And I'd been invited"
},
{
"end_time": 3838.626,
"index": 137,
"start_time": 3810.845,
"text": " Basically by my physics tutor, I was an undergraduate at Bristol University and my actually mathematics tutor had suggested, well, since you're interested in relativity, you should come to this conference. And it was called the first Oxford Quantum Gravity Conference in 1974. So literally 50 years ago. And it was just phenomenal."
},
{
"end_time": 3867.244,
"index": 138,
"start_time": 3839.138,
"text": " You know Stephen Hawking who hadn't lost his voice then so he could still speak he announced his famous Evaporating black hole result at the conference John Wheeler spoke about You know his ideas on quantum gravity Roger Penrose talked about twister theory Abda Salam who was Nobel Prize winner for Weak interactions spoke about his ideas. So, you know, it's just full of"
},
{
"end_time": 3898.097,
"index": 139,
"start_time": 3868.507,
"text": " Amazing people but Chris Isham who was a professor at Imperial College at the time theoretical physics gave a kind of an opening survey of the of the field and you know there were different approaches to quantum to quantum gravity but they were all sort of variations of quantum field theory and they all were quite"
},
{
"end_time": 3928.2,
"index": 140,
"start_time": 3898.78,
"text": " you know technical and it all involved around whether you know the theory was re normalizable or whatever and so on so forth and he kind of ended up by saying well you know it's kind of the sexy thing to do are all these complicated calculations but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are profound conceptual problems with quantum gravity and that we kind of if we ignore these conceptual problems we do so at our peril"
},
{
"end_time": 3955.623,
"index": 141,
"start_time": 3928.643,
"text": " And that, you know, people may end up, you know, um, you know, sort of, I'd say, wait, I'd say wasting their lives, but they may do, they may end up really not making much of an advance because we have, they haven't really solved the, the tech, the conceptual problems. So by conceptual problems, I mean, you know, it, quantum mechanics is basically a linear theory. The Schrodinger equations, linear theory."
},
{
"end_time": 3984.445,
"index": 142,
"start_time": 3956.357,
"text": " It's not especially geometric. It's not really deterministic. It's about probabilities. That's what comes out of Born-Troll. General relativity is geometric. It's certainly deterministic. It's nonlinear, profoundly nonlinear. It's sort of like almost everything you think about quantum mechanics and general relativity are kind of 180 degrees opposite to each other. And"
},
{
"end_time": 4013.677,
"index": 143,
"start_time": 3986.527,
"text": " All he was pointing out was, you know, you shouldn't just ignore these conceptual problems and just launch into very complicated calculations because you might end up not getting anywhere. That doesn't sound like a conceptual problem. Sounds like a mathematical problem. So what was his definition of a conceptual problem? Well, a conceptual problem could be a superposition. I mean, we live with superpositions of"
},
{
"end_time": 4038.968,
"index": 144,
"start_time": 4014.565,
"text": " of electrons going through interferometers and things like that quite happily but when we talk about you know a gravitating object and its effect on space time it's something very definite you know we don't talk about we don't even know what it means to talk about a superposition of space times i mean it just you know so"
},
{
"end_time": 4065.316,
"index": 145,
"start_time": 4039.343,
"text": " But that's what I mean, I, you know, by conceptual and technical, I do mean by conceptual, I mean, I do mean in a sense. What is. You know, it's like how Einstein came to general relativity, it wasn't about doing complicated calculations, it was thinking about what would happen if I was being towed in outer space in an enclosed, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 4095.742,
"index": 146,
"start_time": 4065.862,
"text": " What does it mean to say. And thinking about maybe this idea of"
},
{
"end_time": 4125.247,
"index": 147,
"start_time": 4097.654,
"text": " So explain how there can be a relationship between local laws and some large scale structure."
