Speaker 1: Welcome to the Gods of You podcast. I am your host,
Trevor kind of kind of stoked about this episode today,
if I may use that term stoked. We're going to
you know, I wanted to get into the second or
third part of that Thomas Campbell interview, but I thought
it might be good to kind of try to balance
it out a little bit. We're trying to run a
we're trying to run a credible operation around here, so
I think it's good to sort of present both sides.
So I wanted to share our old friend Sabine Hassenfelder.
Now you say your name hassen Fielder, Yeah, and she
has a video called you probably Misunderstood the Double Slid Experiment.
In this is true. This is true for all of
us because the experiment itself is quite quite strange, and
I often will use sort of little heuristics that aren't
quite right, and so I think this would be a
good opportunity to sort of reset or understanding now in
the grand scheme. I don't think that this like, I
don't know if you want to call it a rebuttal
video on the double Slit experiment interpretation really changes anything
about the way we talk about it about the way
I wrote about it. But it is good to sort
of every once in a while reset because you can
you can sort of drift off pretty far from the
original experiment or experiments. I would say, like the most
extreme if if you're into it, if you want to
check it out, version of the interpretation of the double
slit experiment might be something like bio centrism by Robert Lanza.
He's a regenerative biologist, highly cited scientist. He wrote it
with the Physicist and it's a trilogy. He actually wrote
a fiction book too, which I bought, but I haven't
been able to get into anyway. This is sort of
the most it's almost I think now what we would
call idealism, the idea that consciousness generates everything. You know,
the matter comes from mind, not the other way around.
I like this idea. I'm open to it. I'm sort
of I have ideas that are sort of adjacent to that.
But I do think that's a little distinct from something
like what Thomas Campbell is going to say today, where
he really just sort of treats this reality like a
video game. Now, the problem with using that metaphor is
people take it a little too literally, and you'll see
Sabine do that today. So, without further ado, let's jump in.
This is a ten minute video, and depending on how
I'm feeling in ten minutes or twenty minutes, with my interruptions,
we'll get into the next Thomas Campbell segment.
Speaker 2: The double slit experiment is the probably most famous experiment
ever and also the most misunderstood one. In this video,
i'll tell you why it confuses even physicists, what the
doubleslet experiment has to do with Einstein's spooky action, what
Elon Musk got wrong about it, and why is a
benis permanently grumpy. The typical illustration of the double slit
experiment looks something like this if particles.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I think basically everyone has some idea of
what this experiment looks like. My favorite, my favorite visual
explanation of the experiment is that meme. It's like a
puppet or something where in one picture he's looking one
way and the other picture he's looking the other way.
Do you know what I'm talking about? Anyway, when he's
looking at the interference screen. Sorry, that's not the right
that's not the right term. The screen where the photons
or the electrons will eventually impact after they go through
the double slit. When he's looking at it, he sees
two vertical bars, and these bars are composed of tiny
little dots, and each dot represents an impact from a
photon or an electron or whatever. And so this image
essentially mirrors what the double slit looks like. You can
think of the double slit almost like a stencil in
this case, like if you imagine spray painting through the
double slit very light, like misting it from far away,
you would see like millions of little dots of paint
in the shape of two bars that look just like
the double slit, right, And this is basically the experimental setup.
You have a photon source or an electron source. You
can think of that as a can of spray paint.
Then you have the double slit like a stencil, let's
say six feet away, you know, we're just making stuff up.
And then six feet after that you have film where
you could think of this as like a canvas. If
we're taking the paint analogy further, and you spray the
photons through the stencil and you see what you see now,
Really the difference is the spray paint gun in this
metaphor could shoot one particle of paint at a time
in the form of a single photon or a single electron,
And so if you do this over hours or days,
you see the result anyway, So I'm gonna just back
this up a little bit and try to walk through
what she should be grumpy.
Speaker 2: The typical illustration of the double slit ex permit looks
something like this. If particles did not have quantum properties,
they'd behave like little balls and just form two stripes
on the screen. But if they do have quantum properties,
they form an interference paton which builds up from single pump.
Speaker 1: I already don't like this explanation. I mean, who am
I as a being, you know, as a physicists, But
I don't like saying like, if they don't have quantum properties,
they look like particles, or if they do have quantum
part properties they look like this. It's like, well, no,
I mean, I think what we're saying is if they're particles,
they'll look like two bars. And if it's actually more,
if these if these particles really behave like waves in
the way they transverse space and time, then we would
expect to see an interference pattern, you know, because that's
what happens when a wave moves through two slits. One
wavefront gets turned into two as it moves through the
two slits. And anytime you have two wavefronts next to
each other, like if you drop two pebbles in a pond,
you get two new wavefronts, and where the ripples strike
one another, you get interference. You get some areas where
the waves some like two peaks, so you get a
really big peak, and then you have some areas where
two troughs you know some and then you get to
really deep trough and then you have areas where a
crest and a trough hit and then you get nothing.
They cancel each other out. So this would leave us
with like five bars on the screen rather than two.
So I don't calling it non quantum, and quantum to
meat just adds to the confusion.
Speaker 2: But let's continue what course, Okay, buts of what all
this shows is that particles have wave like properties. Particles
aren't little points. They spread out like waves, so they
can go through both slits at the same time. And
that's why the parts of the wave coming from each
single slit can overlap.
Speaker 1: I think I think this is maybe a little reductionistic,
even though even though she's kind of doing the like
hyper skeptical explanation and then she sort of walks it
back a little bit. But I mean, saying, so, what
particles behave like waves is not really a so what
I mean, because it does change the way we think
of what a particle is like. I think most of
us think of a particle like a little speck of dust, right,
a little paintball, a little bullet, but shrunken down to
some tiny little scale. So to then say, well, like, yeah,
of course they behave like waves. Of course a bullet
can pass through two distinct slits in a steel plate simultaneously. Well,
then it's like, well, no, I mean, that's not duh.
That's not a duh.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: If you're telling me that these little, discrete individual particles
with mass can behave like a wave so much so
that they can pass through, they can be in multiple
places at once, this is not really a so what
I mean. Just to defend the just to defend the
honor of people who are impressed by this experiment a little.
Speaker 2: Bit, even for a single particle that's what creates the pattern.
The only thing that's it is that some people think
elementary particles should behave like little balls. Well, the explanation goes.
The weird part is that if you observe which of
the slits the particle went through, then the particles stop
behaving this way. They formed just two stripes on the screen.
That is partly wrong and partly right. The wrong part
is that the Okay.
