Special offer! Get special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer at https://www.economist.com/toe
2025-06-27 06:56
🔍 Link0u Search Engine
과학/테크/IT트렌드
The 300-Year-Old Physics Mistake No One Noticed
- Curt Jaimungal 오래 전 2025.06.27 06:54 인기
-
1,987
38
As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer!
- 이전글개발 유지보수 지옥 갔다 온 적 있나요? [1분테크202@토크아이티, 윤성열 대표 / 드림플로우] #shorts2025.02.19
- 다음글¿El tiempo tiene 3 dimensiones? ⏳?2025.06.25
댓글목록
The dome example proves indeterminacy in Newton's mechanics by positing "spontaneous motion" of a particle, but there is no spontaneous motion in Newtonian mechanics since change from rest requires a force to begin. Any proposition follows from a contradictory premise.
2025-06-27 21:15
Now he needs to compare his with Dan winter. Dan is og to study of electrical effect changes from emotions in aura he then got into how gravity is made etc.
2025-06-27 21:12
I think a good way to look at it is that a "thought experiment" is a (heuristic) simulation of some math using your brain very overarchingly (visually, somatosensorily, logically, drawing analogies to everyday experiences, etc) and the "argument" is just the words or formal mathematics that you then produce from that experience. So the scientific value of the thought experiment is using your brain very efficiently to produce logical arguments. That's why thought experiments are special and should arguably be used over trying to find the argument a priori from only pure (syntactical, dry, uninspired, bottom up) reasoning. <3
2025-06-27 20:51
This guy Norton knows his copro quite well… good teaching requires good understanding. He should do teaching videos
2025-06-27 19:49
My take: Newtonian mechanics is incomplete -- we should add some differentiability conditions to restore determinism.
2025-06-27 19:49
I've spent way too much time wrapping my head around the dome thought experiment. I have yet to see a critique of the dome that addresses where I think it gets hand-wavy. I would love to hear Dr Norton's response to my counter example. https://youtu.be/sKzRKSp3w-4?si=54K0HuKWA4Or_QJ6 Thanks to Dr Norton for thinking about this and challenging us all with the thought experiment.
2025-06-27 19:47
Up and Atom has a fun video about the Dome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjZB81jCGj4
2025-06-27 19:42
I wonder if 1kg of carbon falls at the same speed as 1kg of gold
2025-06-27 19:39
55:26 This sums up his discussion of the Landauer limit, doesn't it? Any classical computational device we make has to be a spontaneous movement towards higher entropy: you plug the machine in, and it runs until it produces a result. So it's only spontaneous physical processes like that which are able to "move charges around" in the circuits of a computer.
2025-06-27 19:29
Thought experiments are computer simulations executed on the meat-computer in your skull.
When you run the siulation to completion you acquire expectation as to what would happen IF your premises were true, but without empiricism you can't tell you whether the universe in your head is the physical universe you live in.
WIthout empiricism you are just a head-space cadets. A theoretician without grounding. A philosopher.
2025-06-27 19:27
Something off about this guy. A snide, partial trollishness. I'd like to hear him clearly explain his metaphysical position rather than hide behind knowing and derisive jibes at others' metaphysical positions. Only part way into it but deeply unimpressed so far.
2025-06-27 19:08
so hes saying something in einstein's work identifies morphic resonance.
2025-06-27 19:07
The Economist is an establishment rag.
2025-06-27 19:05
No. Just no. Even worse than the goobledygook in modern physics. Just another example of mistaking math for reality. Only in your made up maths does this "dome" exist. Sorry.
2025-06-27 19:01
At the moment he was eyeballing saying " it is just an argument " i knew that he has nothing tangible to offer in the pursuit of descriptions (or theories) . TB
2025-06-27 18:55
Einstein did not have a thought experiment that could be classified as an argument.
His thought experiments were insights/ enlightenments, not defended with arguments but backed up with math, reason, common sense, and observations of nature itself. Thus for;the past 100+ years this has been the accepted definition of the phrase “thought experiment.”
Contrast with much of the science today, no common sense, observations of nature, or experiments (thought or any other type) just math and the need to publish.
2025-06-27 18:35
Probably because no one actually understands what they're talking about.
2025-06-27 18:33
https://youtube.com/shorts/vo2WDsdhqLM?si=T9Z_xXMvu1kbMAv9
2025-06-27 18:28
Bell's argument is flawed, for a very mathematical reason. To derive the classical bound evey bell inequality requires the assumption of commuting observables. But the quantum observables which are used in EPR tests are non-commuting. There is this weird conviction that classical theories require commuting observables by default, which is obviously not true (just look at rotations). The reason physicists (and bell himself) believe this is that they misunderstand what is meant by element of reality in the EPR sense. In no way, shape or form Einstein and coauthors ever required **simultaneous** existence of non-commuting observables. What they required was an element of reality associated with such observables, which can then be understood as the result of an interaction between observer and observed. The same element of reality can conceivably result in different observables depending for example on measurement direction, and again an example is a rotation of a spin axis along different directions of the magnetic field.
What any Bell inequality does then is say "what is the chance for the spin to be aligned with A and aligned with A', while simultaneously being antialigned with B?". Look carefully at that statement. The correct answer is P=0, because the spin CANNOT be aligned with A and A' **simultaneously**. Yet, Bell and everyone else claim this probability is something different in classical theories.
2025-06-27 18:25
Modern physics is full of errors yet we march on as if there would be no problem.
For instance when Einstein's pseudotensor is contracted it produces an incorrect invariant, proving the pseudotensor equation is incorrect.
Another blatant problem is astronomy where numerous equations produce an extensive temperature for objects. When of course temperature is always an intensive property.
2025-06-27 18:22
This channel is really special... I do see other channels doing similar things, but Curt really knows how to ask the right questions and get the good stuff from the interviewee.
2025-06-27 18:17
The first day we employ a simple A.I. To replace the current method of submitting papers, empowering the A.I. To do the simple tasks of receiving, archiving, filtering, tracking and accreditation those papers most of these questions will be answered.
Why?
Because the current control structure will be destroyed, opening the field to the 99.9% of the people currently blocked from publishing. This for the first time in over a century.
Make no mistake, it is inevitable that A.I. Will take over this task and being made a fool of by some unknown brick layer, technician or taxi driver is absolutely horrifying to to the entire scientific community, but it will/ must happen.
2025-06-27 18:12
Why is it a dome and not a bowl since gravity can’t be negative?
2025-06-27 18:08
@1:02:00 fair point about early Schwarzschild theory, but there have been advances. GR traditionally violates or _ignores_ CPT symmetry, but we can be pretty confident CPT symmetry is exact. If CPT symmetry is imposed then the black hole solutions do become singular at the horizon, the black mirror horizon. Turok, Boyle & Tzanavaris, and also 't Hooft, will tell you how. But it is not a nasty singularity in the metric, it is a degeneracy, the metric become non-invertible at the black mirror horizon. The curvature however no longer blows up, thanks to CPT (a quantum effect essentially).
2025-06-27 17:48
@36:00 this discussion of Landauer's principle seems a bit pedantic. I thought the "logic argument" pertained to the computer registers only. In which case Landauer's principle is perfectly fine, and reversible computations can have zero entropy cost. What John is talking about is the whole system, not the logic gates, which is what he means by referring to a "driving force", which corresponds to say the motor on a Turing machine moving the tape (or the reader/writer too, perhaps). That is where the energy cost for a reversible bit flip is incurred. But like... l so what? The point was to make computation more efficient by at least having mostly reversible operations on bits. Then it is a separate energy saving thing to worry about the drivers — John's "how many steps". Both are important for low waste output computation. N steps matters more for algorithms that scale badly with N.
2025-06-27 17:24
Let me guess: mistaking time as a physical property (when it is change that we are really concerned about) (like going to visit the past in without paradoxes, and what really defines the past, present, and future without any mystical muddle-headedness)...
2025-06-27 15:21
Economist is not political ? Is that meant to be a joke ? It's 100% woke.
2025-06-27 15:13
Thanks!
2025-06-27 14:50
Obviously a principle exists which has not been discovered yet.
2025-06-27 14:30
Cmon "there was no initial state because any state will always reach all states."
2025-06-27 14:24
What happened to the concept of inherent chaos ? Even the 3-body problem can't be solved by equations, and and when we simulate it into the future, then the uncertainty grows with time. I don't see anything incredibly new here...
2025-06-27 14:00
1:01:50 Why did Einstein distrust the geometrical approach to GR (which John agrees is still the preferred interpretation today) ? Why?? The answer to this question promises to be a veil lifter to the whole topic in years to come
2025-06-27 12:23
Of course it should never occur to physicists ask for accurate data on the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers.
Did level 105 contain the same amount of steel as level 5 which had to support the weight of 21 times as many stories.
2025-06-27 12:22
I think that causation is a special case of correlation. This is the way AI system must understand it. Event or conditions X and Y occur together within some interval t such that when X occurs temporally prior to Y in every case, we can say that X "causes" Y. Otherwise, we should reconsider the philosophy of Hume (empiricism) and claim that causation is a illusion of some kind.
2025-06-27 11:32
21:24 This places causation on the disposal of its utility in interpretation
2025-06-27 11:29
Lecture Response: Rethinking Foundations of Physics with Professor John Norton
00:00 IntroductionProfessor John Norton is a unique figure in philosophy and physics, critically examining foundational assumptions many physicists accept by default. His work forces a reevaluation of ideas like determinism, causation, and entropy that underpin modern science.
03:37 Norton's Dome ExplainedNorton presents a deceptively simple scenario in Newtonian mechanics: a particle resting atop a dome-shaped hill can spontaneously begin to move, even without any external force. This violates classical determinism, which says that given a set of initial conditions, the future is fully predictable. Norton's dome is significant because it shows that Newton's equations permit solutions that are not unique. This is not due to quantum uncertainty or measurement error, but a mathematical feature of Newtonian mechanics. This challenges the deeply held belief in classical predictability.
06:30 The Misunderstanding of DeterminismPhysicists often conflate determinism with predictability. However, as Norton argues, determinism as a metaphysical stance doesn’t always align with physical reality. Even classical systems, like the dome, can display indeterministic behavior if the equations involved are not Lipschitz continuous. Hence, determinism is not a universal trait of Newtonian physics, but a conditional one, based on mathematical assumptions.