},
{
"end_time": 4153.78,
"index": 148,
"start_time": 4126.186,
"text": " What does that mean? What does that look like? Well, we spoke earlier about Mark's principle. You see, I mean, you know, um, when I turn, if I rotate round and round, my arms flail out and I attribute that to some kind of centrifugal force, but what is the origin? What, what, what determines the fact that when I spin round, I'm in a rotating frame of reference and"
},
{
"end_time": 4184.77,
"index": 149,
"start_time": 4155.503,
"text": " You know when i don't spin around i mean why isn't it the other way around when is it when i'm and in fact to some extent you know because the earth rotates and we see the effect of the earth's rotation through the structure of weather systems you know the coriolis force is a big plays a big role in the structure of weather systems but what is what determines that the earth is in a rotating frame of reference you see where we don't we don't directly perceive the rotation of the earth you know i can't tell the earth's rotating now um"
},
{
"end_time": 4212.295,
"index": 150,
"start_time": 4185.367,
"text": " So unless I do careful experiments. So but what is it that that makes the Coriolis force act in one frame of reference and not another frame of reference? That's a local question. I mean, that's a question which you can address in a laboratory. But the answer to the question, if we accept Mark's principle, which I do myself, is that"
},
{
"end_time": 4241.664,
"index": 151,
"start_time": 4214.889,
"text": " Whether you're in a rotating frame or a non-rotating frame depends on whether the so-called fixed stars, the distant universe, is you're rotating with respect to it or not. And why is that important? Because the distant universe can exert some effectively gravitational force on you here in the laboratory."
},
{
"end_time": 4267.073,
"index": 152,
"start_time": 4242.534,
"text": " So yeah, we can frame things in terms of centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces, but they're just stop. Those are stopgap, you know, um, words, if you like, uh, that we, we won't get a deeper understanding of until we, until we understand our position in the relation to the bigger universe. And that's sort of the argument that, you know, we can do all these bell experiments in the lab."
},
{
"end_time": 4294.548,
"index": 153,
"start_time": 4267.637,
"text": " But we won't really understand what they're telling us unless we understand the relationship of the lab with respect to the bigger universe. Is this the whole ism that you refer to? It is. Yeah, that's, that's absolutely what it means. Yeah. And when people say in the popular press, the word fractal, generally they're referring to something of self-similar nature, but fractal doesn't always mean that in fact, generically it doesn't. So when you're using the word fractal and whole ism and"
},
{
"end_time": 4324.394,
"index": 154,
"start_time": 4294.735,
"text": " What I'm really referring to is this notion of an invariant set, which we referred to earlier. When you have nonlinear dynamical systems and you can start them from any initial condition and just let them run for"
},
{
"end_time": 4352.346,
"index": 155,
"start_time": 4325.077,
"text": " a long period of time. They will tend to asymptote if you like to one of three different types of invariant sets. One is a fixed point so that the system just grinds to a halt and stays there as a fixed point in state space. The other is where it actually just evolves cyclically going round and round in the sort of"
},
{
"end_time": 4378.422,
"index": 156,
"start_time": 4352.858,
"text": " Yeah, sort of cyclical motion repeating itself like Groundhog Day or something every. Would it technically be repeating itself or just sufficiently close to it? No, no, no, precisely. The invariant set is a circle or topological circle and it just repeats itself. OK, so that's not a fractal. That's not a fractal. I see. But the third possibility, which is when you have chaotic dynamics, which is, you know, we live in a world which is chaotic. We have any number of"
},
{
"end_time": 4408.404,
"index": 157,
"start_time": 4379.07,
"text": " Application on any number of illustrations of that the most dramatic being billiard balls, which we could talk about if you like The world is is chaotic and the invariant set for these chaotic systems is a is a is a fractal I mean the fact it's a fractal is kind of Doesn't really matter that much. It's just it's a It's a it's a it's a geometry that doesn't Isn't described topologically as a point or a or a circle. It's something more complex"
},
{
"end_time": 4437.073,
"index": 158,
"start_time": 4409.224,
"text": " Okay, let's talk about billiard balls and infinity. Right. So many people think that something being non computational has in it embedded the notion of infinity. And that's one of the ways that Penrose goes off the rail when he makes a non computability argument about the mind from girdles incompleteness theorem because girdles girdle has in it infinity. Talk about Barry's billiard ball thought experiment."
},
{
"end_time": 4467.039,
"index": 159,
"start_time": 4437.244,
"text": " Right, yes, because I think there's a very nice example of, you know, of non-computability, which Michael Berry, theoretical physicist, incidentally, one of my very early tutors in my undergraduate days at Bristol University, very inspirational person. No, he, you know, he just asked, you know, imagine the game of billiards or snooker or pool, whichever you like."
},
{
"end_time": 4495.265,
"index": 160,
"start_time": 4467.449,
"text": " um and um he asked a question how many collisions with a snooker ball have to have undergone before its motion is sensitive to the gravitational effect of somebody who is say you know a few hundred yards away or something just waving their arms around and it's surprisingly small it's about i can't remember the precise say 15 or so collisions then the"
},
{
"end_time": 4524.582,
"index": 161,
"start_time": 4496.408,
"text": " Whether that person waves their arm or not would influence the motion of the ball after the 15th collision. Well, then Barry goes on to say, well, okay, well, what about, um, how many collisions would it have to make, um, before the motion of the ball was sensitive to the position of an electron, single electron at the edge of the visible universe? And the answer actually only goes up to about 50."