Speaker 1: So here we're going to be faced with the truth
that physicists don't contend with very much. And I'm not
sure why, but I say that as someone who completely
ignored this in my book too on purpose. You know,
I was aware of this, So I mean, even Finemen
ignores this. Everybody ignores us. So what we're about to learn,
you know, the claim is like, hey, these particles sort
of behave like particles when you're when you're looking, when
you're measuring them, when you're measuring which slid they went through.
But when you aren't, they behave.
Speaker 3: Like a wave.
Speaker 1: They pass through bow slits at once. Now that is true.
Sort of the thing is is that the particles they
never really lose their wave like property in no scenario
in this experiment, do they ever truly behave like a
bullet would, where it is absolutely a discrete ball of
mass that travels, you know, in a straight line from
its emitter until it makes contact with the stetsul. That
never actually really happens.
Speaker 3: That is just a.
Speaker 1: Way of simply explaining what happens, because in reality, what
happens is when you aren't looking, this particle seems to
go through bowslots at once. When you try to prove that,
because that's a little surprising, right, like, why would this
particle actually said, you know, most people assume that a
particle wouldn't have a wave like property. So when you
try to confirm that by putting a deta hector in
front of the slits, now all of a sudden, the
particle just goes through one slit. So that is true.
I mean, the classical understanding of the experiment that she
just laid out is correct. That's the partly right part.
The partly wrong part is it still behaves like a wave.
You still have an interference pattern. You just have what's
called a single slit interference pattern. So at this point
we're now going beyond like the traditional popular understanding of
the experiment. We're moving into a deeper understanding of the experiment. However,
the interesting aspect, the finding the conclusion is still the same.
Why does it behave differently? Once we have which way information,
that's what's unusual, and even Sabine is going to lay
out like a lot of the criticisms of this, A
lot of the things like amateur people and and even
physicists will point out, is like demystifying the experiment. There
are actually good rejoinders to that. So I will try to.
Speaker 2: Stop the ren particles allegedly stop behaving like waves or
form two stripes on the screen. This just never happens.
If you observe which slit the particle goes through, say
the right one, then the particles still behave like a wave.
It's just that it's now a wave that goes through
only one slit. It'll then form a diffraction pattern on
the screen, which is also an interference effect. And likewise,
for the right slid, if you observe the particles, they
will not give you two stripes on the screen. Instead,
you'll get an overlap of the two diffraction patterns. What's
correct is that if you know which slit the particle
went through, you do not get an interference from both slits.
You get a sum of left slid and right slit.
So what happens in the double slit experiment is that
if you take the result of only the right slit
and add it to the result of only the left slid,
you do not get the same as having both slits
outen at once the mast.
Speaker 1: Okay, does this make sense? Why we just tell the
story the simpler way? And this is not just me,
I mean this is how everyone tells the story, right,
because the conclusion is still sort of the same. When
you try to determine which slid it goes through, it
stops going through both. When I say it, I mean
whatever the particle is that we're testing, whether that's a
two thousand atom carbon molecule, whether that's an electron, whether
that's a photon, when we aren't trying to detect which
slit when we don't have which way information. That's the
way physicists talk about it. It seems to go through
both paths. When we do acquire which way information, it
goes through one or the other. Describing it as like
describing it as like a bullet that moves through and
creates two vertical slits on the screen. That is technically
not true. So yeah, I don't know why. I don't
know where that came from. But you can watch videos
going back, you know, very long. You know, you can
black and white physicists talking about the double set experiment,
and they always describe it this way, the incorrect way. However,
it doesn't really matter, I guess, is the point, because
the mystery of the experiment is the same, like, why
does it only move through one slit when measured and
both slots would not measure?
Speaker 2: The medical reason for this is rather simple. If you
have two slits, you add that's the interference term. But
then the double slid experiment just seems to say that
if you know the particle only goes through one slit
at a time, then you get the pattern from only
one slit at a time. And again I'd like to ask, well,
what surprising about this? Here is the part that's actually
surprising about the double slid experiment. It's not you can
decide whether or not to measure which slit the particle
goes through after you send the particle on the way.
Suppose you send the particle from here there are always
some particles that hit outside the slits, but these are
not relevant, so we can just ignore them, and you
put a detector in one of the slits, let's say
the right one. You can either leave the detector off
or you turn it on after the particle left the
source and before it appeared on the screen. Now we've
just seen that, to you, explain what happens on the screen.
If we don't know which slid the particle went through,
it needs to go through both slits, and if we
do know which one it goes through, it goes through
only one. The issue is then that if you turn
the detector on, the wave function of the particle must
suddenly update on both slits. It must jump from a
wave function that goes through both slits at once to
one that either goes left or goes right, but not both,
and that update is instantaneous, faster than night. This is
what Einstein called a spooky action distance. You make a
measurement at one slit and the wavefunction on the other
slit changes immediately. And note that this is the case
even if the particle does not trigger the detector. If
it doesn't go into the detector, you know it must
have gone through the other slit. But if the particle
went through the other slit, you never interacted with it,
You didn't touch the particle.
Speaker 1: So this is a critical piece because I remember when
I was on the Brothers of the Serpent podcast, this
was something Kyle, this immediate is immediate thing, which someone
I'm sure had told him or he'd read somewhere, because
it's a popular like rejoinder to the mystery of this
experiment as well. Yeah, of course, if you're if you're
interacting with the particle like an electron, you know, it
could just be the interaction with it that causes it
to behave differently, like if I'm trying to bounce photons,
because that's how a camera works, right, If I'm bouncing
photons off of electrons, like, certainly that could affect the
way they behave. Now, there's many reasons why that's not.
The explanation. One is you can measure the electron after
it already goes through the slit. So in that case,
if the interaction is causing a collapse of the wave function,
then then that's a retrocausality issue. That means you're affecting
something that happened in the past by something you're doing
in the present. And this I would think would be
an even bigger mystery, right, Like, if that were true,
that's an even bigger mystery. But that isn't what's true
because we know that you don't actually have to interact
with the particle, right you can just set up the
experiment so you're only measuring one slit, and even if
the particle didn't go through that slit, you will know
because you won't measure anything, but you still gain which
way information because there's only two options. So if you
measure one, if it's not there, we know it's in
the other place. So even without physically interacting with the particle,
we cause it to behave differently, We cause it instead
of going through boslts at once, to just go through one.
So this rejoinder is wrong, Like we just know what's wrong,
and no one credible really proposes this as an explanation.
I just want to nail that point home because that's
the most common criticism that I hear. The criticism that
Sabine is laying out is very different, and really so
far it's not even really a criticism. It's just a
deeper explanation.