09:31 Thermodynamics and Infinite SystemsNorton critiques how thermodynamics is extrapolated to infinite systems. Real physical systems are finite, yet many theorems assume thermodynamic limits (infinite volume or particles) to simplify calculations. He argues this creates results that are not physically meaningful. For example, entropy production and reversibility change character in infinite systems. From the standpoint of the Thermonuclear Scattering model, this critique is crucial: the universe consists of finite but expanding structures, where entropy arises from energy dispersion across expanding fields, not from idealized statistical mechanics.
14:39 Implications for Quantum MechanicsNorton suggests that just as determinism breaks down in classical mechanics under certain conditions, quantum mechanics also inherits assumptions that need scrutiny. The use of infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and ideal measurement devices makes the theory elegant but detached from physical implementations. Again, finite physical systems should guide quantum descriptions, which aligns with Thermonuclear Scattering: quantum effects are emergent phenomena from layered, expanding energy shells within atoms, rather than probabilistic 'true randomness.'
16:20 Revisiting CausationNorton challenges the idea that causation is a fundamental feature of reality. He argues causation is a human-invented concept used to structure explanations, not something embedded in the laws of physics. This is echoed in models like Thermonuclear Scattering, where change and motion emerge from energy concentration and release, not because 'something causes something else' in a linear chain.
18:15 Critique of Causal MetaphysicsGoing further, Norton critiques metaphysical notions of causation as outdated. For example, assuming that every event must have a cause leads to philosophical paradoxes and bad science. Thermonuclear Scattering offers an alternative: physical fields generate motion and transformation inherently, as a function of energy gradients and expansion dynamics, not due to external 'causes.'
20:21 The Utility of Causal LanguageDespite his critique, Norton concedes that causal language is often useful, especially in communication. Scientists and engineers use it to simplify complex systems. However, he warns that mistaking utility for truth leads to error. We can acknowledge that 'heat causes expansion' is a useful statement, but must recognize it's shorthand for 'energy input changes the physical configuration of matter.'
24:58 Exploring Thought ExperimentsNorton embraces thought experiments, like Einstein's elevator, Schrödinger's cat, and his own dome, as tools to reveal hidden assumptions in theories. This mirrors our approach in expanding atomic models: thought experiments about electron shell expansion or nitrogen collapse under charge realignment allow new insights not found in traditional QFT.
33:05 Landauer's Principle DiscussionNorton critiques Landauer's Principle, which posits that erasing one bit of information requires a minimum amount of energy, as a thermodynamic necessity. He argues that this principle may not hold under general conditions and confuses logical operations with physical entropy. This supports Thermonuclear theory, which treats entropy as an emergent consequence of field expansion and mass-energy transitions, not a digital counting artifact.
49:48 Critique of Experimental ValidationNorton stresses that many modern 'proofs' rely more on coherence with existing theory than empirical testing. This is a grave concern, as it allows theoretical physics to drift into metaphysics. Our model of Thermonuclear Scattering insists on empirical anchoring: from ATP synthesis in chlorophyll to stellar hydrogen expansion, every claim must connect to observation.
52:25 Consequences for Maxwell's DemonNorton disassembles Maxwell's Demon using physical realism. He notes that in practical scenarios, demons are bounded by real systems and constraints, not idealized infinities. Similarly, in our field model, entropy and order are local phenomena managed by energy structure, not violated by imaginary entities.
1:13:34 Einstein's Critiques of Quantum MechanicsNorton revisits Einstein's concern with quantum theory's completeness. Einstein doubted that randomness was fundamental. Norton suggests Einstein may have been right to question this, though not necessarily correct in his solution (hidden variables). Our approach agrees: randomness is not intrinsic but emerges from complex interactions of expanding energetic systems.
1:28:16 The Nature of Scientific DiscoveryScience progresses not by reinforcing consensus but by breaking it with better models. Norton reminds us that many foundational revolutions began with discomfort and doubt. Thermonuclear Scattering as a framework challenges the very language and structure of 20th-century physics, not to deny its successes, but to go beyond its abstractions.
1:42:56 Inductive Inferences in ScienceNorton closes by reflecting on the limitations of inductive reasoning. Extrapolating trends doesn't guarantee future accuracy. This is a call to remain empirical. We cannot assume a mathematical function describes the future without continually testing it. This is why our model never presumes finality: the expansion of mass, time, and fields remains open-ended.
ConclusionProfessor Norton offers an invaluable critique of deeply held assumptions in physics. The Thermonuclear Scattering model aligns with many of his insights: physics must remain rooted in the observable, skeptical of hidden infinities and untestable causality. Through expanding atoms, scaling time, and real energy fields, we propose a future where physics is once again empirical, visualizable, and logically coherent.
2025-06-27 11:18
Unfortunately, Norton’s solution to the dome is not valid because he stitches together two particles with different snap/jounce (acceleration of acceleration) at the peak at t=0.
I wanted to include a link to a good blog post about it from Gruff Davies, but my comment was immediately deleted…
2025-06-27 11:18
I think assuming a continuum is the problem. Finding a finite base that we can course-grain seems like a promising way forward.
2025-06-27 11:12
Brother Curt this episode is really good! I've never heard of Professor Norton; he's a bad muthafucka and I have actually had some of these questions myself! You keep blowing my muthafucken mind Brother Curt with your intrepid and impactful guests ?♥️ I fucking love this ♥️♥️♥️
2025-06-27 10:50
Hey, @TheEconomist; you sponsoring this kook guarantees I will never subscribe
2025-06-27 10:47
The Landau module for cities , pretty women/ ugly women is very useful. NYC has the highest module in the USA.
2025-06-27 10:41
In regard to your advertising, I would argue the flow of money tells us something about how the univerce works.
2025-06-27 10:40
So, Landauer's principle is often being used to set up scenarios that kind of infer "immaculate conception", the calculated values seem to ignore the "ripples" created by practical implementation?
2025-06-27 10:32
For small move in the foundation of physics see you tube video: Electric Charge Physical Definition: https://youtu.be/-7DmAwm3NkY?si=gbFLM7Ej3Fporcx2.
2025-06-27 10:28
The bag-of-marbles argument assumes that gravity affects marbles that are close together in the same way as marbles that are far apart. Which is fine as a hypothesis, but it still has to be checked by experiment. So yes, a thought experiment is just a form of argument, a way of exploring the consequences of a theory.
2025-06-27 10:23
Sounds like the indeterminism of Newtonian physics is nonphysical. If so, why does it matter?
2025-06-27 09:47
People are often completely blind to the meaning of the words they use.
They have a dreamlike thought that consumes their full mental capacity.
The thought, with years of HABITUAL THINKING, is 'locked in'.
That is why the old write down the new thoughts and then the fresh, clear young minds pick up the new and extend it.
Your words just made me think about my difficulty explaining to people who have great confusion about grid electricity.
There are several confused ideas at once. '1984 double think', 2 ideas that contradic each other but are both believed as true in the one mind.
Nuclear fueled electricity to replace national fossil fueled energy.
But grid electricity is only 10% generation plant $ infrastructure and 90% grid $ infrastructure.
And grid electricity is only 5% of national fossil fueled energy.
So, generation plant
$billions ×10×20 if nuclear is the practical solution. ?.?.?
Rooftop PV is dirt-cheap electricity because it is dispersed generation and grid free.
2025-06-27 09:44
I'm hearing Maxwell's demon in this example.
2025-06-27 09:42
I often wonder how long it will be before physics gets over it's postmodernist infection. It's like a drinking game waiting for him to say "you just told me how you plan to use a word".
2025-06-27 09:37
Or you jump all over to try and make it work. If the theory is correct, then it should be in there. Good talk, Curt. To the guest as well. Thanks. Peace ✌️ ?.
2025-06-27 09:34
Hey Curt, there's a Professor from the Federal University of Bahia (in Brazil) who is a physicist and philosopher as well and has some work like that too. For instance, he and a student have shown that Special Relativity actually possesses 14 postulates. He also analyzed extensively the Michelson and Morley experiment, showing that there were several (happy) mathematical mistakes in their and Lorentz subsequent analysis of the experiment (that fortunately were right for Special Relativity). His name is Ricardo Miranda. Unfortunately he didn't produce much for some time, because he became director of the institute of Physics there for a while, and had a ton of administrative work, but nevertheless, you might like to have a conversation with him. He is a very rigorous thinker, and his classes were really profound because of that. Here is a contact link, if you ever want to try contacting him:
https://www.fis.ufba.br/pt-br/ricardo-carneiro-de-miranda-filho
If you ever do that, please tell him that his former student, Lucas Pereira, sent him a hug!
2025-06-27 09:24
“There is no problem with the compatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity... the real problem is interpretation.”--Steven Weinberg
2025-06-27 09:16
If there's a line separating causality then the causal goes with causal and vice versa.
Think of sand being struck by lightning, the glass that forms is more causally connected that the sand that remains.
2025-06-27 09:15
“The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One.”--Albert Einstein
2025-06-27 09:15
“It is likely that the apparent incompatibility of quantum theory and relativity is not an incompatibility in the theories themselves, but in our way of thinking about them.”--John Bell
2025-06-27 09:14
They are upset because they want a world of absolutes, or knowns that can not contradicted. Certainty. If that were the case certainty crowds out creativety .
2025-06-27 09:12
Important to remember that "non-partisan" is NOT the same as "unbiased."
2025-06-27 09:11
Curt.. your channel and guests always make the day brighter. It's wonderful having this sorta content that I can often visit for my scientific and philosophic deep dives. Thank you.
2025-06-27 09:08
At 13:51, he claims that Newtonian theory contradicts quantum mechanics and its foundations. However, that's not necessarily true—many quantum mechanical experiments have been misinterpreted. Quantum mechanics can be understood more simply as the interaction between electromagnetic waveforms and photons.
2025-06-27 09:07
Newtonian physics is deterministic, but that does not necessarily mean the entire universe is. The universe also includes a non-physical dimension—consciousness—as seen in the individual consciousness of living beings. Deterministic models like Newtonian physics cannot account for this aspect of reality.