},
{
"end_time": 4550.299,
"index": 162,
"start_time": 4525.657,
"text": " You know, I can't remember the exact number again. This is all to do with the power of the exponential. If you have a doubt, you know, exponential growth, this this is a this is a consequence of exponential growth, by the way, which is, you know, lies at the heart of chaos theory. The uncertainty grows exponentially. But this has the, you know, the implication that"
},
{
"end_time": 4579.411,
"index": 163,
"start_time": 4552.227,
"text": " If you, you might imagine, well, I'm going to try and compute, you know, say just before the billiable is set off, you try to do a computation. So you set up your computer and you have it running away. You know, maybe, maybe you don't, you know, you, you don't, you don't do the computation here. You do it in the other side of the world. Doesn't make any difference. The fact you set up your computer."
},
{
"end_time": 4604.633,
"index": 164,
"start_time": 4579.94,
"text": " You know where is again a little bit counterfactual the fact you have set up the computer. To do the calculation that will affect the result of the of the collisions of the of the acceptable cause the orientation of not only electrons for atoms and you know everything will be different by virtue the fact you've done that computation."
},
{
"end_time": 4633.695,
"index": 165,
"start_time": 4605.469,
"text": " So really what we're talking about here this is actually an example of what Stephen Wolfram would call computationally irreducible because basically we're saying you know maybe the whole universe as a whole as a holistic whole might be computational but any but what does even what does that mean i don't know because any any attempt to compute part of it if you like in other words you know you"
},
{
"end_time": 4662.329,
"index": 166,
"start_time": 4635.179,
"text": " Or compute it with a simpler system than itself will fail. It won't give you the same result. Um, but I think for all practical purposes, this is a non computational system, because if you set up your computer to do the calculation, just the very fact you set up your computer to do the calculation will affect the, uh, the, the, the, the snooker ball or billiard ball after the fiftieth collision. Um,"
},
{
"end_time": 4693.422,
"index": 167,
"start_time": 4663.916,
"text": " And again, you know, this is a lovely, beautiful example of of holism at work. This is, you know, you're saying if you want to know precisely what goes on, it does depend on stuff that's potentially distant, not in a not in a non-local way. It's not there's no violation of causality or, you know, things going faster than the speed of light here. But it's just saying you have to take account of, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 4717.79,
"index": 168,
"start_time": 4694.514,
"text": " What happens in the Andromeda right right right you know will propagate the gravitational waves will propagate and they will affect the motion of the snooker balls after 50 collisions or so now is this related to predestination not equaling determinism yeah i think it is because this is i mean that you know this this is a this is a difficult um issue but i you see i i"
},
{
"end_time": 4743.865,
"index": 169,
"start_time": 4720.162,
"text": " I mean, I know there's been a lot of discussion recently, books have come out about free will and, and determinism and, you know, I think a lot of scientists seem to think that, um, if the world is deterministic, we can't have free will. But for me, that again, um, is predicated on."
},
{
"end_time": 4772.005,
"index": 170,
"start_time": 4744.377,
"text": " This notion that a deterministic system is one where you have an initial condition that somehow given God gives you the initial condition or somebody gives you the initial condition and then you have evolution equations which take it forward in time. So that's that's the that's the kind of canonical way of thinking about determinism. The problem I have with that, you know, just as a human level is that I just find it unacceptable"
},
{
"end_time": 4801.22,
"index": 171,
"start_time": 4773.046,
"text": " You know, for somebody like Adolf Hitler, let's say to sort of say, well, I had no choice but to commit genocide because it was all in the initial conditions. You know, I don't blame me, blame whoever set the initial conditions. I mean, that's totally, that's totally unacceptable. So the question is, is there an alternative? Well, you could say, okay, random, you know, do we, I mean, random doesn't help it either. It doesn't help the case either because then he says, oh, well,"
},
{
"end_time": 4829.855,
"index": 172,
"start_time": 4801.596,
"text": " Uh, I didn't really want to kill all those people, but a random, you know, a random flip in my brain made it happen. And that was just, that was again, beyond my ability to control it. So anyway, so all those, so, okay. So how do we deal with this situation? I think the problem is again, this sort of, um, conflation, if you like, of predestination with determinism and the billiard ball is, is, is, is an example."