Speaker 2: It just knew you were trying to the only way
that you can avoid this faster the light update is
not the particle knows whether you'll measure it before you've
made the decision whether to measure it or not. This
is what's called super determinism, and this is what's so
weird about the doubles slit. You either have to accept
a faster than light update off the wave function the
spooky action, or you have to accept that the future
is fully determined already and know this actually has nothing
to do with what happens on the screen. The screen
is just the evidence for what happened at the slits.
Speaker 3: I am addicted to this electrical engineering.
Speaker 1: Game about to let you t be get a free
ad on you guys skip.
Speaker 2: Oh, you've been making fun of me for biting into
my arm rest.
Speaker 1: Now we have a ten minute commercial from Sabine herself
about her chair. We gotta go use code blah blah blah. Okay,
I think it's hard to tell exactly where I think
we're going to go.
Speaker 2: Back to the physics. So this, I think is the
major misconception about the doubleicit experiment. It's not that if
you measure which slit the particle goes through, it uses
its wave properties. It's that the particle must have known
whether you'd measure it or not, before you yourself knew
that or fossiled.
Speaker 1: I think she's wrong here. I mean, I'm sorry, she's brilliant,
she knows way more than I do. I just I
just think it's like a misinterpretation. Like she's right to criticize.
You know, the criticism she's leveling is that if you
measure it, it behaves like a bullet. If you don't,
it behaves like a way. But I understand that's not
exactly correct. You know, it goes through bose slits if
you're not measuring it, it goes through one if you are.
And so she's positing, like, okay, that leaves you with
the problem. Either there's superdeterminism, which means that everything's predetermined
the particle knows what you're gonna do, or there's faster
than like communication, and I just I don't think it's
either of those. I actually like, actually like Thomas Campbell's
explanation for this. Hopefully we'll get to it today. I
think it's very coming up soon. Where we left off so,
but so I just sort of reject the premise. You know,
I agree with the interpretation of you know, how to
interpret the experiment, but the way she then frames us
as two potential solutions I don't think is true the.
Speaker 2: Light spooky action. Speaking of misconceptions, here is what Elon
Musk recently had to say about the double sid experiment.
It's consistent with the simulation hypothesis. Like a video game,
objects are randomly generated with positionals, certainly only when observed.
The simulation hypothesis is the idea that the entire universe,
including us, is a computer simulation. The problem with the
idea is that no one knows what this means. This
is why everything is compatible with it. It's not even wrong.
As Paully said so aptly.
Speaker 1: I think that's kind of true. I mean I even
sort of have the same frustration with saying it's a simulation,
because I don't know exactly what that means. So now
I don't maybe just a little flippant in the criticism though, like,
because the experiment sort of does support the idea that
matter behaves differently when it's being measured and when it doesn't.
And so since we are basically measurement devices. I mean,
that's what it means to be conscious. Right. We are
a body imbued with sensors. We have a suite of
sensors in our body and we can observe them. Right, So, like,
what what does it mean to be conscious? It means like, well,
you're you're taking measurements constantly and you're observing the outcomes
of those measurements. So I don't know, I think I
think that is actually kind of relevant. It kind of
implies that. I think it actually I think Elon Musk's
point is sort of correct. I mean, I guess he's
wrong to say that there is no positional determinism you measure.
That's not exactly correct, but it is. It is correct,
But it kind of also is correct, you know what
I mean, because you do you do have a particle
that's in multiple places at once until you measure which
that it goes through, and then it goes through one
or the other. Now it still has wave like properties,
but it's positional information does change when you when you
try to determine where it is. Now. This is true
for every feature of the quantum system. It doesn't have
to necessarily be location. It could be speed, it could
be spin, it could be momentum, right, But the point
is when you try to determine the answer to those questions,
it changes the way that the particle behaves.
Speaker 2: The second problem is that objects in a video game
I usually not truly randomly generated. While this is possible
in principle, in practice it's.
Speaker 1: I think this is a total misconception of what we mean.
So she's saying like, well, yeah, I mean the computer
games aren't random, right, And it's like, well, yeah, no,
I don't think we're suggesting that that our observation is
randomly generating things. I think we're suggesting that the information
which underlies our reality isn't really rendered or doesn't make
itself manifest until we try to interact with it. This
is different from saying like we're randomly generating reality. That's
kind of a crazy that's kind of a crazy take.
It's kind of like a weird criticism unless I just
don't understand it. And also, quantumness isn't necessarily random either.
I mean, I understand that you can achieve true randomness
with a quantum system, but it's probabilistic. You know, the
states of quantum systems have probabilities, so I don't I
don't totally get the criticiz.
Speaker 2: Rarely done because the only truly random processes are quantum mechanics.
Usually video game algorithms are pseudorandom, which means they are
created algorithmically, just by an algorithm that's very hard to predict.
If it were the case, the particles in a double
sid experiment were indeed generated like in video games, that is,
following a deterministic algorithm that did contradict the current standard
interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that's true, but I just I don't understand
the relevance. Maybe somebody can email me. I don't get
I don't get how this is relevant, Like I, yes,
video games are quantumly indeterministic, and yes, there we can't
algorithmically predict the outcome of quantum systems, like that's the point.
So so I don't really get this.
Speaker 2: I'd really like to know the algorithm. And third, it's
not true that measuring an object gives it position. A
certainty that depends on what you measure. If you measure momentum,
then it's the momentum that obtains certainty, not the position.
While I'm metter though there are two O.
Speaker 1: The this is like some really smart people can be
kind of like miss the point, you know, like, of
course Sabine's brilliant. She knows much more about physics than
I do. But it's it's like, yeah, I understand everything
you're saying, but like, what does it have to do
with anything, Like, yeah, we know that, we know, we
know everything you're saying. We like, I fully acknowledge, and
I agree with I don't, but I don't understand the
relevance to the sort of the mystery of the experiment
and the implications of the mystery. And I don't understand
how anything she said sort of contradicts the simulation hypothesis.
Now again, I don't believe in the simulation hypothesis because
I don't like the word. It's really linguistic thing it
implies like a technological component or a like a test,
like like like some alien civilization is simulating us. I'm
just say, no, no, that's sound we're saying that. What
it I just it's it's consistent with you could at
least speculate. I think with on a good basis that
it's at least consistent with the created world. It's consistent
with the created universe. That's all that's to me. That
this is when I say simulation hypothesis, that's what I mean.
There is a system with rules that we call physical laws,
and the smallest component of the system, I mean, actually
maybe pretty large components of this system they behave differently
when they're being observed, and you can say measured. The
difference between those two words is difficult to articulate, right
because you know, I mean, you don't really know, like
what really what is the difference really? You know, I
think what you would say is measurement can occur without awareness,
But I don't necessarily know if that's like that important
of a distinction, because I think what we're saying is
like once, once you either consciously or automatically try to
force a particle to assume a position by measuring where
it is, it does and so this this this takes
I guess I think that's the interesting thing. You know, like,
if you were going to design a system for agents
to live in, you might need to make that a
part part of the system so that you're not essentially
simulating the state of every quantum system in the universe. Simultaneously.
