Sabine Hossenfelder on Superdeterminism

#superdeterminism #freewill #sabinehossenfelder

What is Superdeterminism? Do we have free will? Learn more in this clip with Sabine Hossenfelder

Join this channel to get access to perks:

📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺

Be my friend:

-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-

[Thomas-gk]

Never got bored, when Dr. Sabine was speaking.

[RWin-fpjn]

First of all, hats off to Sabine for her critical thinking which is not the quickest path to achieving the tenure she deserves (Peter T, Elon M what are you waiting for, go hire her!). As for Superdetermism. It all depends on the exact problem definition it is supposed to solve. At the beginning of this podcast it says 'to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics'. Really? Well that depends on how 'local' in the quantum world is defined. We implicitly assume 'locality' has to be in spacetime terms and exactly that is the error in our thinking. When we produced a pair of entangled particles we produce to identical particles with same mass and opposite spin, but same spin ENERGY. So then, now lets assume ENERGY is the grid in the subatmic world, just like MASS is the clock (Penrose 2020). What do you get? We then have 2 particles with exactly the SAME spin energy value in all 3 grid directions and at the same moment (clock). Independent of where in spacetime position. So by recognizing Penrose DUAL settings we get that QP is very local, just in energy terms. So this is your answer to superdeterminism; duality between functions and measures, which have an inverse relation. Measure a particles energy means promoting its energy as potential and collapsing to its inverse the energy as the grid function. Quite simple....Can you guys pls wright a paper in any journal to this end so we can move physics into the 21st century? We wasted 100 years sticking to spacetime only....

[VoidHeart]

I Regard Myself a Compatibilist, Yet also an Absurdist, and Psionic

[david_porthouse]

Superdeterminism is a relatively new idea. John Bell played with the idea, but Sabine Hossenfelder has really taken it up. Opposed to it is superrandomism. This says that any computer simulation of quantum mechanics would need to make use of a random number generator, and that we need to reseed the RNG every time we do a Lorentz boost. Ideas about Lorentz boosts without reseeding the RNG are metaphysical nonsense. With the need to reseed, there are no longer any issues with causality concerning random nonlocal activity.

[jimmyjasi-anti-descartes]

I'm curious what is Sabina Hossenfelders stance on genetic determinism?

[theshermantanker]

So far this is the only thing I actually disagree with Sabine on, but that aside, while I actually respect her quite a great deal I really didn't appreciate how passive aggressive she was to some of the people in history known to have been against SD in that particular video. Her assertion that the theory has not been given a chance is reasonable, but she made it seem like everyone who happened to be against it (even the ones who weren't worried about the thought of free will) was just an uneducated idiot who was doing it out of their feelings, which isn't a very nice thing to do. Also, at the end, her claiming that SD is almost certainly correct isn't very professional, we can never really know what is correct so early on

Cmon Sabine, I really look up to you, you just gotta stop being so passive aggressive towards people who you just happen to not agree with. I don't think Superdeterminism is the correct explanation to be honest, but you don't see me saying "When she's proven wrong, hopefully Sabine will be very embarrassed", do you? That's cause, firstly I obviously don't know which one of us is actually correct, and second, that's just rude while pretending to be polite!

[letthetunesflow]

I would be much more interested in seeing the money spent on the proposed super collider rather spent on new equipment telescopes to be honest… It just seems to me that there is a much larger number of discoveries to be made, in a much larger range of scientific disciplines, with ground breaking discoveries orders of magnitude more numerous with profoundly greater certainty than with a larger particle collider…

Just look at the number of vastly different questions that the James Webb telescope is already answering, along with discovering completely new unknown phenomena after just being switched on! A larger more capable telescope(s) just has a much wider use case for them. Just think of the wide range of ground breaking telescopes that will be possible to build in the next few years, especially with the completion of Starship and other much larger rockets being designed and built. I just think that things are lining up technologically where by large space based experiments are finally matching up very nicely with our capacity for launching, building, and operating revolutionary space based science that has never been available to us. It just seems like a missed opportunity if we don’t take advantage of our new capabilities when it comes to space and science… We all know that new domains and technological capabilities will always lead to new scientific discoveries, so when we have the opportunity to exploit both technological improvements with improved access to a different domain like space, experiments in that converging space will obviously expand the breadth and number of discoveries we are likely to see.

But that’s just me maybe…

[Self-Duality]

What we need is “stratified self-determinism” (CTMU-style).

