Tim Maudlin: What Makes a Good and Clear Theory of the World?

Dr. Tim Maudlin is an internationally-renowned physicist and philosopher of science at New York University. He is known for the clarity of his thought, above all in the foundations of physics. Maudlin has undergraduate degrees in physics and philosophy from Yale University and a PhD from the Univ. of Pittsburgh. His books, released by the world’s most respected publishing houses, include "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity", "Truth and Paradox", "The Metaphysics Within Physics", and two volumes of "Philosophy of Physics". In addition, his "New Foundations for Physical Geometry" has received wide acclaim as a novel mathematical approach to a better understanding of space-time.

Dr. Maudlin is a member of the International Academy of the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). He has been a Guggenheim Fellow, taught at Rutgers for many years and has been a visiting lecturer at Harvard. He is also founder and director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundation of Physics.

Relevant links:

Please contribute to Maudlin's fight for the foundations of physics by visiting the following:

Time Stamp:

00:28 -- Preliminary comments - why listen to this video?
02:49 -- Introduction of Maudlin
04:28 -- Tim Maudlin & Bernardo Kastrup Confrontation
13:16 -- Why the Maudlin-Kastrup confrontation matters
14:00 -- Maudlin on "ground zero" in quantum theory
20:51 -- Maudlin's objection to the word "interpretation" in physics
33:04 -- Maudlin on Michelson-Morley,Einstein, & special relativity
41:56 -- Back to what theory-building and postulates matter
43:56 -- How do we evaluate / assess various physical theories?
47:24 -- How much credence should I give to a theory?
50:35 -- The historcal rejection of "foundational questions" in academia
53:45 -- Yakir Aharanov as an exception to the rule
56:23 -- How the above led to the foundation of the John Bell Institute
57:55 -- Is the tide turning in favor of foundational questions in physics?
1:01:05 -- Physics as the foundation of clarity and every discipline
1:03:50 -- Maudlin doubts the utility of foundational questions
1:07:40 -- Is Maudlin a consequentialist in physical theories?
1:10:20 -- The peril of basing values and ethics on physics
1:12:05 -- Maudlin's platonist mathemetics, ethics, and physics
1:13:15 -- Physics, voting theory, and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
1:14:55 -- Maudlin explains the John Bell Institute project
1:21:30 -- Maudlin on the requirements of a good physical theory
1:25:29 -- Maudlin's opinion on "emergent" spacetime
1:27:30 -- What advantages does discrete spacetime provide?
1:34:00 -- Clarification on foliation in a discrete spacetime
1:40:00 -- How would relativity emerge from discrete spacetime?
1:47:20 -- Maudlin on the Aharnov-Bohm effect & discrete spacetime

[eismscience]

Time Stamps:

00:28 -- Preliminary comments - why listen to this video?
02:49 -- Introduction of Maudlin
04:28 -- Tim Maudlin & Bernardo Kastrup Confrontation
13:16 -- Why the Maudlin-Kastrup confrontation matters
14:00 -- Maudlin on "ground zero" in quantum theory
20:51 -- Maudlin's objection to the word "interpretation" in physics
33:04 -- Maudlin on Michelson-Morley, Einstein, & special relativity
41:56 -- Back to what theory-building and postulates matter
43:56 -- How do we evaluate / assess various physical theories?
47:24 -- How much credence should I give to a theory?
50:35 -- The historcal rejection of "foundational questions" in academia
53:45 -- Yakir Aharanov as an exception to the rule
56:23 -- How the above led to the foundation of the John Bell Institute
57:55 -- Is the tide turning in favor of foundational questions in physics?
1:01:05 -- Physics as the foundation of clarity and every discipline
1:03:50 -- Maudlin doubts the utility of foundational questions
1:07:40 -- Is Maudlin a consequentialist in physical theories?
1:10:20 -- The peril of basing values and ethics on physics
1:12:05 -- Maudlin's platonist mathemetics, ethics, and physics
1:13:15 -- Physics, voting theory, and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
1:14:55 -- Maudlin explains the John Bell Institute project
1:21:30 -- Maudlin on the requirements of a good physical theory
1:25:29 -- Maudlin's opinion on "emergent" spacetime
1:27:30 -- What advantages does discrete spacetime provide?
1:34:00 -- Clarification on foliation in a discrete spacetime
1:40:00 -- How would relativity emerge from discrete spacetime?
1:47:20 -- Maudlin on the Aharnov-Bohm effect & discrete spacetime

[marcfruchtman]

I am very interested in discrete space time and the geometry involved. This is fascinating! A lot of what Dr. Maudlin has been discussing in the last parts of the video are resonating with my personal views. Looking forward to hearing much more on this topic.

[SandipChitale]

BTW just like with Tim and also your experience you shared about BK, I have seen him doing the same kind of hostile and aggressive debating with Sabine Hossenfelder as well. So the common problematic factor in these interactions seems to BK.

[ALavin-enkr]

Substance exists outside our minds. If reality, what we observe and experience, is a play of ideas on substance, the question then becomes what is substance made of and what are ideas made of, what is their source? If the answer is consciousness, then consciousness is fundamental.  

If science and philosophy cannot explain consciousness, they have no grounds to claim it is not fundamental because they do not know what it is. What pre-dates force?. A little is known about electromagnetism, absolutely nothing is known about magnetism itself; much less what lies beyond it; what its origin is.