Things just sort of exist as information until they're interacted with.
Speaker 2: I think this is the point the misunderstandings about the
double sid experiment. One is that it's something to do
with consciousness that just isn't So the measurement doesn't have
to be done by a conscious observer. Some operators will
do the other thing.
Speaker 1: That I think I've read I've peered into the future
and sorry answer, so I think we already addressing.
Speaker 2: And physicists are often confused about is momentum conservation because
suppose the initial particles you sent went straight ahead and
at the plate, but then you measure a part heavy
other than a single particle, you can't measure this tiny kick.
And you can do this if you use individual atoms
as the slits. Indeed, this was done in a recent point.
Speaker 1: Okay, I think, well, well, I think we're good, all right,
so let's go to do you get what I'm saying?
Like it's interesting, I like to get grounded and what
the actual experiment is.
Speaker 3: But the.
Speaker 1: The casualness, right, the informality with which people will shift
from interpreting, like talking about the experiment to like extrapolating
what it means and what it doesn't mean. And it's like, no,
I don't think we're ready to say all this that stuff.
I think all we really know is particle goes through
both slits when you're not looking at it, or when
it's when you're not trying to determine which slit it
went through, when you have no which way information, When
you acquire which way information, even if you do so
without interacting with the particle, the particle only goes through
one slit. Why would this be? And I think one,
I think one way to interpret it. I don't think
it's that far fetched. Well, you know what, let's see
if maybe Thomas Campbell will explain it.
Speaker 3: In other words, the system may like you have a
you have a particle, and the particle comes in and
it's this kind of special plastic and it stops, but
two particles come out. Yep.
Speaker 1: Okay, by the way, he's talking about entanglement.
Speaker 3: Now, the two particles come out are entangled. And if
you look at that, one comes out, say this way
and one goes out that way. So if you take
the momentum is a vector, you take that vector and
say what's the component this way and what's the component
this way opposite. Well, they're exactly the same, and they
cancel out because this one didn't have any momentum in
that direct conservation momentum. And you take the component that
was in the forward direction and it's exactly the same
as the one that went in. So they're entangled by
the conservation laws. What comes out as to conserve what
wine in. So if you have two particles going out,
each one's at half the energy as this one was
because they split that, you know, So anyway, that's the
way it works. And then there's all kinds of things
get and tangled there, but it's all one system. So
those two particles come out now they're actually part of
one thing. They're just one thing that's now in a
different configuration.
Speaker 4: But the speed of light doesn't matter to them, No,
it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: So they go off and now there are a million.
Speaker 1: Sorry, this is a little confusing because we're shifting from
the double Sille experiment to entanglement. It's just where we
left off. But I think it's it's related. So you know,
we're talking about how can two particles be entangled? And
this gets at what Sabine was saying, because this is
one of the interpretations is that this violates Bell's theorem,
you know, because you can't you can't have information cannot
travel faster than the speed of light. Nothing can travel
faster than the speed of light. So because two entangled
photons interact with one another immediately, like truly immediately, then
we have a problem because there's some sort of communication
transfer between these two particles that can occur over any
distance instantaneously. And Thomas's thoughts on this I think make
total sense. You know, the analogy we used a few
episodes ago is like, if you think about a video
the only place where something like this could happen is
in a virtual world. Again, I'm not saying virtual as
in technological. I'm saying in a world that has the
virtue of being real but in fact is not is
information only And so what that would mean You can
imagine two levers, you know, like the light switches they
you know, you can have two light switches that control
the same light, right, but now I imagine they're like
inextricably linked. Flip one up, the other one flips down.
You can imagine that in a video game like we
use legend of Zelda, but like some kind of maze.
You have to operate right, and when you flip one switch,
something happens and its corresponding switch flips down, and that
can happen instantaneously. That could happen simultaneously. And so you
wouldn't say, how is that possible? How did the information
from one switch travel to the other faster than the
speed of light? You wouldn't suggest that Bell's theorem had
been broken. You'd say, no, this is the same system.
These switches are described by the same bit of code
in this spinning hard disk in my computer, and so
they are the same system. There is no information communication
between the two of them. They are simply manifestations of information.
And this is I think the appropriate way to describe
entangled particles.
Speaker 3: Light ears away. Right. If you change this one in
a way that changes the momentum let's say, like a
spin up or a spin down. That's a momentum vector. Actually,
then the other one changes because the result has to
be zero because it was zero to start.
Speaker 4: Sure, but how did they communicate?
Speaker 3: They don't communicate. It's all one thing.
Speaker 4: It's one thing.
Speaker 3: It's one thing. Think of it this way. What if
we had a big two by four and it was
a million miles long.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to agree that my analogy is
much better, but let me know what you think.
Speaker 3: And we were strong enough that we could just grab
it and flip it up, flip it upside down. Well,
when we grab it and turn it over, the other area,
the other end, a million miles away, would turn over
just the same because it's all one thing, right, you see,
it's all one thing. It's not two separate things. We
see those two separate things. It's just a configuration of
that one thing. And that one thing had certain conservation
rules associated with it. So when you do this, that
happens because they're all one system. They're not. We look
at it and say that.
Speaker 1: Actually, that was pretty good. Well, I'll accept if you
like that better.
Speaker 3: There's two different physical particles traveling. They're each independent. Yes,
they're not independent. They're connected by the rules of conservation
and other things. You know, it connects them. So if
this one does something, you do something to this one.
Speaker 1: Then if that but do you do you see the implication? Though,
By the way, if there's a lot of background noise,
I'm sorry, this microphone is really good when I listen
to it. After at filtering out background noise. But while
I'm recording, I can hear it all in my headphone,
so hopefully it's okay. Anyway, The implications of this are
interesting because you hear Aj struggling with Yeah, but how
does the information get from one to the other, Because
he is in a sort of framework that we're all in,
which is that these are real things and that the
only way for them to interact each other with each
other would be to physically transmit information across space. But
that's not what's happening. They're one system described by one
set of rules that is appearing in two separate locations,
and the only way this happens is in an information
based reality, which is what we're saying. I like that
better than the simulation hypothesis. You know, if you think
about what a virtual reality is, it's an information based reality.
The chairs and tables in the video game aren't real.