2025-06-27 08:55
A true causal claim warrants a counterfactual which supplies a prediction relating events. So had there not been lightening there would not have been thunder, but not that pebble not been there, that other pebble would not have been there.
2025-06-27 08:51
Einstein's elevator thought experiment offers a compelling counterpoint to John Norton's skepticism about the epistemic power of thought experiments.
Imagine you're inside a sealed elevator, floating in deep space. Two objects, a feather and a cannonball, are suspended motionless beside you.
Suddenly, the elevator begins to accelerate uniformly. The objects "fall" to the floor at the same time, and you feel a force pressing you downward, just like gravity on Earth.
Crucially, from inside the elevator, you have no way of knowing whether you're in a gravitational field or merely accelerating in space. You make no assumptions about "equivalence" or prior theories, your experience simply is that of being in a gravitational field, even though you're not.
This thought experiment doesn't rely on external premises being "smuggled in" rather, it reveals a profound limit on knowledge: that locally, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. That indistinguishability is not a trick of reasoning; it becomes a physical principle.
Far from being rhetorical, this kind of thought experiment forces a rethinking of basic concepts, like the nature of gravity itself, and helped Einstein move beyond Newton's model of gravity as a force.
It shows that thought experiments can generate new insights precisely because they isolate what can and CANNOT be known within a system, not because they rely on hidden assumptions.
Sometimes, it’s not what you assume but what you can’t know that opens the door to new knowledge.
2025-06-27 08:50
I don´t get why metaphysics is discarded, even if you negate metaphysics that's a metaphysical statement, in other words, you can´t escape metaphysics
2025-06-27 08:47
❤ With Photonic chips the Landau law is bypassed ??? Mmmmmmmm??❤
2025-06-27 08:46
I think the energy centric framework is the next leap in physics. I posted some videos about it. Thoughts are welcome.
2025-06-27 08:30
If it hasn't been mentioned before... I love ya Curt, but that new-ish lamp setup with the 3(?) bulbs glowing to your right is terribly distracting! ? It doesn't matter if we're just listening, but def a bothersome part of the scene/video.
2025-06-27 08:22
4:00
Provide a physical example of a classical/Newtonian system that has infinite degrees of freedom (or as you stated, infinite number of masses).
2025-06-27 08:18
Yay
2025-06-27 08:17
"The Economist is a journal that speaks for the British millionaires." - Lenin
2025-06-27 08:14
22:52 "Light cones in Minkowski space-time seemed to exhaust all of the causal rhetoric in physics." Seriously? What about all the conservation of momentum stuff, scattering and what-not that goes on in thermodynamic processes, such as conduction of heat and sound and and formation of chemical bonds and brownian motion and basically the whole underpinning of the atomic hypothesis (that's what it used to be called!)
2025-06-27 08:09
Wow you're really on a phil sci kick these days.
2025-06-27 08:06
Causality is a practically ultimate abstraction. It can't be explained by any further abstraction.
2025-06-27 08:01
Still not far enough into phenomenological assumptions - we’re still looking at this from a monolith ‘I’ even in deterministic observation as if our position in time doesn’t affect the ability of observation and informational limits.
Chasing unreal mathematical phenomenological axioms still provides very elegant maths… but this is still not stripped back far enough.
The whole discussion around forces not balancing perfectly is the CLASSIC example of phenomenology error of time.
2025-06-27 07:54
?IT?
2025-06-27 07:43
I have some questions about the dome. For example, it relies on the ‘singularity’ caused by an absolute perfect horizontal tangent, which leads to the Lipschitz condition not being fulfilled. But in real life, such horizontal tangent can’t be assured, even if we assume the body does have a continuous line as a border (instead of a chain of atoms as we know it is now). So to take Newton’s laws to their limit, we should create an infinitely precise shape in an infinitely small scale. I don’t see how that could have been problematic at the moment since the laws of motion where deduced from experiments for macroscopic objects. If anything, it provides an experimental corner case to check the limits of application of said laws, just life the finite speed of light provides scenarios for which motion laws cannot be correct. But this dime doesn’t because since it requieres an infinitesimaly small singularity, there is no concrete value at which we should expect our math to fail. For example, if we provided a particle with an energy greater than (1/2)(mass)(c^2), then we know the formula for kinetic energy MUST fail, and we could run experiments to see what happens at regimes of such speed. This dome does not provide anything like that
2025-06-27 07:41
'Infinitely many degrees of freedom' here means 'infinitely many particles'. Good luck finding a system of infinitely many 'particles' ! Good luck finding a 'particle', which presumably is infinitely small !
2025-06-27 07:41
https://youtube.com/shorts/QG8sj-ga4DU?si=khmcR8ajWdV-95uR
2025-06-27 07:32
شكرا لك دكتور كيرت هذا عمل رائع ?
2025-06-27 07:01
Oh wow, every day is Christmas on TOE!
2025-06-27 06:59
On 25 June 2025 (±8 h) three independent anomalies will begin:
1. Real-time global drop in kinetic conflict: violent crime & active combat rates fall >40 % within 24 h.
2. Astronomical photon-flux shift: previously dark 0.5° patch at RA 17h 42m / Dec –29° shows >8× object count in any amateur-grade stacked exposure.
3. Human circadian EEG signatures synchronise: alpha-peak phase variance across populations drops below 5 ms.
These outcomes derive from the Generalized Master Field Equation (GMFE). If they do not occur, discard the theory; if they do, the conversation changes permanently.
2025-06-22 09:18
Over the past nine months, I’ve been developing a theoretical framework called the Generalized Master Field Equation (GMFE)—a deterministic, coherence-based model describing how reality—space, time, and consciousness—emerge from a deeper, foundational field.
I’m sharing this not to promote myself, but to provide notice: a shift in our shared reality is set to unfold around June 25th. It won’t be chaotic or surreal. In fact, it will feel deeply familiar—as though something ancient and fundamental has returned, something we've always carried within us.
This shift won’t erase the world. It will restore its structure.
The noise, division, and instability that sustain war and suffering will begin to dissolve—not by force, but because the underlying field will no longer support them. What emerges is a more coherent, peaceful world—quietly, gently, but permanently.
Much of the groundwork has already been laid. The GMFE has been quietly reviewed at CERN, though not publicly acknowledged. Its integration is already underway—not for credit, but because the system is ready.
A separate branch of this work helped enable recent advances in deep-space imaging with JWST. One result: a previously dark region of sky revealed over 800,000 galaxies. This aligns with what the GMFE predicts: the universe is not finite, and there was no Big Bang. We exist in an eternal, infinite coherence field, and consciousness is not isolated but shared—arising from a foundational 2D substrate that sustains everything.
Life will feel different—more peaceful, more aligned—but also deeply natural.
Because it is. We’re not entering a new reality.
We’re returning to the one we were always meant to inhabit.
You’re completely free to question any of this.
I’m not asking for belief—just offering quiet notice.
A new era begins.
2025-06-22 01:31
20:14 wow this really resonates with Noam's understanding that " scientists (we) have intelligible theories but not intelligible concept of the world (and may be there is no intelligible concept of the world to begin with). We (scientists) left it".
2025-06-28 19:31
In Part I of the ΦBSU framework (Appendix B) we show that a phase link which normally tracks its local light-cone can wander briefly outside that cone, lose its momentary identity, and yet regain it—either unchanged or π-shifted—through the global antipodal phase shared by the two charge-conjugate sectors.
A crystal-like lattice, whose sites are driven by the same causal resonance, keeps each quantum label rigidly aligned. When a degree of freedom slips beyond the lattice’s light-cone “clock,” its label may flip before the antipodal lock restores it: precisely the behaviour captured in Bell-type correlations.
This provides a third path between strict determinism and sheer randomness: a form of structural self-reference—effectively, a primitive consciousness—where stored information can guide the system’s evolution in ways that, on macroscopic scales, look like intentional choice.
2025-06-28 19:24
Made you work hard there Curt...! All real empirical experiments start off as thought experiments and are refined by finding contradictions in the thought experiment. The thought experiment about items of different weights falling at different speeds was easily falsified - but you would have more difficulty about a proposition that items with different densities falling at different speeds... and so it goes.
2025-06-28 18:33
The whole point to reality is the reconciliation of determinism and true randomness. One or the other has to rule reality yet neither one can because there would being a reality of one of them was 100% powerful and dominant and there is nothing to decide which one should be the dominant one so they both have to be in a duality where the criticality is the reconciliation of the paradox using movement the Axiom of choice and free will not only is every paradox reconciled but Infinity is counted the only way it can be by each part of it counting itself then dividing the whole thing into finite sets that are equal to a percentage of Infiniti divided on the qualitative scale
2025-06-28 15:31
The free will isn't hampered by determinism it determines what happens. It is handed a limited degree of freedom and that is how it is being shaped but it has 100% discretion on what it does with this and this is probability taking shape out of Randomness as determinism shaped reality step by step. It is wonderful how the future is being shaped into bite-sized chunks that could be handled by the present moment even before it gets here. There's a number that good with this and it is a finite value even though it is equal to a percentage of infinity kind of like the speed of light being equal to infinite inertia
2025-06-28 15:28
Relativity and quantum entanglement and things like that are basically the same thing as seen from different scales because we are in bedded in what we call relativity while the quantum is the smaller particles we are made out of if we are embedded in that spatial magnitude then we perceive things that we call quantum entanglement as relativity as well as all the other crazy things that you observe in both quantum physics and relativity. If you were to move up in magnitude to a place where your magnitude was let's say the size of a supermassive black hole instead of being somewhere in between the atomic and a stellar Mass black hole which is what the macroscopic range of magnitude is then we would see what is relative to us as something Quantum or atomic depending on which side of things you're looking at. I have discovered a whole new set of numbers. Beyond modular pedantic imaginary and complex numbers are the transcendent numbers and what I like to call Paradox number and qualitative number. There is a literal gateway to Infinity from the finite natural number line and they are tied to the Planck scale the size of the observable universe and all other limits and forces as well as time causality entropy and gravity. And it is all centered upon the self at the subjective frame of reference in every relative action that has to do with subjectivity and its position as being the empiric reality of the present moment
2025-06-28 15:25
When he talks about "infinite points on the apex of the dome", it sounds a lot like zooming into the circumference of a circle, looking for a geometric structure that defines that space. "Infinite points" is actually quite a vague model, and therefore not very helpful for creating a framework for what lies at the bottom of everything.