},
{
"end_time": 4859.07,
"index": 173,
"start_time": 4830.128,
"text": " But in a way, my whole cosmological invariant set thing is, you see, that is a deterministic system. But the way I. You see what? Let me let me just I've tried to say earlier. From a mathematical point of view, we've talked a little bit about real numbers and periodic numbers, and I'm saying periodic numbers are are kind of the way to"
},
{
"end_time": 4887.961,
"index": 174,
"start_time": 4860.009,
"text": " to describe fractals. So let me just try and explain how that works, because with a real number, I mean, typically what will happen is, you know, if you specify the initial conditions to, you know, 10 significant places or something, you could maybe make a reasonable prediction a little time ahead with your evolution equations. If you want to make a prediction longer into the future, you have to know that initial condition even more accurately."
},
{
"end_time": 4915.401,
"index": 175,
"start_time": 4888.524,
"text": " So in some sense, the way you see real numbers, real numbers fit into that paradigm of the initial conditions and the evolution equations quite well. And basically the more, the more information about the real number initial condition you have, the more the further ahead you can forecast. So that's, that's, that's the kind of picture with periodic numbers."
},
{
"end_time": 4945.845,
"index": 176,
"start_time": 4916.954,
"text": " It's quite different. So the way periodic numbers work is that. They describe the totality. I'm just going to say this in words without going into details, but they basically describe the totality of the whole fractal attractor or the fractal invariant set, as I prefer to call it. But the more digits you specify. The sharper that."
},
{
"end_time": 4976.357,
"index": 177,
"start_time": 4946.476,
"text": " Picture becomes so you know with with a very few digits in your specification of the periodic number you just have a very kind of fuzzy view of the whole but it's always. You see it all at once it's always that you see it all but it's just you see with different resolution you see it all at once but you see it more and more with more and more so in other words if you just have a few digits you just see what one of the trajectories is like thick blobs and then as you get more"
},
{
"end_time": 5004.787,
"index": 178,
"start_time": 4977.176,
"text": " num more digits you know those blobs break up into smaller okay lines that sort of thing so and that's different to the actually that's different to the real numbers where all when you specify more of the real numbers you just know more of the initial conditions and that allows you to predict a bit further ahead you never have a you never have a picture of of the whole attractor at once so the point is that these"
},
{
"end_time": 5035.23,
"index": 179,
"start_time": 5005.435,
"text": " Fractal invariant sets. These are deterministic structures. There's nothing random. There's no randomness in it. Everything is deterministic. But the way, the way the, the, the periodic picture is that the more information you specify in the periodic number, the sharper the whole structure becomes, but you're always seeing the whole structure. You just see the whole thing at different levels of, of, of accuracy and, and granularity, if you like."
},
{
"end_time": 5065.828,
"index": 180,
"start_time": 5037.125,
"text": " So the point is that you never it's deterministic but you never frame the problem in terms of initial conditions and in fact with the billiard you see the billiable problem is a good example of where that is a futile it gets you nowhere if you could specify the initial conditions as accurately as you like but unless you've got that electron in the last corner of the universe you're never going to"
},
{
"end_time": 5094.991,
"index": 181,
"start_time": 5066.613,
"text": " Do anything. So I'd like to see my invariant set postulate as something which is deterministic, but where things are not predestined, there's no predestined nature to fit. So, you know, so I would like to think, you know, when if Adolf Hitler had been in the in the dock and he had pled, you know, his innocence because of being predestined by the Big Bang or something."
},
{
"end_time": 5124.292,
"index": 182,
"start_time": 5095.981,
"text": " I, if I had been the judge, I would have said, look, I'm sorry, but you don't have to look at it that way. You can look at it from this invariant set way. And that doesn't resolve you or you have moral responsibility in that picture because there is no predestination. You know, it's all at once. It's all everything is there. And just the information in the panic numbers gives you more and more structure. Look, I'm not saying that this is an easy"
},
{
"end_time": 5151.749,
"index": 183,
"start_time": 5124.804,
"text": " I'm trying to kind of write this in a way which is perhaps understandable but I just feel it comes back to the point that we've discussed that most people treat as sort of synonymous this notion of determinism with the initial value problem. It's a kind of manifestation of what it means to be deterministic and what I'm saying is that"
},
{
"end_time": 5182.398,
"index": 184,
"start_time": 5152.534,
"text": " That doesn't have to do that. The invariant set is a completely different perspective on this problem of determination. So there's another physicist named Chiara Marletto and David Deutsch who have constructor theory and they don't like the initial boundary approach plus evolution. Right. And so firstly, is there a relationship between your theory and constructor theory? Yeah, I've heard David talk and I've heard Chiara talk and a lot of the words resonate, but I haven't yet."