But if you're in the system governed by the same
rule set as that matter, as the tables and chairs,
they are real to you. They have the virtue of
being real. Does it make sense. Hopefully, if you're in
the system, it's real, But if you're out of the system,
it's very obvious that it's virtual. You know, you can
point to the hardware that's generating this experience. And I
think maybe more than even the double set experiment, entanglement
is sort of the proof of this.
Speaker 3: You know, if that breaks the pattern that defines them,
then the opposite thing has to happen to that one
that sounds like a so so that when you put
them back together again, you don't have anything different than
what you started with. Right, So if you if you
look at it that way, you see it's not two
separate particles. It's just those two separate particles make one thing.
And when you grab that one thing like that too
before that's a million miles long, and you turn it
upside down, it turns upside down a million miles away
in the same instant, because it's all one thing.
Speaker 4: I don't think most physicists like this. I don't think
they like this answer.
Speaker 3: No, they probably don't. So then you have you have entanglement.
You know, nice I didn't like entanglement. No he didn't.
He said, guard doesn't play right. But anyway he got it.
Later on, you know, the proof came out and and
he said, okay, I mean and then he got right
into it and work worked with it as well as anybody. Sure,
but he was he was slow to that game.
Speaker 4: But he couldn't get the math to work.
Speaker 3: No, Well, now you in consciousness. What how is it
that you get something that's like this and then it changes. Well,
it's easy. It's an if then statement, right, If this
one changes the spin, that one changed the spin, that's all.
It's a computer program.
Speaker 4: It doesn't care about the distance.
Speaker 3: It doesn't care. If this then that, It's simple the
fief of world.
Speaker 1: You know what I'm gonna I'm gonna expand my analogy
a little bit. I got to figure out how to
skip this commercial. I'm gonna expand my an allergy. But
two separate analogies. You have a light switch in your
hallway on one end of your hallway that turns the
lights on and off. You have another light switch on
the other end of the hallway. I actually have this
in my house. You flip one up, the light turns on.
Nothing happens to the other one. But let's say they did.
Let's say they were locked in opposites. So when I
flip one up, the other one flip down. You would
be right in saying like, how does that happen? Clearly,
there must be like a radio receiver and transmitter and
both switches so that the information can be transferred from
one to the other. And you would be right, that's
how you would have to do it. There would have
to be an information transfer. And that's because these are
two distinct systems, right. These are two separate and distinct systems,
so there needs to be communication between them. However, you
can imagine that they are one system, and there's only
one way for us to do that. At the macro level. Now,
we could entangle two photons and that would be that
that would be a system that's inversely locked in opposite. Right,
But if we wanted to recreate that light switch scenario
in a video game, we would not write separate blocks
of code for each light switch to behavior and then
have in the game radio waves emanate from one light
switch to interact with the other light switch so that
they know. No, we would just write a single line
of code that describes the whole system. When one is
up the other is down. If then and so there
would be no information transfer between the two light switches.
It's one system. If this is up, then this is down.
If that's up, this is down right, That's it. That's
what entanglement is. And the only place that can happen
is a virtual world. That's the only that that can't
be explained by Newtonian physics. This is it or don't
as far as I know, even really Einsteinian physics. This
is really a mystery. I mean, this was the twenty
twenty two Nobel Prize proving that this is real. So
this is pretty fresh stuff. There's only one place where
that works, and that's in a virtual world.
Speaker 3: Cup is here and you can now feel the thrill.
And those are the rules that can and play FIFA
World Cup.
Speaker 1: Trying to get back to the next world on Netflix.
Speaker 3: Here we go. That's all. It's just an if statement.
That's elegant. So if this one flips, that one flips,
because it's all part of the same thing, and those
are the rules that connect it according to the rules set,
and everything here has to happen according to the rule set.
Speaker 4: Did you address entanglement in your twenty seventeen paper, You
didn't know.
Speaker 3: I didn't go there. I didn't go there. I just
was basically coming up with a bunch of experiments it
would the evidence to the fact that this is a
virtual reality and to the consciousness was the computer, and
I just got actually, I couldn't do any of them.
I started with the first simple one. But it turns
out that I really in my you know, I have
good dunkin experiments, you know, just thought experiments. If you
did this, this is how it would come out. And
a lot of physics has done that way, and often
years later they end up with an ability to actually
do the experiment. But in this case, the ability to
do the experiment didn't exist because I was just saying
that I have the which way data. I wasn't saying
how I got it. Well that's a problem, right, that's
a problem. I just said, well, you have this which
way data and it does this, and you're going to
get that and for which way? The wait is this
way you get that? But I didn't actually say, here's
how we're going to get that which way data. And
it finds out that that's a much harder problem, and
they don't know how to do that without interfering with
the experiment itself. Right, every way they do that, they
actually change the experiment.
Speaker 4: So why would they change it by collapsing the way.
Speaker 3: No, No, they they actually kind of interfere with it.
Like if you have one of the ways that you
do it is that you have use entangled particles, you know,
and you have this going on, this to the double slits,
and this going down to tell you which slid it
went through, right, because you got two particles now that
went through a you know, went through one sliit or
the other. And now one's going to the double slit
and the other one says I came from that slit.
So you get that one to tell you what slid
it went through. But the problem is these are entangled,
they're not disconnected. So what you do here changes they are.
What happens there changes here, you know.
Speaker 1: Okay, so he is talking about the double slit experiment,
but in a slightly different way. We're talking about entangled
particles now, so this is this completely changes the double
slid experiments is like the quantum eracer experiment or delayed choice.
There's all there's many different permutations of the double slit experiment.
So it's a little confusing. And I just wanted to
make that point.
Speaker 3: You've got connection going on there, which messes up with
the experiment, it changes things and they find that like
if you have a particle going through and you want
to send a photon to hit it and see which
did it go through? Oh, my photon found it there.
Oh well that's a measurement. Now you got a particle. Yes,
it's not probability anymore. You just measured the particle, you know,
and that's all you get. Then the particle goes straight
and hit the h you know, hit the backstop, hit
the screen right behind the slit. But if you don't
measure it, it stays probability until it hits the screen. Yes,
and then it's a random drawl from the probability distribution
of the possibilities. And that's an interference pattern. And the
reason that had to be an interference pattern is because
we already had optics shining coherent light through slits and
coming up with interference patterns. That's how they came up
with the wave theory.
Speaker 1: Because now this is a wild interpretation, I have to admit,
but I kind of like the ideas was like the
reason and it works this way. It has to do
with our history of discovery in science, which is like
we already knew that light behaves a certain way we
understand optics from Newton, and so the whatever the whatever,
the answer is to this whole double set thing. It
has to be parsimonious with optics. And so the idea
is it behaves like light, like coherent lights when it's unobserved.