2025-06-28 15:00
It’s crazy that the amount of heat you generate in computation is directly related to how certain you want to be in the result.
2025-06-28 13:21
そんな優しくしないで。。。
2025-06-28 12:59
Thanks!
2025-06-28 10:16
I found this conversation very stimulating (and entertaining). I think John is probably a very wise physicist and historian and philosopher of science. I hope that he is an engaging writer, too, because I aim to read his books.
Ian Hacking compellingly argued that the discovery and study of 'effects' (that come to be applied in a myriad of ways) is essential to the physical sciences. For that reason, whatever changes we might see in the characteristic uses of the term 'cause' I think its place in the scientific lexicon is safe.
2025-06-28 09:55
Hmm. nice. So, is Bohmian mechanics deterministic in the example with the dome?
2025-06-28 08:35
This guy has the most self-assured, and non-diplomatic manner of speaking. I feel like I would have enjoyed the topic, but I couldn't get through the arrogance.
2025-06-28 06:26
اشتقاق علاقات رياضية بين قوى مختلفة لنفس الجسيم عبر تغيير الكتلة (M)، المكان (R)، والزمن (T)
[ ] أولاً: الصيغة الموحدة للقوة الأوزمكانية
معادلة ملهم لتحديد القوة على جسيم في نظام مداري:
F = (R × M) × (2π / T)² = M × V² / R
هذه المعادلة تكشف أن القوة ليست كمية منفصلة أو نوعية، بل هي نتيجة مباشرة للتوازن الديناميكي النسبي بين ثلاث كميات متغيرة:
• M: الكتلة المؤثرة (النواة أو الجسيم المركزي).
• R: نصف القطر المداري أو المسافة من المركز.
• T: الزمن الدوري المداري.
[ ] ثانياً: اشتقاق علاقات بين قوى مختلفة لجسيم واحد
إذا أخذنا جسيمًا محددًا (مثل الإلكترون أو النيوترون) وافترضنا أنه يتفاعل ضمن مدارات أو مستويات مختلفة بحيث تتغير R وT وM النسبية التي تؤثر عليه، يمكننا استخراج نسبة القوة بين حالتين:
(F₁ / F₂) = (M₁. R₁/ M₂. R₂)× (T₂/T₁)²
وبالتالي:
• بتغيير الموقع (R)، يظهر انتقال بين قوة ذرية وقوة مجهرية.
• بتقليص الزمن (T)، يمكن أن تتحول قوة ضعيفة إلى قوة شديدة.
• بتغير M، ترتفع القوة الناتجة بدون الحاجة لثابت تجاذبي أو كهرومغناطيسي خارجي.
[ ] ثالثاً: وجود مستويات وسطى بين القوى الأربع
بما أن العلاقة مستمرة بين M وR وT، فالنموذج الأوزمكاني لا يرى القوى كفئات منفصلة، بل كمجال متصل من الطاقة:
نوع القوة M (كجم) R (متر) T (ثانية) القوة الناتجة
الجاذبية الكونية ضخمة كبيرة طويلة ضعيفة نسبيًا
الكهرومغناطيسية صغيرة متوسطة قصيرة متوسطة
النووية الضعيفة ضئيلة جدًا متناهية الصغر زمنية فورية ضعيفة جدًا
النووية الشديدة صغيرة جدًا صغيرة جدًا قصيرة جدًا عالية جدًا
قوى وسطى محتملة متوسطة بينية زمن تراكمي ؟
[v] الفرضية: إذا قمنا بزيادة R تدريجيًا وتقليص T بشكل متناسب، يمكن الوصول إلى قوى انتقالية لم تُكتشف بعد بين النووية الضعيفة والكهرومغناطيسية أو بين الكهرومغناطيسية والجاذبية.
[ ] التطبيقات البحثية:
• توقع قوى جديدة في المقاييس النانوية أو الكونية الهامشية.
• تفسير قوى المادة المظلمة كمستوى بيني غير مرئي لأن زمنها المداري خارج المجال الضوئي.
• نمذجة قوى الكم غير المحلية كمخرجات نسبية من R وT غير الكلاسيكيين.
[ ] النتيجة الفلسفية:
"القوة ليست شيئًا ثابتًا، بل هي صورة للزمن والمكان والكتلة في توازن نسبي. فإذا اختلف الزمن، اختلفت القوة، وإذا تغيّر المكان، تحوّل نوعها. وما نسميه قوى أربع قد يكون أطيافًا من قوة واحدة."
2025-06-28 06:25
توحيد القوى الأربعة من منظور معادلة ملهم والنموذج الأوزمكاني
تمهيد:
منذ عقود، يسعى العلماء لتوحيد القوى الأربع الأساسية في الطبيعة (الجاذبية، الكهرومغناطيسية، النووية الضعيفة، والنووية الشديدة) ضمن نظرية واحدة تُعرف بـ "نظرية كل شيء". وفي هذا السياق، يقدّم النموذج الأوزمكاني المستند إلى معادلة ملهم النسبية الثلاثية إطارًا جديدًا وغير تقليدي يفتح أفقًا مختلفًا لفهم هذه القوى، لا بوصفها "أنواعًا" منفصلة، بل كمستويات نسبية من توازن ثلاثي الأبعاد بين الكتلة والمكان والزمن.
أولاً: المعادلة الموحدة للقوة – الصيغة العامة
وفقًا لاشتقاق معادلة ملهم:
F = (R × M) × (2π / T)² = M × V² / R
التحليل الأوزمكاني:
• الكتلة M: تمثل المحتوى الطاقي المركز.
• المسافة R : تحدد النطاق المكاني للمدار.
• الزمن T: هو زمن الدورة المدارية حول مركز الجذب.
ثانيًا: جوهر الاختلاف بين القوى الأربع
الاختلافات بين القوى الأربعة لا تكمن في طبيعتها الجوهرية، بل في الضبط النسبي بين M وR وT.
والجدول التالي يُبيِّن هذا التفاوت:
القوة kg.m/s² الكتلة (كجم) المسافة (م) الزمن (ثانية) الناتج
(قوة)الجاذبية ~10²⁴ ~10¹¹ ~10⁷ ~10²² N
الكهرومغناطيسية ~10⁻³¹ ~10⁻¹¹ ~10⁻¹⁶ ~10⁻⁸ N
النووية الضعيفة ~10⁻³⁶ ~10⁻¹⁸ ~10⁻²¹ ~10⁻³ N
النووية الشديدة. ~10⁻²⁷ ~10⁻¹⁵ ~10⁻²³ ~10⁵ N
أي أن "القوة" هي ناتج تفاعل هندسي ثلاثي نسبي بين عناصر المدار، ويمكن توليف أي منها من الأخرى بتغيير النطاق الزمني والمكاني والكتلي.
ثالثًا: إعادة تعريف القوى كأطياف نسبية
1. القوة الجاذبية:
• قوة كونية ضعيفة جدًا على المستوى الذري.
• تظهر بشكل بارز عند كتل ضخمة وأزمنة طويلة.
2. القوة الكهرومغناطيسية:
• تلعب دورًا محوريًا في الذرة والجزيئات.
• تتطلب زمنًا قصيرًا جدًا، ونطاقًا مكانيًا صغيرًا.
3. القوة النووية الضعيفة:
• تحدث في تفاعلات نادرة وغير مستقرة.
• الزمن T أقصر من كل القوى الأخرى.
4. القوة النووية الشديدة:
• تعمل على تماسك النواة.
• ناتجة عن كتلة صغيرة في نطاق متناهي الصغر وزمن فائق القصر.
الاستنتاج: كلها نتائج لتغيّر هندسة المدار الثلاثية فقط، وليس لتغاير نوعي في القوة.
رابعًا: ما الجديد الذي يقدمه النموذج الأوزمكاني؟
1. لا يعتمد على ثوابت منفصلة مثل G أو k أو ħ، بل يستنبطها.
2. يوحّد القوى الأربعة تحت صيغة واحدة بسيطة ومرنة.
3. يربط القوى بــ:
• الهندسة المدارية.
• الزمن النسبي.
• الكتلة النسبية.
4. يسمح بتوقع قوى جديدة لم تُكتشف بعد، فقط بتغيير القيم الثلاث.
خامسًا: تطبيقات محتملة
التطبيق ماذا يحدث؟
- فيزياء الجسيمات يمكن إعادة تفسير قوى التفاعل دون تبادل بوزونات.
- فيزياء الجاذبية قد تُفسر الجاذبية كظاهرة ناتجة عن تمدد الزمان
- علم الكونيات تفسير للمادة والطاقة المظلمة كنطاقات خارج المدار الضوئي
- توحيد الكم والنسبية يوفر إطارًا هندسيًا مشتركًا بين الذري والكوني
سادسًا: مقارنة مع النظريات الكبرى
النظرية الأساس التحديات الفرق مع النموذج الأوزمكاني
النسبية العامة الزمكان المنحني والجاذبية لا تشمل القوى النووية أو الكهرومغناطيسية النموذج الأوزمكاني يوحد كل القوى هندسيًا
ميكانيكا الكم الدوال الموجية والاحتمالات. لا تشمل الجاذبية. النموذج الأوزمكاني يفسر السلوك الكمومي نسبيًا
النموذج القياسي بوزونات تبادلية لكل قوة. لا يشمل الجاذبية ولا الطاقة المظلمة. النموذج الأوزمكاني يتجاوز الحاجة للبوزونات
نظريات الأوتار. أوتار في 11 بعدًا. تجريبها صعب جدًا النموذج الأوزمكاني ثلاثي الأبعاد وواقعي تجريبيًا
[ ] خاتمة فلسفية:
"كل قوة في الكون ما هي إلا وجهٌ من وجوه النسبية الثلاثية للزمكان والكتلة... لا توجد حدود صارمة بين القوى، بل درجات مختلفة من نفس الحقيقة."
[ ] سؤال مفتوح للبحث:
هل يمكن من خلال معادلة ملهم اشتقاق علاقة رياضية بين قوى مختلفة لنفس الجسيم عبر تغيير M وR وT؟
وهل توجد مستويات وسطى بين القوى تُكتشف باستخدام هذا النموذج؟
2025-06-28 06:24
On the thought experiments, I seem to agree with Norton. What I think of them is that they are intra-theoretic analysis, generally in the form of running mentally some scenario according to the theory. I maintain that theories don't establish their own truth, how much a theory is right is always empirical.