[jyjjy]

Perhaps I can finally get an answer here. I've watched tons of videos and read a lot of stuff on superdeterminism and I still have NO IDEA how it is supposed to be different than "normal" determinism, apart from that there are hidden variables...

People keep saying the difference is superdeterminism is different in that it rules out free will... How does regular determinism NOT rule out free will?? How is a hidden variable theory supposed to even work conceptually without superdeterminism being a thing? I don't get it at all and ESPECIALLY don't get why the standard answers to this question are so plainly inadequate.

I mean, I've listened to Bell himself speak on the subject and he doesn't seem to have actual objections other than not liking what it would mean right? What am I missing?

[QuicksilverSG]

What superdeterminism implies is that the entire evolution of the universe was predetermined by the initial conditions of the Big Bang. If so, this would require all quantum processes to support unlimited numerical precision. Reason being, there are countless either/or decision points that are dependent on the precise threshold where a quantum event is triggered. In order for causal chains of unlimited length of such threshold-dependent events to be predetermined at the onset of the Big Bang, each of those trigger thresholds would need to be specified with unlimited numerical precision. Otherwise, the slightest discrepancy in threshold level would produce chaotic outcomes, making it impossible to predetermine when and if innumerable quantum events would precisely take place. In addition to its physical impracticality, such unlimited precision would seem to be ruled out in our universe by limits imposed by Planck's constant.

[dougmarkham]

Free will in a non-linear self-organising system is determined by the starting conditions of the universe---assuming the universe (like many things within it) is a self-organising system. However---and this is they key point---due to emergence (unforeseen relationships that form between components of a system that give rise to higher order structures) the universe doesn't know what it's going to do. In otherwords, you might need a universe sized computer to calculate all the emergence that would occur during the evolution of the universe. So, we can say that perhaps free will is an illusion, but nevertheless, nobody knows what choices they will make. The emergence and self-organising character of the universe makes prediction implausible.

Like predicting the weather, perhaps predicting choice can only be done stochasically using ensemble predictions.

Chaotic attractors are unpredictable in practice, so if consciousness involves chaotic attractors, it will be necessary to understand the fractal geometry of the chaotic attractors in order to make stochastic (probabilistic) predictions about what someone will choose to do. At the level of neurons, how they interact in their firing as coordinated sets might allow us to observe predictable patterns.

Of course, self-organising systems are subject to perturbation. A large enough external perturbation impacting eg your conscious mind might lead to altered perception and therefore altered choice. Such a perturbation might be drug induced for instance. Psychedelics and drugs that affect DNA histone methylation patterns (eg Ketamine) might induce altered states in which the neurons no longer act according to the normal attractor state, but flip to another.

All this assumes we live in a closed system with clear boundaries and limited variables. In the case of either an infinite universe or a universe which has some sort of perfect symmetry/randomness interfereing with the self-organising system, then you'd have a weird world in which both deterministic chaos and literal randomness both impact consciousness.

[clintonpiercy]

The things that had to take place in order for me to be commenting on a video I saw on my computer.. I would like to thank all of the hydrogen atoms, all the protons, neutrons, and electrons.. I'd like to thank Joe Rogan who hosted Lex Friedman whos podcast would later introduce me to Dr. Brian Keating! Id like to thank Adam Turing, Bill Gates, Steve Chen, Larry Page, Walter Sanders, and the millions of other men and woman who made it possible for me to type on this computer. It sure seems farfetched and infinitely complex to put me here in this moment but I can assure you it is entirely causal and It's quite obvious once you allow yourself to be little.

[fkeyvan]

She assumes the next collider will not see anything and will be useless. How does she know that? There are many questions that could be answered by a collider especially an electron positron collider that has far less background. There could be a lot learned about the Higgs. Not even mentioning the technological breakthroughs that always come out of collider physics as well as handling the data and computer engineering. All she says is that it is expensive. But it is even more expensive for humankind not to investigate higher energies. BTW. Wars, the military adventures, arms buildup are by far more expensive. I don’t hear her complaining about those.

[poksnee]

I am sorry to hear Sabine say string theory has some merit. It is a mathematical construct and has no physical reality.

[jimmyjasi-anti-descartes]

Better than Everetts Phildickian, but to artificial:
If I would to bet my money I say either Penrose or something Bohmian-like yet incomplete

[stephanroche]

To critise string theories, you should be able to fully understand what all is about...in that case you will rather be working in Princeton or Harvard....

[jimmyjasi-anti-descartes]

Superdeterminism sounds rather absurd after Anton Zeilingers Bells Tests 2017-2018