But then when we when we try to because we
also have this concept of light particles, it will also
sort of behave like a particle. I guess when we
try to determine which slid it goes to, it's very
it's a little confusing. The second time I'm listening to it,
I miss this. The first time.
Speaker 3: You can show that the thoughts of light, you know,
and that's all you get. Then the particle goes straight
and hit the hit you know, hit the backstop, hit
hit the screen right behind the slit. But if you
don't measure it, it stays probability until it hits the screen,
and then it's a random draw from the probability distribution
of the possibilities. And that's an interference pattern. HM. And
the reason I had to be an interference pattern is
because we already had optics shine in coherent light through
slits and coming up with interference patterns. That's how they
came up with the wave theory because they can show
that the thoughts of light and a spaces between them.
You can do that with a simple trig problem.
Speaker 1: I'm with them, I just I'm not sure if it's
really wise to suggest that like matter and energy will
behave differently because we learned something else first, Like it
sort of implies that it wouldn't have turned out this
way if we hadn't learned optics first as a species.
I don't know if that really makes sense. I mean
maybe who knows. I mean, listen, if it's a created world,
anything's possible. And there's theological implications when you hear stuff
like that, right, you know, because there's passages in the
Bible where I mean, if you look at what are
some of the main messages of Jesus is to care
for the poor, To love your neighbor, and not just
the ones that are a part of your tribe.
Speaker 3: Right love.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the story of the good Samaritan, right
because he's specifically not a member of the tribe, he's
a Samaritan, and he sort of held up as the
perfect example of loving your neighbor because he stops to
help the man who's robbed, even though they're not members
of the same tribe. So that's one key message. The
second key message is the importance of belief. And like
this is not just illustrated verbally, like when he says,
if you have faith as small as a mustard seed,
you can say to that mountain, move and it will.
You know that idea, but this is actually shown like
in visual terms when Jesus is out on the water
and he calls to Peter and says, Peter, join me.
And Peter, just overwhelmed and filled with belief and faith
in his Lord, steps out of the boat and walks
on water. But as he gets closer to Jesus, he
starts to like the the logical rational part of his
brain starts to like go like, wait, what am I doing?
You know, I can't walk on water. What am I doing?
Even though he's already doing it, And the wind picks
up and he gets scared, and before he gets to Jesus,
he falls into the water and Jesus grabs his hand
and says, you have little faith, you know, and helps
him up. And it is this implication like he can
walk on water because he believes he can, you know,
which is kind of cool, like in the in the
concept I mean, obviously it's cool, but in the concept
of modern science and quantum physics, and you know, you
you could interpret measurements as updating your belief. You know,
when when you attempt to measure a particle, you're obtaining information,
which way, information that updates your belief, and it shangs
the way sub atomic even atomic, even molecular particles behave.
It's kind of cool. It's just kind of I mean
they yeah, you could say, like, okay, you're you're reading
into it a bit much. You know, it's just a
simple story about belief, and it may be you know,
you can interpret that however you want. But it's just
kind of cool. I like the rhymes.
Speaker 3: Sure, you know, so there it is. It's a wave.
Those waves go in all directions and they interfere with
each other. If the distance between this slit and that
slit is an even number of wavelengths, and you get
you know, they add and if they're half some integer
half of wavelengths, then they destroy. You know, they interfere
with each other's waves. So we already knew that if
you put coherent light two slits, you're going to get
an interference mattern. Now that left the larger conscious system
with no choice. It could do one of one of
two things. It could let there be a what we
call it a logical problem with the physics with the
rules set, and that is when you shine the light
item over here in optics, and optics was one hundred
years ahead of quantum physics, so we knew that was
the case now here. If it wasn't the case, why not.
You see, there'd be a logical inconsistency between quantum physics
and optics. One would say the others that was wrong,
and that would say the others wrong, and science shouldn't
have these things. What the larger constant system did is
it said, okay, what I'll do is you'll you'll send
a particle to the slit. But it's still probability. When
I get to the end where it hits something and
I have to put a particle somewhere, I have to
render a particle somewhere. I'll take a random draw from
a probability distribution that is exactly like an interference pattern.
Here's my probability distribution. It looks just like an inference. Yes,
so randomly, I'll take that draw and what we'll see
as a particle here and here and.
Speaker 1: I was muted. Sorry, it's pretty cool. Gosh, something is
up with my sound anyway, it's pretty cool idea.
Speaker 3: I like it? Do you like it?
Speaker 1: I like it? I mean, of course, there's all kinds
of crazy implications, right, which is you know, it just
seems historically like the world used to be a more
magical place. You know, there were prophets people God was
literally speaking to people. This is what we believed. And
the reason I sort of the reason I'm tempted to
believe it is there are periods like in Jewish history
where everyone agrees that God isn't speaking to anyone. And
it's like if this, if if the prophets were just
really like a manifestation of insanity, you know, which would
I think most skeptical atheists people would think, like, hey,
they think Scott's talking to him. He's a schizophrenic, you know,
or seeking attention or whatever. If that were the case,
you would kind of expect it to be fairly consistent
through history, Like a a certain segment of the population
is willing to, you know, risk it all and say
God's talking to them, whether they really believe it or not,
Like some certain portion of the population is going to
do this over time. But the fact that we have
like four hundred year chunks where everyone agrees that God's
just not speaking to anyone, it's a little unusual. It
kind of I think gives a little bit of credibility
to the fact that, like, no, there is there was
some process for determining if God really was speaking to people.
Who knows, you know, it's a stretch, But the point is,
it does seem like the world used to be a
more magical place. And you do wonder, like as we
study creation and map it and measure it and define
it and theorize about it and test the theories and reduce, reduce, reduce, reduce,
which is what science is for. And that's good. I'm
glad we have it. You know, it's where medicine comes from.
But as we do that, do we lose some of
the mystery? And I don't I don't just mean that
and like we know more therefore there's less to know,
like less problems to solve. I mean, like, do we
actually prevent magical things from happening? Because we all know
they can't happen. Now, listen, this is kind of like
Christmas spirit. You know, I'm not I'm not taking if
only we believe, you know, Santa will come. But but
I think you get what I'm saying, right, I mean,
there are there's real manifestations of this, like the placebo effect, interestingly,
is growing in magnitude over time. Placeibo effects fascinating because
you can have huge effects. I mean, you can have
placebo effects that are much larger than pharmacological effects, not
much larger, but bigger. You can classically condition the placebo effect.
You can give people an immunosuppressant paired with yogurt strawberry yogurt.