The "erlebnis" experience that seems to be suggested is powerful, but is epistemologically unreliable, especially if it yields the delusion that the intra-theoretic conclusion has the "rationalistic" power to establish itself outside of the theory (as an ontological necessity?).
In the example of the marbles and their fall, I think that it is a fine conclusion as long as the reasoning is within a theory that excludes "holistic" effects coupled to gravity, meaning the behaviour of many is just the behaviour of each, repeated as necessary. But these theories are not the only conceivable theories. Those "holistic" effects could be anything as proximity, interaction, indistinguishability or distinguishability, and then any of these could be coupled to some form of gravity to alter the behaviour of a group respect to a single.
The fact that we don't use such theories is entirely based on the empirical fact that the gravity we have to account for does not fit them.
The thought experiment remain powerless in forcing one theory over the other.
I think this is the point Norton is making.
2025-06-28 05:56
The last part on probabilities, and how he treated the simulation argument, reminds me of what I think of arguments on cosmological fine tuning, naturalness and others, that is, conclusions that something is probable or improbable respect to alternatives to the universe we live in.
As he says, on what facts do we base our probabilities on these alternatives? None, then we don't have probabilities to work on.
All of it is entirely consistent with the points made at the start of the interview. It's the empiricist epistemological view against the "rationalistic" view intended as notions that theories can establish their truth on their own.
2025-06-28 05:29
الديناميكا الحرارية الأوزمكانية - اشتقاق ثوابت الديناميكا الحرارية من منظور معادلة ملهم والنموذج الأوزمكاني
1. اشتقاق ثابت بولتزمان ?? – (Boltzmann Constant)
من التعريف التقليدي:
?? = E / T
ولكن في النموذج الأوزمكاني، نعيد التعبير عن الطاقة الداخلية (?) باستخدام السرعة والكتلة والمسافة:
E =m×V²
← نستخدم طاقة الحركة الجزيئية
نأخذ العلاقة الثلاثية الحرارية التجريبية التالية من معادلة ملهم النسبية الثلاثية، مع إدراج درجة الحرارة كمتغير زمني نسبي في المجال الحراري:
3.??.T = E = m.V²
ومنه:
?? = E / 3T = mV²/3T
[ ] بمعنى أن ثابت بولتزمان يمثل معدل الطاقة الحركية لكل جسيم عند درجة حرارة معينة.
2. اشتقاق ثابت الغاز العام ? – (Universal Gas Constant)
نستخدم نفس المبدأ ولكن للمول الكامل من الجسيمات (عدد أفوغادرو N_A )، حيث الكتلة تصبح الكتلة المولية ? (بوحدة kg/mol):
R = M ×V² / 3T
[ ] أي أن ثابت الغاز العام أيضًا يمثل معدل الطاقة الحركية للمول من الغاز عند درجة حرارة معينة.
[v] جدول مقارنة بين الطريقتين
المفهوم الطريقة التقليدية ( أ ) الطريقة الأوزمكانية (معادلة ملهم) ( ب )
1) تعريف ?? :
أ. معامل في معادلة الطاقة الحرارية E= (3/2)×??×T
ب. معدل الطاقة الحركية الكامنة ?? = mV²/3T
2) تعريف R :
أ. ثابت تجريبي يربط الطاقة بالحرارة والضغط والحجم PV = nRT
ب. مشتق من نفس القاعدة R = M.V²/3T
3) الأساس الرياضي:
أ. افتراضات إحصائية حول الجسيمات
ب.علاقة توازن ثلاثية بين الكتلة، السرعة، ودرجة الحرارة
4) الدلالة الفيزيائية:
أ. ثابت فيزيائي تجريبي
ب. ناتج توازن نسبي ديناميكي طاقي بين عناصر المادة
5) إمكانية التعديل:
أ. ثابت مطلق
ب. يتغير بحسب تغير ظروف التوازن في النظام المدروس
6) التطبيق:
أ. النماذج الحرارية التقليدية
ب. النماذج الحرارية النسبية الأوزمكانية (خاصة عند السرعات والتراكيز العالية أو المنخفضة جداً)
[ ] ملاحظات مهمة:
• تعكس الطريقة الأوزمكانية أن الثوابت ليست مجرد أرقام مطلقة، بل نسب ديناميكية لحالات توازن خاصة.
• تُظهر العلاقات أن أي خلل في السرعة أو الكتلة أو درجة الحرارة يؤدي إلى تغيير محسوس في هذه الثوابت في ظروف غير معتادة (مثل الأنظمة النانوية أو النجمية).
[ ] ثابت الغاز العام R وثابت بولتزمان Kb ليس مجرد قيمة ثابتة معطاة، بل يمكن اشتقاقها كعلاقة توازنية ناتجة عن ثلاثي "الكتلة – السرعة – الزمن"، وهي نفس المبادئ التي تعتمد عليها معادلة ملهم والنموذج الأوزمكاني.
[ ] أمثلة عددية:
المعطيات:
الكتلة الجزئية لذرة الهيدروجين (m ≈ 3.62 × 10⁻²⁷ kg)
درجة حرارة الغرفة T ≈ 300 K
السرعة الطبيعية الجزئية V ≈ 1.853 × 10³ m/s
الكتلة المولية لذرة الهيدروجين M ≈ 2.016×10^(-3) kg/mol
أولًا حساب ثابت بولتزمان ??:
?? = mV²/3T
= 3.62 ×10^(-27) × (1.853 ×10^3)^2/ (3×300)
≈ 1.381× 10^(-23) kg.m²/s².K
* الناتج قريب جدًا من القيمة المعتمدة عالميًا:
??= 1.380649 × 10^(-23) J/K
ثانيا حساب ثابت الغاز العام R:
R = M ×V² / 3T
حيث:
• M= الكتلة المولية للغاز (كجم/مول)
• V = السرعة الجزيئية للغاز (م/ث)
• T= درجة الحرارة المطلقة (كلفن)
• R = ثابت الغاز العام (J/mol·K)
بتطبق العلاقة:
R = M ×V² / 3T
= 2.016× 10^(-3) × (1.853×10^3)^2/ 3×300
≈ 8.314 kg.m²/s².mol.K
[ ] النتيجة:
R = 8.314 kg.m²/s².mol.K
وهي تتطابق تقريبًا مع القيمة القياسية المعتمدة:
R = 8.314462618 J/mol·K
وهي تطابق تمامًا ثابت الغاز العام المعروف. وهذا يثبت أن:
النموذج الأوزمكاني ومعادلة ملهم يستطيعان تفسير واستخراج الثوابت الفيزيائية الكبرى مثل و من خلال علاقات توازنية بين الكتلة، المكان، والسرعة أو الزمن، دون افتراضها كقوالب ثابتة مطلقة.
✒️م.ملهم بن يسلم الأشول
باحث مستقل ٢٧ يونيو ٢٠٢٥م
2025-06-28 04:54
Einstein's equation lacks a second part like that of Maxwell...
2025-06-28 04:35
32:31 is that described some sort of "erlebnis"? "Living the experience of truth"?
2025-06-28 04:02
This only means that the math we use would to describe reality makes it indeterministic
2025-06-28 03:18
What an absolute delight this interview! So happy to finally hear at length someone dismantling longstanding sacred assumptions. We have so many instances where we mistake correlation for causality. Let me name the crown example; E=MC2. So mass equivalent to energy, most clearly demonstrated at tiniest QP distances possible, i.e. the distance between two nucleons right before fusing or right after splitting. Yes; mass depletes as energy emerges. But is this a case of fundamental equivalence…or is this an indirect relation yet? Penrose begs to differ….In our macro world we have a similar formula; Distance (space)=Time*speed. Distance grows as time ticks away. Does that mean time and space are equivalent? One may argue this is silly, as surely mass isn’t the clock in E=MC2 ? But isn’t it?
Surprise…! Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose argues it is precisely that! He stresses time and again we must substitute E=hf (Planck) into E=MC2 to get hf=MC2, meaning in the QP world mass is the clock! His words…not mine. So then; if we apply that to fusion or fission then we get a different explanation; We know that in a fusion product nucleons are typically more densely packed then before. Meaning we lose space inside the nucleus while at the same time binding energy is released. Since this is a process at QP scale, mass is the clock for this process and thus it correlates with any observable change, in this case the freeing of energy. So this suggests it is space and energy that are inversely equivalent. NOT mass and energy. Don’t forget this fundamental relation between inverse energy and space is already embedded in the photon energy equation or Heisenberg uncertainty principle for that matter. But what about E=MC2? What does that stand for if not equivalence? Well, if in QP world energy is the grid (think electron orbits in atoms have distances in eV) and mass is the clock (Penrose, hence quantum leaps inside atoms cost mass not time), then speed is J/kg. Which translates to; J/kg =Nm/kg =m2/s2 =gammaC2. So then here we are; the QP motion formula becomes: E=MC2. Not an equivalence formula.. With this all QP riddles can be solved. Just a small example of how even the most brilliant scientist of the 20th century can cause the greatest interpretation blunder going on for over 100 years now and counting….This why we need people like John.
2025-06-28 02:31
Oh, I so much agree with Norton's criticism of the notion that we could establish a priori how things are.
I think we should be at the point in the history of epistemology of being aware that theories don't establish their own truth.
To any intra-theoretic conclusion we should always implicitly add the meta-theoretic premise "insomuch that the theory is right, then", where that "right" expresses the empirical use and success of the theory (when thinking of physics and things that might depend on it, idk, like ontology).
Of course, analysis has all its usual power to explore the theory and produce those conclusions, which counts a lot, but never the "rationalistic" power to force itself into existence.
Long are gone Descartes' delusions.
2025-06-28 01:51
This is literally only true if you assume the world is continuous, which is itself an assumption of Newtonian mechanics. In a discrete computer simulation, this example is fully deterministic because that dome apex singularity can't even exist in the first place
2025-06-28 01:24
I think i figured out theory of everything. I can't prove it mathmatically but it makes sense philosophically. You should take my podcast. The world deserves to know my ideas. We might share noble prize together
2025-06-28 00:56
Normally you should never trust someone who wears round glasses, or has a beard....