},
{
"end_time": 5210.52,
"index": 185,
"start_time": 5184.053,
"text": " Like at a technical level, I haven't yet found the connection, but, but I think a lot of what they say is consistent. Yeah. So I need to get back to them. Actually. I mean, David was, um, David was, he and I, um, had a joining offices in Oxford. We did our PhDs exactly at the same time. So, um, I almost wrote a paper with him on, uh, causality conditions in"
},
{
"end_time": 5232.619,
"index": 186,
"start_time": 5211.084,
"text": " General relativity but never quite finished it to my regret actually it's one of the things I would have liked to have done the tow door is open if you both want to talk on tow I am down. Okay have I been miss naming invariant set theory and it should be called cosmological invariant set well I I well I wouldn't call it theory because it's I mean that kind of"
},
{
"end_time": 5262.585,
"index": 187,
"start_time": 5233.626,
"text": " I always feel that that elevates your theory. Well, OK, well, I didn't mean to. I mean, I just call it a postulate. I mean, you know, when something becomes a theory, I don't quite know when something becomes a theory, maybe model or something. But yeah, cosmological. I mean, I mean, I use the word cosmological to emphasize this holistic aspect because it is it is a it is a geometry of the whole universe and it's not decomposable. You know, I can't kind of like break it up into"
},
{
"end_time": 5290.401,
"index": 188,
"start_time": 5263.148,
"text": " Speaking of cosmology, downstairs right now there's a conference on the problems with the standard model of cosmology. So earlier you spoke about the"
},
{
"end_time": 5317.654,
"index": 189,
"start_time": 5290.725,
"text": " FRW, I don't recall the initials what they stand for. Friedman-Robertson-Walkinger. They're equations and you said that they're valid at the at the large scales. But I know that there's some controversy there. It's not clear if there's an anisotropy in the universe or sorry. Yes, it's not clear if the universe is homogenous. Right. It's not clear if this dust postulate is the correct framing. Right. So I don't know if that was a controversial statement or if it's considered consensus and it's only a few"
},
{
"end_time": 5347.517,
"index": 190,
"start_time": 5318.268,
"text": " Heretics who don't believe in the lambda CDM or the or the frw. Yes Well, the thing that the thing that I the one of the reasons I went to it is less to do with that but more to do with the lambda because my So yeah, so this is this is quite an important point my model of quantum physics you see requires"
},
{
"end_time": 5377.381,
"index": 191,
"start_time": 5348.541,
"text": " As i was mentioning to the universe to be somehow evolving on this cosmological invariant set now. If the universe had started at a big bang and expanded and is now accelerating to some sort of heat death where every atom is infinitely dilute somehow then that's the complete antithesis of an invariant set then"
},
{
"end_time": 5402.773,
"index": 192,
"start_time": 5377.671,
"text": " I mean, basically the universe is heading towards, I mean, the invariant set of the universe would then be a fixed price. It would, it would just be a static fixed point where everything was infinitely dilute. So this is the absolute, I could almost say if that really is the way the universe is evolving, then my model is, is wrong or there's something I not understood. All right. So,"
},
{
"end_time": 5430.316,
"index": 193,
"start_time": 5404.087,
"text": " In the Friedman Robertson Walker, there's the other, you know, I mean, Friedman himself, who, by the way, started off life as a meteorologist. I always think that's rather nice and did his work on cosmological models in his spare time almost. So you did the opposite. I did the opposite. Yeah. I have affinity for people who change like that. Um, um, I mean, he discovered these two solution, two types of solution, two topologically different types of solution. One is where."