[shwetasinghnm]

Bernardo Kastrup is insufferable because he is arrogant and condescending. I never really liked him and cringe during his talks. He seems to say and infact has sometimes said it out aloud, laughing " this is so simple!! Why doesn't anyone get it ???!!!". What he espouses is a mismash of Buddhist anahata or nothingness and idealism. In his mind, it is all too simple and he has sorted it out totally. But really his philosophy is banal process theology like Buddhism mixed with idealism and I am just not impressed. He is arrogant at that !!!!

[alecmisra]

Classical physical reality appears to exist. But its nature is impermanent and in a state of flux. So its "real" nature is under question even in terms of classical philosophy - see Plato for example or Hume.
This characteristic is further brought to the fore by viewing the matter in terms of quantum mechanics where the issue of "reality" becomes SO moot that all we have is a probablistic account of it. To maintain realism and physicalism in the light of these facts is not intellectually sustainable unfortunately, whatever one might think in a knee jerk sort of fashion about the physical reality of things.
So what to do? There are two alternatives. Firstly one can do what Tim does and resurrect the physicalist bohm/de broglie pilot wave interpretation of QM. One can thus "save the appearance" of causality and determinism simply bh adding an epicycle or two to the Schrodinger wave function. Problem solved, appearances saved by a Ptolemaic maneuver.
But the problem with this approach is obvious. One could build mathematical add ons to the wave function to "save" any illusory phenomenon we wanted to and STILL come out with the same out puts as the wave function does. This is easy to do, but intellectually dishonest.
The other alternative is to accept the non local impllications of QM, that the nature of reality is intrinsically samsaric or illusory in character. This I believe is the correct approach and following Bell or Tims approach smacks of desperation. Sorry to go on like this but I think it is a very important point to make. Regards.

[oioi]

Whatever doesn't come from Bernardo Kastrup's mouth I suppose😂

It is a mystery why anyone buys Kastrup's guruic attitude knowing that he never presents valid or sound argumentation, instead he dabbles in a very bad sophistry that has a goal of claiming certainty from empirical research, therefore ignoring the problem of induction. That wouldn't be so problematic since many people claim some level of 'certainty' from physical theories, but Kastrup is different: he claims that it is unavoidable to conclude that analytic idealism is true😂 which is beyond ridiculous

[James-lljb]

"To come up with a good, fundamental theory of the world, one has to either begin or end with the foundations of physics, precisely because we live in a physical universe. Anyone who wants to build a fundamental theory of the world, even if their philosophy or theology or mathematics takes them to many other imaginary worlds, must ultimately return to THIS world, the one in which you and me actually live."
WHOA! That's a big bowl of dogmatic presumption right there!😅

[monkerud]

you don't need to accept that, but still the notion of using re-normalized values is motivated pretty similarly as the motivation for using a discreet space time, you want to take the infinities out of the dynamics.

[TempleElaine-zl]

Rodriguez Frank Johnson Charles Johnson Steven

[lucasrinaldi]

"We are not philosophers, we are empiricists". This is Philosophy, buddy.

[ALavin-enkr]

If everything is energy and all energy is physical that is true, energy is everywhere, both gross and subtle, depending on rate of vibration. However, do the forms come from, are they engineered by energy as we understand it, gross and subtle. Energy is pretty smart then. Maybe smarter than minds are. I do not agree with this guy.

[david_porthouse]

A theory which can provide guidance to computer simulators would be appreciated. In the case of quantum mechanics, I think any simulation needs to make use of a random number generator. All proposals as to how are welcome. The simulation will indeed need to deal with nonlocal over-correlations. Is that a problem?

[HoyleBarret-pe]

Hernandez Daniel Walker Amy Taylor Eric

[monkerud]

when it comes to ethics there are choices to be made and understanding the choices is relevant to the ethics. one thing for example that isnt really a fundamental question of physics is whether as a result of your actions a criminal can be reformed, thats one type of question, that then flows from understanding brains and social environments and so on, and if the answer is yes then maybe punishment isnt as coherent as a concept, what physics or chemistry can do for you there is providing a better basis for understanding brains, and if some progress is made such that we understand better how to reform a criminal without harming them, then there is a clear choice there that is clarified by a better understanding of the world, even if the dependence is not on what the physics is, it is what it is anyway, but our applied understanding of it. contrived example but still, its not like we can find out whether its good or bad to steal by figuring out how a neuron works, but we can maybe get a better grip on what to do about it, or what causes people to steal ect.

[willemsonneveld]

Too much invested in his own worldview.

[MarvinMonroe]

The whole Idealsim thing about Mind doesnt even make sense to Advaita Vedanta "nondualists"
To them, mind is just the body except more subtle. But still the body. They are interested in the awarenes that observes the mind, or existence. When they say "consciousness" thats what they mean. Its got nothing to do with mind or thought

[SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)

Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.

String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?

What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957–8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)

The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?

When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.

Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.

Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.

Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?

Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?

Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons

. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.

Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )

The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.

Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.

In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.

1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface

137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.

The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)

How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?

I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.

[radical]

Good interview Luis, you were able to coerce some extremely valuable insight from Tim. I am glad to see him doing well and on track. Research into the foundations of physics is a marathon and not a sprint. Good luck to John Bell Institute. It was good to hear him explain what happened with Bernardo, watching that on TOE with Kurt left me feeling a bit queezy. Idealism and panpsychism have gotten too much airplay lately.

[TheDeepening]

One that doesn't contain false ideas about postmortem justice or the Law of Karma. These are lies.