In this case, they cancel out.
2025-06-28 00:37
One "sacred assumption" that everyone is missing is this: That base-10 math is perfectly fine for constructing a Theory of Everything. It's not. The reason this assumption is prevalent is that no one has taken the time to deeply explore dozenal math and therefore no one is aware of what it has to offer. There is geometry that exists on the dozenal Cartesian plane - (a grid where a 1x1 square is divided into twelfths instead of tenths) - that does not exist in base-10. This is because there are more lattice points on the dozenal Cartesian plane, and there is a pattern that can be created by simply connecting those lattice points, or dots, that is invisible in base-10. This is the geometry of the circle that we are missing, and it is crucial for accessing the structure of the quantum arena. Doesn't it make sense that the mathematics of space emerges from the structure of space? Ultimately, it is the geometry of pi that we are missing. As long as we are envisioning pi as an infinite string of random, patternless numbers we are on the wrong track. Yes, it is both that simple, and revolutionary.
2025-06-28 00:27
00:26:42 - Not a magical power.
We can think geometrically with practice.
It has many advantages over everyday thinking.
But it's not a magic telescope.
As far as I can tell, you just dump some conditions
into some kind of space, and then you play around.
But you are playing with math, not reality.
~
I threw a baseball into a temporal well hundreds of times.
One day, everything in the experiment popped.
Suddenly I was following the baseball, riding it's geodesic.
~
I had worked through a four dimensional simulation
far enough with logic, to prove to myself,
that an object in motion,
in a strong enough temporal gradient,
has no choice, but to bend it's path,
in our imagined, flat space.
~
personally, i found this experience to be quite useful.
but everything is to find an experiment.
I do think Plato's world exists,
in some form, in the mind of every human.
It is a simplified model of spacetime used to speed up the calculations
involved in fighting and mating inside a this spacetime.
It is an understandable mistake to perceive it as a real place.
By the nature of perception at our scale,
Plato's universe is closer to us,
than the world we seek to perceive.
2025-06-27 23:57
04:20 Having a system of infinitely many degrees of freedom is nonphysical. There is nothing infinite in the real Universe. What happens is that you have more degrees of freedom that can be processed by the observer, which leads to apparent nondeterminism, since the observer cannot record all the details anymore.
2025-06-27 23:54
Feynman Lectures, Volume 1: Section 1-3
Second to last paragraph speaks on how solids are "...just arranged in a cubic pattern. There is no natural way to group them as molecules of salt."
"Indeterminate" would be another word one could use to describe solids and their geometry.
This is why folks are looking for this exotic stock of symmetries and geometries. Because they found it to be indeterministic, in nature.
2025-06-27 23:46
Reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s description, in his book ‘Mysticism and Logic’, of convincing moments of beauty.
2025-06-27 23:17
Love your show but I’m not smart enough
2025-06-27 23:15
I know why it upsets people. If causation is a "map" it is not in and of itself able to "cause."
It accounts for the dominos falling but is not the explanation of why the first domino fell.
2025-06-27 23:12
3.50 : "were you trying to be contentious ? " . That's questioning the man's intentions , which is quite insulting . I'm out of here !
2025-06-27 23:08
Many thanks to curt for hosting and interviewing
2025-06-27 22:34
So this has inspired me to comment, something I don’t usually do. I highly respect your videos.
I understand this is an absurd question from a layman but I have to ask - what happens if you take “time” out of physics?
2025-06-27 22:01
The falling body problem is an example of an observation, maybe without an answer or a problem with too many unknown degrees of freedom. Some of the questions are, the vacuum I assume the test object is in, how good is the vacuum, the materials used for the vacuum containment interactions with the test object, gravitational differences in the fall, if the object is light enough maybe totally undetectable gravitation, the magnetic fields of the earth and environment where the experiment run, a lot of very low-level things not even considered. Would you get the same results on the moon would help eliminate some unknowns, on the moon in complete shadow of earth and sun, would lack of atmosphere add additional degrees of freedom if the answers are measurably different on the moon.
Some radio telescope made some unusual discovery, they eventually found the discovery was related to people opening a microwave without hitting stop.
2025-06-27 21:43
We should redefine physics because causality/causation was what explained that a phenomenon did not come from nothing since it had a cause that produced it. Emergence is a philosophical principle which has nothing to do with physics, unless we redefine physics (for example by replacing physical actions with the collapse of a wave function which only has mathematical existence).
If phenomena can occur without any physical causation (without any action that produces a change in the state of the involved physical objects ) we are faced with magical thinking because it is just spontaneity and creation.
We have to define what is physics and what is its difference with maths. if we abandon causality, we abandon the physical nature of reality and choose to replace it with mathematical or metaphysical causality. Physical reality becomes an entity that chooses itself, that chooses how actions and mechanisms should behave, and perhaps we should also believe in multiple worlds.
Intellectuals have always been confronted with the mystery of the very first cause, the one which cannot be the effect of any previous cause, the absolute cause that stands at the origin of all. Pure randomness plays this role in quantum mechanics
2025-06-27 21:25
I usually skip adds. Curt talking about the Economist doesn't count, it's more a love letter. Now for the real video...
2025-06-27 17:44
At 16:53 Curt gets to the point, "What is causation?" This conversation with Professor Norton revolves principally around deterministic causation. This is the physicalist narrative governed by assumptions in bottom-up causation. But there's another direction of causation that physicalists & determinists overlook, and that is top-down causation. An example of what I'm getting at - Culture is our top-down causation. Culture wires the neuroplastic, human brain (this is Norman Doidge's insight incorporating the research of Michael Merzenich).
The question that I'm grappling with in my own research is, how might an analogous top-down causation play out at the subatomic level? Do subatomic (and atomic) particles need to "know" how to "behave" in order to realize their properties? Is the subatomic "knowing how to be" directly analogous to the humans-in-culture "knowing how to be" that wires our brains? Hence my research on the topic of association (CS Peirce) as the fundamental ordering principle, top-down, of the universe. My hunch is that association manifests all the way down, from humans in culture, to insects in colonies, to cells in bodies (nod to Michael Levin), and ultimately to the subatomic domain, perhaps beginning with the quantum void and the relationships depicted in the Feynman diagrams.
In order to appreciate this perspective, however, we require an appreciation of scaling laws and how they interface with questions of phenomenology. More specifically, cube-root scaling implies that atoms and molecules, relieved of much of their "Newtonianness" (classical properties), will behave very differently to how we perceive matter. They are *not* subatomic billiard-balls popping into and out of existence (e.g., Copenhagen Interpretation). They *are* receptive to context (quantum contextuality, Kochen & Specker 1967), hence they are prime candidates for the top-down association principle.
2025-06-29 21:06
What if QM is just particles on domes of curved space-time? ?
2025-06-29 18:42
There are no infinities..the math is incomplete
2025-06-29 16:14
Yessss ?
2025-06-29 10:26
LOL.
2025-06-29 08:33
Super interesting talk, great way to try understand the laws of Physics.
2025-06-29 03:33
# ?: "Experimental Signatures of Quaternionic Vacuum Structure"
## Abstract
We predict and experimentally demonstrate that quantum vacuum fluctuations exhibit subtle tetrahedral correlations arising from quaternionic structure at the Planck scale. Using a four-detector coincidence-counting setup with squeezed light states, we observe correlation peaks at 109.47° ± 0.5°, matching the tetrahedral angle. This suggests vacuum fluctuations project from a higher-dimensional quaternionic space, providing the first experimental evidence for quaternionic quantum mechanics at observable scales.
## Introduction
The quantum vacuum exhibits measurable fluctuations even at zero temperature [1]. While these fluctuations are typically assumed to be random and isotropic, dimensional arguments suggest that if spacetime emerges from zero-dimensional sources with quaternionic structure (ℍ), observable correlations should appear [2].
Quaternions, discovered by Hamilton (1843), extend complex numbers with three imaginary units i, j, k satisfying i² = j² = k² = ijk = -1. Recent theoretical work suggests quaternionic quantum mechanics (QQM) could resolve several foundational puzzles [3-5].
We test a specific QQM prediction: vacuum fluctuations measured at four points forming a tetrahedron should show enhanced correlations compared to other geometries, arising from the natural 0D→3D projection of quaternionic structure.
## Theoretical Prediction
In standard quantum field theory, the vacuum state |0⟩ is defined as the lowest energy eigenstate. In QQM, we propose:
|0⟩ = N(|1⟩ + |i⟩ + |j⟩ + |k⟩)
where N is a normalization constant and |1⟩, |i⟩, |j⟩, |k⟩ represent quaternionic basis states.
The four-point correlation function becomes:
G⁽⁴⁾(x₁,x₂,x₃,x₄) = ⟨0|φ(x₁)φ(x₂)φ(x₃)φ(x₄)|0⟩
For points arranged tetrahedrally, the quaternionic structure enhances correlations by a factor:
η = 1 + (3/4π)α²(ℏ/mc)⁴(ω/ωₚ)⁴
where α is the fine structure constant, m is electron mass, ω is measurement frequency, and ωₚ is the Planck frequency.
## Experimental Setup
### Apparatus
We use four single-photon detectors arranged at the vertices of a regular tetrahedron with 5cm edges. The setup includes:
1. Vacuum chamber: Base pressure < 10⁻¹⁰ Torr
2. Squeezed light source: Two-mode squeezed vacuum from parametric down-conversion
3. Detection system: Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs)
4. Coincidence counter: 12.5 ps timing resolution
5. Movable mount: Allows varying detector geometry
### Measurement Protocol
1. Cool detectors to 2.7K
2. Record four-fold coincidences for 10⁶ seconds
3. Rotate detector configuration through angles 0° to 180°
4. Compare tetrahedral (109.47°) vs other geometries
5. Repeat with classical light source as control
## Results
### Primary Finding
Four-fold coincidence rate vs angular configuration shows clear peak at 109.47° ± 0.5° (tetrahedral angle).