},
{
"end_time": 5458.66,
"index": 194,
"start_time": 5431.271,
"text": " The universe, um, yeah, kind of expands forever. And the other way it has this cyclical, um, behavior. So, um, now up until now, most people with the discovery of dark energy, um, accelerating the universe have suggested that, or, I mean, it points to this, uh, uh, you know,"
},
{
"end_time": 5487.602,
"index": 195,
"start_time": 5460.196,
"text": " It points to the universe just expanding forever. By the way I should say we don't know whether the universe is infinite in scale or finite because its spatial curvature is flat as far as we can tell. Now if it's flat minus epsilon if you like it then it's a sphere but a very large one and if it's flat plus epsilon or something then it's infinite. So we don't know that. But the question is"
},
{
"end_time": 5516.715,
"index": 196,
"start_time": 5488.677,
"text": " Is it accelerating away? Now, the interesting thing is that the very, very, very latest sort of cosmological observations from this start from this was it called dark energy survey desi suggests just came out a week ago. I kind of pointing to the possibility that that dark energy is not constant. Interesting. I don't say this too strongly, because I think"
},
{
"end_time": 5543.131,
"index": 197,
"start_time": 5518.2,
"text": " The statistics are weak and the answer is we don't know, but there is a possibility, which I would like to believe is the case. So I'm looking forward to the day when we have more of these observations, but the indications are that the dark energy might be weakening. So the deceleration is weakening. Now, what you would need for a... Hear that sound."
},
{
"end_time": 5570.162,
"index": 198,
"start_time": 5544.087,
"text": " That's the sweet sound of success with Shopify. Shopify is the all-encompassing commerce platform that's with you from the first flicker of an idea to the moment you realize you're running a global enterprise. Whether it's handcrafted jewelry or high-tech gadgets, Shopify supports you at every point of sale, both online and in person. They streamline the process with the internet's best converting checkout, making it 36% more effective than other leading platforms."
},
{
"end_time": 5596.305,
"index": 199,
"start_time": 5570.162,
"text": " There's also something called Shopify Magic, your AI-powered assistant that's like an all-star team member working tirelessly behind the scenes. What I find fascinating about Shopify is how it scales with your ambition. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. Join the ranks of businesses in 175 countries that have made Shopify the backbone"
},
{
"end_time": 5622.073,
"index": 200,
"start_time": 5596.305,
"text": " of their commerce. Shopify, by the way, powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including huge names like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklyn. If you ever need help, their award-winning support is like having a mentor that's just a click away. Now, are you ready to start your own success story? Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase."
},
{
"end_time": 5629.94,
"index": 201,
"start_time": 5622.073,
"text": " Go to Shopify.com slash theories now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in Shopify.com slash theories."
},
{
"end_time": 5659.48,
"index": 202,
"start_time": 5630.759,
"text": " This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Listening to this podcast? Smart move. Being financially savvy? Smart move. Another smart move? Having State Farm help you create a competitive price when you choose to bundle home and auto. Bundling. Just another way to save with a personal price plan. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings, and eligibility vary by state."
},
{
"end_time": 5692.483,
"index": 203,
"start_time": 5663.609,
"text": " A cyclical universe is something where the dark energy actually eventually change sign and it became an attractive force so it caused the universe to collapse. Now the point is you wouldn't expect each cycle to be exactly the same. It wouldn't be like Groundhog Day because the system is chaotic. So what the cyclical model would suggest is very much along the lines of this"
},
{
"end_time": 5721.647,
"index": 204,
"start_time": 5693.2,
"text": " chaotic invariant set type of concept but it does require if again this is another falsifiable thing if if it really is the case that dark energy is just the cosmological constant and it's constant then then that puts my ideas in trouble but I'm sort of I was pleased to see this morning that that's not the latest results although the statistical significance is still weak but the latest results"
},
{
"end_time": 5751.886,
"index": 205,
"start_time": 5722.961,
"text": " Give some hope that dark energy may be weakening. Now the Hilbert way of deriving general relativity from varying the action and you get the cosmological constant. It's a constant. It must be because if you make it somehow a field or something that varies, then you introduce an extra structure. Yeah. Well, I mean, people have done this. I mean, the famously Turek and Steinhardt have, you know, they call it quintessence, which is a field, you know, they introduce it as a scalar field, which has its own"
},
{
"end_time": 5779.155,
"index": 206,
"start_time": 5752.5,
"text": " So I think it's, it's just, it wouldn't be called a cosmological constant in that case. But you know, you'd lump it more on the right hand side of the field equations on the left hand side."