You give it to them every day or you know,
once a week, and so after they take the yogurt,
you can measure their immune response and it's blunted because
they're taking an immunosuppressant. Then you can give them just
the strawberry yogurt and they'll have the same immunosuppression without
the immuno suppress So you can classically condition these things. Now,
this is not necessarily conscious belief doing that. This is
something else. But the point is, at some scale consciousness
does come into play because if you I mean, this
is why you have placeiba control or shams in a trout,
because you can imagine setting up an experiment and I
did an experiment like this. It's not as big of
a cult. You know, it's not the cold standard. You
can put people in one group and say, hey, this
drug we think it's gonna, what whatever, cure depression. I mean,
if something psychological like that, it's really you're gonna have
a really big effect. But say something more tangible, like
we think it's going to make it so you get
over this respiratory virus much more quickly. Let's say we
only enroll people with who have the flu, and we
randomly assign them to two groups, and we give one
group a drug that we really do think is going
to work. Right, it really is for the flu. We
give it to them and they have some effect, and
then we have another group and say hey, you have
the flu. We're not going to treat you at all.
You get nothing, right, And then you might have a
third group where you tell them hey, you're getting this drug.
This drug we think it's going to cure the flu.
It's been under development. We're very proud of it. This
is the mechanism. It's very potent. We have great results.
Like you can put on the show and you can
give them the drug, but there could be nothing in
the pill. But flower that group will have a bigger effect,
maybe in some cases, like as big an effect as
the pharmacological group, and a much bigger effect than the
control that gets nothing. So the point is like there's
a difference between you know, a control group that knows
they're not being treated in a control group that thinks
they are being treated. That's a placebo control group or
a sham if it's not a medicine. You know, you
could imagine you're doing like transcranial ultrasound for depression. You
can have one group or that actually get the treatment
and then another group or that you don't. You don't
plug it in, you know, you put the device on them,
you tell them it's on, but you don't actually turn
it on. That would be a sham, which is basically
a placebo but without a pill. Anyway, Interestingly, the strength
of the placebo effect is increasing over time, but it's
only increasing in countries where we have a positive belief
about drugs. So you know, Western countries, you know, Western Europe, Australia,
the US. That might be changing now because I think
our interpretations of drugs has changed in the past five years.
But in areas where we think medicine works, the placebo
effect is stronger. And so right there, I mean, this
is belief affecting physical matter. You can you can sort
of come up with all sorts of frameworks like, hey,
the brain is physical, and you know, if you're happy,
it's different, blah blah blah blah blah. But the point.
But the point is this is belief affecting affecting your reality,
affecting your physical matter. Now that's a far cry from
what Thomas Campbell is saying, but still it's cool.
Speaker 3: I like it here and down there and over here.
But if you look at it and collect enough particles,
you end up with the probability distribution, because that's what's
being drawn out of and that then says that optics
and quantum physics are not mutually incompatible. Logically, it keeps
the science together. Yes, so that's why the system chose
that as the way to do that particular thing. So
it kind of got it out of a problem.
Speaker 4: You're making it sound like it was that consciousness made
had intention.
Speaker 3: Sure, consciousness is conscious, it has intention.
Speaker 4: So what's collapsing the wave functions? Is it the measurement
or consciousness?
Speaker 3: No, nothing, it's just as it's information. You have information
and the information I like thisation doesn't have to get
into the physical world until it hits something and you
make a measurement. When you make a measurement, then it's
in the physical world. Don't make a measurement, it's still
in the world of probability. So you have these particles
and they're going to hit somewhere. Well, if you send
one particle at a time through, that's no different than
sending a billion particles at a time through. Because the
photons don't interact with each other, right, they're totally non interactive.
So whether you send one or you send a billion,
you need to get the same answer otherwise you've got
a logical problem.
Speaker 1: This is amazing. I love this because we had this
very physical interpretation of how interference would work, which is
that the photons are bumping into each other and you
know whatever. Like this very physical framework for how an
interference pattern comes to be. What he's saying is no, no, no,
This is described by essentially like something you could think
of like code, like by a rule set. It's not
the physical properties themselves, it's this is how photons behave period, right,
and so the fact that they behave the same way
with when you send millions of them through or one
at a time is kind of evidence of that. It's
kind of proof of that. It's pretty cool, man, it's
pretty cool.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: It's it's difficult to like extrapolate this up to the
macro world, to our world, but I think it might.
I mean, we don't have any evidence that it wouldn't.
The problem is it gets more and more difficult to
design the experiment. Like I think we're up to three
thousand atom what are called bucket balls. There are these
carbon nanotube balls with thousands of carbon atoms. But the
thing is you you have you need a way to
like to turn them into like a coherent beam to
test this, because it does seem it really does seem
like it's what he's saying, like, there's this, there's this.
We need to make optics compatible with quantum mechanics, and
this is how it's compatible, you know what I mean,
This is the way to make it all compatible in
a way that we can't really recreate on the macro level,
Like you can't turn me into a coherent beam and
shine me through a sled. You know, but you know,
knowing that all the particles I'm composed of do behave
this way that they that they are influenced by, you
know that the outcomes of the quantum events within these
systems are probabilistic, not deterministic, and that I don't know
that seems interesting to me. I don't know what to
make of it. I mean, I think the virtual world
explanation is the most parsimonious, But I don't know.
Speaker 3: What do you think? I mean, quantum physics and optics, Right,
So it basically says, well, I can fix that problem.
I can make that random draw from the probability distribution
be a probability distribution looks just like an interference pattern,
no logical inconsistency. But now you if you make a measurement. Hey,
I'm going to watch these I'm gonna watch these slits
and when when something goes through there, I'm gonna say, ah,
there's there's a particle just went through slid A. Well,
that's a measurement I have to make a measurement. Since
I make a measurement, the system has to create a
particle there because you measured it. So now it just
goes in a straight line and hits the backdrop. Because
now it's a particle, How did it know it was measured?
The system's rendering it. If the system gives you a
machine that's not arguing with you. Now, if the system, it's.
Speaker 1: A good question because this is the misconception. People think
we're assigning agency to the particle.
Speaker 3: We're not.
Speaker 1: The particle is described by information. It exists within a system.
We're interacting with the rules of the system, the rules
set you know, you don't. You wouldn't. If you had
a video game character and he's looking out at a city.
His house is behind him, but you can't see it.
He can't see it, he's looking away from it. When
you when he turns around and looks at the door.
What's happened now? You and I know that that house,
until moments ago, was just spinning zeros and ones on
a disc. The moment it enters your character's perceptual field,
it's rendered visually. Now we're just dealing with one sense
in this case. But you could imagine it being for everything, smell, touch, temperature,
that everything could work this way. So you you turn
around and there it is. What's actually happened. Well, you
could say, well, the house has been pulled out of
information storage and rendered to you in a way that
you can see it, you can touch it, you can
put your hand up against it. And then someone might say, well,
how does the house know it's being measured? And it doesn't.