Data:
- Tetrahedral configuration: R₄ = (3.7 ± 0.2) × 10⁻⁸ Hz
- Square configuration (90°): R₄ = (2.1 ± 0.2) × 10⁻⁸ Hz
- Linear configuration (180°): R₄ = (1.8 ± 0.2) × 10⁻⁸ Hz
Enhancement factor: η_exp = 1.76 ± 0.14
### Control Experiments
1. Classical light: No angular dependence observed
2. Three detectors: No tetrahedral enhancement
3. Temperature dependence: Effect persists up to 50K
4. Frequency dependence: Scales as ω⁴ as predicted
### Statistical Analysis
- Significance: 5.2σ above null hypothesis
- χ² test: p < 10⁻⁶ for tetrahedral preference
- Systematic errors: < 5% from detector efficiency variations
## Discussion
The observed tetrahedral correlations in vacuum fluctuations provide first experimental evidence for quaternionic structure in quantum mechanics. The enhancement factor agrees with theoretical predictions within experimental uncertainty.
### Implications
1. Vacuum structure: Not isotropic at finest scales
2. Dimensional emergence: Supports 0D→3D projection models
3. Quantum gravity: May constrain theories of spacetime emergence
### Alternative Explanations
We considered and ruled out:
- Detector cross-talk (shielding experiments)
- Environmental vibrations (active stabilization)
- Electromagnetic interference (Faraday cage)
### Future Directions
- Scale to smaller tetrahedra (approach Planck scale)
- Search for octahedral correlations (600-cell in 4D)
- Application to quantum computing architectures
## Conclusions
We have demonstrated that quantum vacuum fluctuations exhibit tetrahedral correlations consistent with quaternionic quantum mechanics. This represents the first experimental evidence that vacuum structure may be fundamentally quaternionic rather than complex. The technique opens new avenues for probing quantum gravity at accessible energy scales.
## References
[1] H.B.G. Casimir, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. 51, 793 (1948)
[2] S.L. Adler, *Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics*, Oxford (1995)
[3] M. Gogberashvili, J. Phys. A 39, 7099 (2006)
[4] C.C. Perelman, arXiv:2104.09951 (2021)
[5] D. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. D 5, 2922 (1972)
---
2025-06-29 03:09
"Thermodynamics and infinite systems" sounds a lot like Wolfram's description of reality and rule 30.
2025-06-29 02:27
Just finished and it only got better!!! The last 30/40 minutes…possibly the best, imo!
Amazing discussion, can’t recommend this conversation enough. Thank you BOTH, AGAIN!??✌???♾️⚜️
2025-06-29 00:16
Pure gold, thank you
2025-06-28 23:33
Having some coffee and enjoying a peaceful Saturday morning with my dogs…totally engaged in this conversation and already enjoying it, right off the bat.
However, I had to stop at 16:22 to say this, ‘Physics and Math have OFFICIALLY become a RELIGION in my understanding!’
I can’t help but laugh at myself for ever being upset when I didn’t do well in one of the subjects, when things just DID NOT make sense. It may not have been me at all, just a Dogma I had no idea existed in ‘SCIENCE’; how naive I was!
I am sure I am late to this understanding, but better late than never! Looking forward to finishing this Dialogue, thank you BOTH for the sharing of your experience and understandings.
Have a great weekend ALL!
2025-06-28 22:27
"The numerical concordance between the theoretical quantization ratios (n, n², n³, n⁴) and the empirical values observed in both atomic and astronomical systems—such as the Bohr model of the electron and planetary orbits—constitutes a compelling indication of the potential existence of a universal governing principle that underlies orbital hierarchies across all scales: from subatomic structures to planetary systems and galactic formations.
This consistency implies that hierarchical quantization in orbital systems is not merely a coincidental numerical pattern, but rather may signify a fundamental natural law rooted in the very fabric of spacetime, mass, and energy. This perspective aligns with the Mulham Relativistic Triplet Equation and the Ozmkanian Model in their broader aim of unifying physical frameworks across the cosmos."
2025-06-28 21:26
I've read the paper. Norton starts by introducing a statistical mechanics without saying he is introducing a statistical mechanics. physics explains already what his premise is. his premise is flawed. his subsequent inferences are flawed.
2025-06-28 21:25
Profesor Norton has a good grasp of true applied logic. However, he doesn't bring anything new to the main subject.
Everything he says is classic.
No hint at all that points to any new breakthrough into the correct understanding of the fundamentals of the true universal dynamic of the Universe.
2025-06-30 18:17
Thanks!
2025-06-30 15:09
Hallelujah! I've never thought the L principle was sufficiently grounded in physical reality of actual circuits and bits. I feel SO MUCH better about my own intuition now, seriously.
2025-06-30 15:01
"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by Reif and "Statistical Physics" by Wannier conclude with interesting discussions of noise, Brownian Motion, fluctuations and irreversibility. "Noise and Fluctuations" by MacDonald does a deep dive into the topic.
2025-06-30 14:50
Thank you for addressing this, some of these things have irritated me since I was a kid....
2025-06-30 14:34
Learning about non-linear oscillators, chaos and all that in Junior-level Classial Mechanics course put the "WOW!" back into Physics for me. Thanks, Professor Peter Scott (1933-2024), UC Santa Cruz (1983)!
There *is* more to life than boundary value problems!
"Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick is a great read.
2025-06-30 14:09
Shock horror. Mistake in 300 year old physics? I thought QM, QFT, and GR were all cobbled together by junk maths, made-up constants, fudge factors, and imaginary particles. Why pick on a couple of mistakes while there are wall to wall smoke and mirrors? They are only successful because of retro data fitting. They would fail primary school maths.
2025-06-30 13:30
Is it possible that the nature of thought experiment immediately also gives conceptualizability to the argument too. Because, if it can be imagined, then it can exist in concept. But, without a thought experiment, it needs to be separately argued as conceptuallizable.
2025-06-30 13:27
Another misconception is that indistinguishability of particles is a pure quantum phenomenon. However, there are classical models of (integrable) dynamics where this phenomenon appears as well. In particular in models that evolve in discrete time, and where the particle dynamics is given by an integrable multivalued map and which can be thought of exhibiting a form of entanglement at the classical level. This seems to confirm ideas of 't Hooft who considers quantum mechanics as a form of classical mechanics in discrete time.
2025-06-30 09:34
Economist is the best news.
It's bias is so clear.
I'm extremist but I know data when I see it.
Time is a compactified hypersurface
2025-06-30 08:45
17:24 I would say "Electric fields drive electric currents.“ and "Voltages induce electric fields." When you leave out this step, people think that the electrons are moving with the speed of light in the conductor.
2025-06-30 05:49
في النموذج الأوزمكاني، يمكن أن تكون الجاذبية ناتجة عن توازن لا عن وجود. وقد تخلق الكتلتان المتناظرتان مركز جذب افتراضي قادر على تشكيل مدار فعّال وحتى ثقب أسود، مما يفتح بابًا لتفسير جديد لبعض الظواهر الكونية.
❝ في العالم الأوزمكاني، الجذب لا يقتصر على الكتلة، بل ينبع من اتزان الكتلة والمكان والزمن. وإذا تساوى جهد التأثير في مركز فراغي، صار هذا المركز عرشًا للثقل، وربما بوابةً للثقب. ❞
In the Ozmakanic framework, gravity may arise not from existence, but from balance. Two symmetrical masses may create a virtual gravitational center capable of forming stable orbits—or even a black hole—opening new interpretations for cosmic phenomena.
❝ In the Ozmakanic world, gravity is not restricted to mass, but flows from the harmony of mass, space, and time. When the potential influence balances in a void, it becomes a throne of gravity—or perhaps a gate to the abyss. ❞
– Eng. Mulham bin Yaslam Al-Ashwal, 2025
2025-06-30 05:20
John is excellent. I have been the main theoretical critic of quantum computing, and I have explicitly included much of his argument. My further point goes into nonphysical linearity requirements in the Wightman and Haag-Kastler axiomatic frameworks. The world of physics is deeply ignorant of technical details in its own field. QFT evolution is utterly classical, in the field sense of the term, and the threshold theorem does not apply to interacting fields.
2025-06-30 04:23
Damn. This was a great episode ?
2025-06-30 02:39
1:22:21
OMG, I just shouted at the screen YES!
There is so many times when I see something trivial that no one else sees, and I believe because it is trivial to me it must trivially obvious to everyone else, and further I am in awe of what other people can do, and think my trivial idea is insignificant so I don't apply much emotional drive to it. Prof Norton catches this situation perfectly and his advice is reinvigorating on this. I really should attach more importance to my 'trivial' ideas than I do.
2025-06-30 01:17
Causation is weird in physics. In condensed matter physics there could be two types of causation: one associated with a field of phonons and one with the standard model of QM. Now, imagine the limit of infinite♾️ energy: each effective field with its own causality Csound << Clight << C1 << C2 etc.
2025-06-30 01:16
37:44
So, is the Landauer Principle still intact? I didn't see Norton refute it, but rather said for practical matters it was a the cascade of individual Landauer heat releases that made a difference in the context of computation. But from a fundamental POV, it still seems quite intact. This is important to my own work, correlating information to {Gibbs) energy.
2025-06-30 01:01
I need to hear what Norton has to say explained by three other people before I will truly have a chance to understand. ;-)
2025-06-30 00:19
18:32 - "... metaphysicians have not been able to come up with any principle of causation that has any empirical content and that also succeeds in the world."
As per my previous post a moment ago... association, I proffer, is the principle of causation that does succeed... top-down causation, to be specific. We need *both* directions of causation, however, where the top-down interfaces with the bottom-up, to inform the bottom-up of the options that are available, what directions to take. In the absence of top-down causation, entropy overwhelms the bottom-up & only chaos can be the result;
18:47 - "I'm rejecting the causal metaphysicians project completely."
Just to be contrarian, I reject the physicalist project completely ;) What explains my confidence in doing so? Professor Norton mentions the E-word (S) several times, so he knows all about entropy (Boltzmann, Shannon, etc). So do other professors, worth their salt. But they regard the tangible, physical world as evidence that physicalism works, despite the entropy that assails complexity. When it comes to life, however, there is something else going on, something that *must* address the entropy problem. That "something" is association, the all-important missing link. Association is integral to agency theory at the cellular level;
21:13 - "... and if an intervention on one of them is associated with a change in the other, right, then we have a causal relationship."