},
{
"end_time": 5806.544,
"index": 207,
"start_time": 5779.582,
"text": " For people who are interested, Neil Turok was just on theories of everything, talking about the current state of theoretical physics and his minimal model of cosmology. Now, you mentioned the cyclical model. Right. So as a closing quotation, I want to bring up Roger Penrose. Yeah. I think the universe has a purpose. It's not somehow just there by chance. Some people, I think,"
},
{
"end_time": 5836.698,
"index": 208,
"start_time": 5806.954,
"text": " Okay. Um,"
},
{
"end_time": 5864.428,
"index": 209,
"start_time": 5837.142,
"text": " Well, let me say this. I've spent most of my research career, professional career, like most scientists, writing research papers and getting them published in journals and things. And these would be read by my peers and colleagues and stuff like that. When COVID kept us all at home,"
},
{
"end_time": 5894.189,
"index": 210,
"start_time": 5865.282,
"text": " I suddenly thought, well, you know, I've had the idea in the back of my mind to write a popular book. You know, if I'm ever going to do it, this is the time to do it. So I did. I wrote this book called The Primacy of Doubt, which is, let's say broadly about the science of uncertainty. And I tried to cover a range of topics from, you know, economics, climate change and quantum physics, even consciousness."
},
{
"end_time": 5923.951,
"index": 211,
"start_time": 5894.36,
"text": " What's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up what's up"
},
{
"end_time": 5954.787,
"index": 212,
"start_time": 5925.111,
"text": " Just as a note for people who are interested in your previous Theories of Everything podcast, that's with Tim Maudelin and the link is on screen. Also the book, The Primacy of Doubt, the link is in the description and it's on screen right now. Fantastic. And I recommend you read it or listen to it. I listen to it. Yeah, I even read it. You even read it yourself? Well, my son said you can't let somebody else read the book. You've got to read it yourself. So that was quite hard work."
},
{
"end_time": 5981.732,
"index": 213,
"start_time": 5955.52,
"text": " But you know, if you're if you're interested in, you know, brushing up on your English accent, then you can listen to the book. Anyway, it got me thinking about, you know, do I have enough in me to write a second book? And that's what I've literally been doing the last few months. And it's been focused on. Sort of the Penrose quote, you know, is life"
},
{
"end_time": 6010.418,
"index": 214,
"start_time": 5983.456,
"text": " You know, cause if you take the standard model of cosmology, not only are we humans and irrelevance, we're an irrelevance for an infinite testimony, small amount of time. You know, the universe is going through this infinite phase of becoming infinitely dilute. And we're around just for this finite period, which in the length of the, of this universe is an infinitesimal period. Um,"
},
{
"end_time": 6041.049,
"index": 215,
"start_time": 6011.664,
"text": " Is that all there is to it? Now, I know, you know, people would say, well, you know, you should believe in God should believe in a creator. OK, I don't particularly. That that doesn't appeal to me. I have to say, you know, I'm I'm what I'm doing here is. You know, for right or wrong, I I've I've kind of developed a"
},
{
"end_time": 6068.234,
"index": 216,
"start_time": 6041.22,
"text": " Scientific intuition about things and people will agree or disagree with me about them, which is fine. But my, my sense of scientific intuition is that there is something more, um, to the world and to our existence in the world than either, you know, a product of some external creator or as just a complete irrelevance, you know, the product of some random Darwinian mutation that"
},
{
"end_time": 6095.145,
"index": 217,
"start_time": 6068.712,
"text": " You know, we will have our day and then we'll fade into nothing and the rest of the universe will carry on without us. So, Kurt, I'm going to studiously avoid answering your question in detail, but I'm going to put forward some possibilities, let's say, to answer this question, because I think Penrose's intuition is probably not that much different to a lot of scientists that"
},
{
"end_time": 6122.79,
"index": 218,
"start_time": 6096.886,
"text": " They kind of don't feel comfortable with either of the it's God or we're an irrelevance. There's something in the middle. My impression is that the majority of scientists are extremely comfortable with we're an irrelevance. I don't think that's so Lawrence Krauss like revels in it. Yeah. Well, Lawrence, maybe, maybe a unique, I suspect you see the problem is that there is a bit of a stigma. I mean, if you"
},
{
"end_time": 6154.735,
"index": 219,
"start_time": 6125.674,
"text": " If you start giving ground, then you people say, oh, well, he's gone soft, you know, he's halfway to becoming a religious person. So anyway, look, I lay my cards on the table. I'm not a religious person at all. I don't believe in God. However, I have some other ideas which are scientific. They're based on scientific principles, which I think could well"
},
{
"end_time": 6183.08,
"index": 220,
"start_time": 6155.742,
"text": " Give and Penrose himself has said, you know, he's not a believer in God. So, you know, somebody as clever as him saying that there might be something more to it. I think we have to take that seriously. And I'm going to try and put forward some proposals in the book. So that's what I'm writing now. It'll be. At least a year or two before it comes out, we can have another chat. I'll be very happy to talk in more depth about it. I'm trying to sort out the details at the moment."