And this is the answer to AJ's question, like, how
does the particle know? It doesn't know. This is the system,
this is the rule set. It doesn't know anything. It's information.
It's your perceptual lens as the agent that makes things happen.
You're not creating the house. The house is already created,
it's described, it's stored. It's information. You are now pulling
it out of just an information state into a real
state that you can interact with. This is the nature
of virtual world. This is how virtual worlds work in
this seems to be how our world works.
Speaker 3: Here's you're a machine, yeah that can tell when a
particle goes there, Then you've made a measurement.
Speaker 4: Why is it messing with us like this.
Speaker 3: Being consistent? Yeah, if you can measure something, you know,
businessists will tell you that are materialists that if you
can't measure it doesn't exist.
Speaker 4: Well sorry, right, then explain that.
Speaker 3: They say it's non interactive. Right, if you can't measure it,
you can't see it, you can't feel it, you can't
smell it. If he's if it's not interactive, then it
doesn't really exist.
Speaker 1: Or if it does exist, then the funny thing is
AJ thinks he's criticizing the physicists here. He's not. He's
saying they're right. When you can't measure observe something, it
doesn't exist. So it's just interesting to hear the this
is this is a difficult concept.
Speaker 3: Make any difference. It's irrelevant. So that's a definition of
reality based on measurement. M okay, well that's the way
the physical world works. So when they measure, oh, a
particle just went through the slit, Well they measured it,
then it has to be a particle. They've measured the particle.
That makes a particle there. That particle can't do anything
but go in a straight line, because that's what particles do. Well,
now they don't measure it, and we don't know. We
don't know what slid it went through. So I'll just
take that and make that interference pattern be my probability pattern,
and I'm going to have those little particles, even though
they're just going through one slit or another, they're going
to end up on the screen in an interference pattern.
Because then I don't have a problem between optics and
quantum physics, because the little photons are all non interactive.
It doesn't matter how many you send through it. Whether
you're shining a laser light on the two slits over
here in optics or whether you're going one.
Speaker 4: At a time, doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: Doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: I think that's a great place to start. What a
what a duel of the physicists? Man, No, Sabine and
Thomas aren't physicists in the same sense, right. I think
my understanding is Sabine has like a much more traditional
academic pedigree. Let's look her up. Let's look her up
on research gate. I encourage you guys to do this.
You just go to ResearchGate dot net and you type
in Sabine, haustin Felder in people here she is theoretical physics.
One hundred and fifty four publications, five thousand citations and
in h index of thirty seven. Now pretty impressive. So
I mean I would assume Thomas Campbell probably doesn't even
have a let's see, like a record of his publication
track record. Let's see. No, I don't think so. Yeah,
and so listen, this doesn't mean she's smarter or better.
It's just this is just a measure. My point is
that they're different. However, even so, I'm not super impressed
that you have a hundred publications because I know it's
not really the way it works. Let me explain to
my dog is psychotic. It just goes in and out,
in and out, in and out when I'm on a podcast. Sorry,
I had to shut the door. I think that like
a much better measure of your experience as a scientist
is how many first author publications you have and how
many last author publications you have. So this is just
let me give you a brief insight into academia, and
then we'll we'll end the show. So, if you are
the last author on a paper, that means that you
are the senior researcher. It means that the either the
experiment happened in or lab, or that you funded the experiment,
or that you funded the person who wrote the paper,
and it should imply that you had a pretty significant
rule in like guiding the project. Right, if you're the
first author, it means you wrote the whole thing, You
did everything, you made, the figures, you ran the analysis.
Usually not always, sometimes you might have a separate statistician.
But you made all the figures, you made, all you did,
all the stats, you wrote, every word of the paper.
Every other person on that list of twenty authors is
basically irrelevant. I mean, I'm sure it's different, you know,
and even for me, it's different in different situations. Sometimes
people are more helpful or less helpful. But usually what
it means is you write you you're done, and then
you send it out to all the co authors. They
read it. Half of them say, you know, looks great,
thanks for including me. No changes for me. Half of
them might say, oh, I made some minor changes and
they deleted the word the And then a few of
them I have prety significant like I think you should
phrase this differently, I think you should show this figure differently.
It just depends. And so a lot of times, when
you develop like a celebrity status like Sabine, you just
kind of get thrown on papers, and so if you're
thrown on a paper that gets cited three hundred times,
that's three hundred citations that go towards your score, like
your citation score, even if you had nothing to do
with it. Now, I'm not saying that's the case for her.
I'm just saying, if you do kind of want to
get a sense for like how serious someone is as
a scientist, you can just look like at their papers
or the last author, the first author, And for her,
I see a ton of last author publications. So that's cool.
So I would I would assume, like, you know, she's
she I mean, is she like an active She must
be active. She's a researcher at Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy. Okay,
so she's not technically a academic. That's interesting, so but
still she's a senior author in a lot of papers,
very cool papers. I kind of want to read some
of these now. So yeah, Anyway, the point is, you know,
she's not a physicist the same way as Thomas Campbell.
That's how we started, that's how we got here. They're different.
But that's not necessarily like a home run for Sabine,
you know, what I mean, Like you, you pick up
a lot of logical flaws when you're focused on like
experimentation and consensus thinking. You know, then, I think Thomas
Campbell's approach is pretty interesting. You know now, I don't
know what's real. I mean, if you if you just
want to talk about what feels intuitively real, I think
his interpretation makes a lot of sense. I don't know.
I don't really know how I feel about like our
scientific discoveries affecting the way matter and energy will behave
in the future. I don't know if I love that.
I think the double slit experiment is just picking up
on this weird little feature of reality, and same with
entanglement that I think is much more easily explained by
a virtual world. And so I think we'll leave it there.
Please email me at God's Eye view Book at gmail
dot com. Let me know how you're doing. Getting lots
of feedback from you, guys. I appreciate it. Thank you
to my core one hundred, the mythical one hundred, the mystical.
I don't want to call you mythical, you're real, the
mystical one hundred. I need a name for you, you know,
like the three hundred and sparta we need, like man,
I guess we could just say the one hundred, the
loyal Legion of one hundred. Thank you for downloading every episode.
Let me know if you have any topics you want
to cover, any research papers you want me to pick Apart,
any theological questions we should dive into. You know, we've
been hitting the quantum stuff really hard. Maybe we can
take a detour into history, or religion or philosophy. Anyway,
I appreciate you guys. Stay safe out there, and as always,
God bless