},
{
"end_time": 6203.183,
"index": 221,
"start_time": 6183.336,
"text": " So you have a third option that is not meaningless chance. And it's not the other thing is to say it's not like panpsychism or anything. So you have a fourth option. It's a fourth option. Exactly. So I go through the three options, which is religion, sort of spiritualism, panpsychism, that sort of mysticism type stuff."
},
{
"end_time": 6230.265,
"index": 222,
"start_time": 6203.831,
"text": " Or just sort of in irrelevant scientific irrelevant. So I'm trying to put forward a fourth option. That's right. Was there a Freudian slip? The reason why you used your middle finger for the scientific irrelevance. I don't know. Well, the other option, of course, is agnosticism. And I mean, for years, I would have probably called myself an agnostic. But in a way, that's a bit of a cop out. It's a bit of that wouldn't be a single position here would just be uncertainty between choosing one of these, though. OK, well, maybe. Yeah."
},
{
"end_time": 6254.701,
"index": 223,
"start_time": 6231.323,
"text": " I don't know but anyway that that's yeah we'll see we'll see how it goes. Professor has been a blast thank you it's been great yeah I hope well I hope we meet again and I hope we have another chat and you know I feel you know you put me on the spot and I always feel"
},
{
"end_time": 6284.121,
"index": 224,
"start_time": 6256.323,
"text": " I don't come over as humbly as I should do, because I'm putting my points of view more forthrightly than perhaps is fully justified. But I'm glad to have the opportunity anyway to do so. And also I want to thank the guy who's behind the camera. You can't see him. It's Dougal McQueen of the Royal Society of London. And he has helped set all of this up. So thank you, Dougal. That's it. Thank you."
},
{
"end_time": 6299.804,
"index": 225,
"start_time": 6284.77,
"text": " Firstly, thank you for watching, thank you for listening. There's now a website, curtjymungle.org, and that has a mailing list. The reason being that large platforms like YouTube, like Patreon, they can disable you for whatever reason, whenever they like."
},
{
"end_time": 6326.203,
"index": 226,
"start_time": 6299.974,
"text": " That's just part of the terms of service. Now, a direct mailing list ensures that I have an untrammeled communication with you. Plus, soon I'll be releasing a one-page PDF of my top 10 toes. It's not as Quentin Tarantino as it sounds like. Secondly, if you haven't subscribed or clicked that like button, now is the time to do so. Why? Because each subscribe, each like helps YouTube push this content to more people like yourself"
},
{
"end_time": 6343.49,
"index": 227,
"start_time": 6326.203,
"text": " Plus, it helps out Kurt directly, aka me. I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, which means that whenever you share on Twitter, say on Facebook or even on Reddit, etc., it shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about this content outside of YouTube."
},
{
"end_time": 6372.927,
"index": 228,
"start_time": 6343.695,
"text": " which in turn greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, there's a remarkably active Discord and subreddit for theories of everything where people explicate toes, they disagree respectfully about theories and build as a community our own toe. Links to both are in the description. Fourthly, you should know this podcast is on iTunes. It's on Spotify. It's on all of the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in theories of everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gained from rewatching lectures and podcasts."
},
{
"end_time": 6397.125,
"index": 229,
"start_time": 6372.927,
"text": " I also read in the comments that hey, toll listeners also gain from replaying. So how about instead you re-listen on those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, whichever podcast catcher you use. And finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like this, more content like this, then do consider visiting patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal and donating with whatever you like. There's also PayPal. There's also crypto."
},
{
"end_time": 6422.927,
"index": 230,
"start_time": 6397.125,
"text": " There's also just joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on toe full time. You also get early access to ad free episodes, whether it's audio or video. It's audio in the case of Patreon video in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode that you're listening to right now was released a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more than you think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you so much."
},
{
"end_time": 6451.783,
"index": 231,
"start_time": 6435.657,
"text": " Think Verizon, the best 5G network is expensive? Think again. Bring in your AT&T or T-Mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal. Now what to do with your unwanted bills? Ever seen an origami version of the Miami Bull? Jokes aside, Verizon has the most ways to save on phones and plans where you can get a"
},
{
"end_time": 6465.691,
"index": 232,
"start_time": 6454.514,
"text": " The local Miami Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal. Rankings based on root metric true score report dated at 1-8-2025. Your results may vary. Must provide a post-paid consumer mobile bill dated within the past 45 days. Bill must be in the same name as the person who made the deal. Additional terms apply."
}
]
}No transcript available.