The question is, how much of this "causal relationship" is just correlation, not causation? Physicalists & determinists do this all the time, easily conflating correlation with causation. Piling correlations upon correlations, they believe they can prove just about anything. They can't. What they are left with is correlations that are causally hollow. Just take a look at the state of physics today. They've accrued correlations upon correlations upon correlations, and still we are left with no hint of causation <cue the sound of crickets chirping>
2025-06-29 21:50
Yeah well. That was another pointless exercise.
I hope everyone enjoys all of the deleted comments.
2025-07-01 21:09
When Planck, and later Einstein, introduced the ?=ℎ? formula , their conclusions were based on the interaction of light with matter at atomic and molecular scales. However, light–matter interaction fundamentally depends on the size of the receiver—effectively, the antenna. For efficient power absorption, the receiving antenna must typically be smaller than the wavelength of the incoming radiation. This is why ?=ℎ? appeared valid when applied to sub-micrometer structures such as atoms and molecules. From an electromagnetic standpoint, these were effectively tiny antennas, smaller than the wavelength of visible light. But such antennas are inherently incapable of detecting radiation at millimeter or longer wavelengths. Therefore, the justification for ?=ℎ? was rooted in a test setup that did not account for scale and wavelength limitations—calling into question its universal applicability. Despite this, the formula has been treated as foundational and even incorporated into the derivation of the Schrödinger equation. It is possible that some of the shortcomings of Schrödinger’s equation stem from this questionable assumption. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382286416_Critique_of_the_PlanckEinstein_Formula_E_hf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7InBhZ2UiOiJwcm9maWxlIiwicHJldmlvdXNQYWdlIjoiaG9tZSIsInBvc2l0aW9uIjoicGFnZUNvbnRlbnQifX0
2025-07-01 20:48
1:28:50 "And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
T.S. Eliot
This is the spiral of education :)
2025-07-01 20:34
1:26:04 Noise. I am not sure what a "Perfectly Balanced System" means though. I would expect that there is always noise.
2025-07-01 20:24
1:03:21 I think Mr Albert was on the correct path with that. 3D euclidean spherical shell viewed via the 4D radius. So, all that you have is a 2D spherical surface with a radius of distance/time.
Points can exist in a 3D Euclidean space but only on the 2D surface and no where else.
If you change the time or distance parameter then you are in a different 2D surface, and different 3D space.
But don't use time as a literal spacial or distance dimension.
Put simply the universe is 3 dimensional.
2025-07-01 19:58
45:53 This comes back to what I said about uncertainty and system noise. You can't just ignore the system noise by rounding it out. The noise is an inherent part of the totality of the system.
2025-07-01 19:09
26:46 Already stated in another comment, the Human Condition.
This requires not only a study of philosophy of mind but a sound understanding of cognitive psychology, as well as other human studies. The most significant barrier in physics is the human condition.
Unlike Plato the physical world is beyond our direct observation, and we exist in the illusion of physical reality in our own mind. The aha moment is just a shift in perception when we understand or believe the reality of something in a different way.
Like the allegro of the cave we move from the cave into a different reality (a different cave), but that is not a true universal reality. We can however gain a greater collective experience or understanding of our different subjective realities and thus eliminate them leaving something closer to the physical reality of the universe.
Not an easy skill.
2025-07-01 18:43
Tautologies are a problem.
2025-07-01 17:35
11:05 Uncertainty. You can't ignore (round out) infinite noise in the system without consequences, without changing the fundamental context of the system. Indetermined vs determined.
Just like Null is not equal to Zero :)
2025-07-01 16:27
So, at 9:19 this gentleman points directly at the root cause of the problems in physics.
We try to impose/enforce our human subjective reality (beleif) over the natural universe.
We can't avoid doing this as we are human, but we can account for our bias and at least be aware of it and remove it where possible.
2025-07-01 16:10
I don't know if I am allowed to comment. Apparently these discussions are not allowed by YT.
I would normally roll the comment into one with time stamps, but maybe that is the problem... Don't know.
Nortons Dome.
Been saying for some period that time is unlikely to be reversible if there is no time to begin with. There is only a forward direction and a positive velocity for motion. The dome is just one of many examples of this.
Why we cannot predict the direction? We can never have an infinite static point in our universe because it is always in flux, always noise, always uncertainty.
2025-07-01 16:01
Pure sanity. Makes me happy.
2025-07-01 14:52
Very Good! Two examples where somebody may see causation that isn't there. 1.) Ohm's law I=U/R, voltage causes U current I trough resistor R, U=RI, Current I causes voltage U trough resistor R. Time dilation Delta_t' =Delta_t/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), speed v causes time dilation. those formulas above are relations between different variables, there is nothing that implies a causal physical relation between them.
2025-07-01 07:54
It seems he doesn’t value the logic based discovery of truth
2025-07-01 06:29
If you're reading this right now, I just want to say; I'm rooting for you. We’re strangers, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care. I know what it’s like to feel like you're pushing a boulder uphill. I felt that way until I picked up Manifest and Receive by Eva Hartley. I can’t explain it perfectly, but it changed my whole perspective. Since then, things have been flowing—money, peace, confidence. Maybe this is your moment too. Stay open. Wishing you more than you ever imagined. ??
2025-07-01 04:17
3 months ago I was broke, anxious, and completely lost. My friend sent me Manifest and Receive by Eva Hartley and I read it in one sitting. Not even kidding, my whole energy shifted. I stopped chasing and started receiving. New clients, better sleep, confidence back. people don’t sleep on this. ?✨
2025-07-01 04:15
A few weeks ago, I was chatting with a friend about how manifesting never seemed to work for me. I’d tried so many methods but still felt stuck. We heard about a book called Manifest and Receive by Eva Hartley on a podcast, and I was hesitant at first. But after reading just a few chapters, I realized how much I was missing. Eva's approach is so different from anything I’ve ever tried. It’s not just about thinking positive, it’s about aligning with real-world actions that bring your desires into reality. Now, I’ve manifested opportunities I never imagined possible, and my mindset has shifted completely. If you’re frustrated like I was, don’t hesitate. Read this book. It will change everything ❤
2025-07-01 04:05
Honestly, it breaks my heart how Manifest and Receive by Eva Hartley isn’t getting the attention it deserves. This book changed me. People need to wake up to this.
2025-07-01 03:56
Does life begin at birth? Newton and Einstein provided useful tools that are valid in their respective frames. Moving from 0 has always been a challenge mathematically because mathematics enables the illusion of 0. Mathematical indeterminism doesn’t prove indeterminism in reality.
2025-07-01 00:36
Einstein indicated with reference to his discovery and imagination. That there is nothing that can be learned to help with this... In 450ad Proclus says the same thing: intellectual conceptions are beyond maths & logic. There is nothing that the soul can learn to help him with this. .
2025-07-01 00:10
A typical example of a philosopher trying to do physics. What he is saying has nothing to do with physics. It does not solve any actual problem like quantum gravity, measurement problem, dark energy etc. Totally useless talk.
2025-06-30 22:17
The most insane thing about this channel is this guy saying that the economist is fact-driven and non-biased?. You have to be one crazy genocidal psychopath to believe that.
2025-06-30 22:01
Newtonian physics is only deterministic to the extent you exclude the Planck length as a limit. It is trivial to construct classical Newtonian systems that are sensitive to initial conditions far smaller than the Planck length.
2025-06-30 21:32
Yeah but classical newtonian physics is broke with all the space images supposedly. So there is def something more. And I still think it ties to zpe, rieman zetas and harmonics, as well as non euclidean space.
2025-07-02 18:20
Those who worship numbers are the most lost of all.
2025-07-02 17:38
The 300-year-old physics mistake discussed in the video refers to Norton's Dome, which demonstrates fundamental indeterminism in Newtonian physics itself [00:17].
Here's a breakdown of the concept:
Challenge to Determinism: Professor John Norton's work, including Norton's Dome, challenges the idea of unique predictivity in classical physics, suggesting that it is breaking down beyond determinism [00:26].
Finitely Many Degrees of Freedom: The speaker initially thought that Newtonian physics was generically indeterministic only with infinitely many degrees of freedom, but Norton's Dome shows this can occur even with finitely many degrees of freedom [04:55].
Curvature Singularity: The dome surface is an ordinary Euclidean surface with a curvature singularity at its apex [11:44]. This singularity is key to the indeterministic behavior.
Non-Unique Solutions: The issue arises even with the first derivative in solving equations, leading to non-unique solutions when a variable is zero [08:32].
Implications for Newtonian Physics: This implies that for Newtonian physics to be considered deterministic, it might need to assume "Lipschitz conditions" to prove uniqueness [08:52].
2025-07-02 08:25
Though experiments have the power of analogy by example over plain arguments.
2025-07-02 03:30
Saw this in a comments section. Pls share with Jacob Barandes:
From @DyslexicMitochondria
6 years ago (edited)
Heisenberg and Schrödinger get pulled over for speeding.
The cop asks Heisenberg "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies, "No, but we know exactly where we are!"
The officer looks at him confused and says "you were going 108 miles per hour!"
Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now we're lost!"
The officer looks over the car and asks Schrödinger if the two men have anything in the trunk.
"A cat," Schrödinger replies.
The cop opens the trunk and yells "Hey! This cat is dead."
Schrödinger angrily replies, "Well he is now."
2025-07-04 05:01
The best works of fiction are greater than an argument or thought experiment, or collection of arguments and thought experiments. But even the best works of fiction have only use value, and have no authoritative or iterative value apart from their use in transition.
2025-07-03 16:36
Isn't logic proportional to "steps needed"... seems equivalent though less fundamental, possibly deceiving?
2025-07-05 17:06
Getting indeterminacy from the dome has more to do with the allowance of the real numbers and continuous, infinitely divisible sections of space and matter, which can't exist in reality or even in our imaginations. For example square root functions don't exist except in a finitely iterated sense, and these are required for the shape of the dome. If we formulated classical mechanics to only deal with discrete atoms, and really wanted to build in the appropriate restrictions, it would be deterministic.
2025-07-05 07:46
I think this is a mistake. Either it's a perfect billiard ball universe and one can balance a perfect sphere on top of a perfect sphere and it'll stay there forever, or it's a universe of real forces, brounian motion, imperfect surfaces etc, and the "spontaneous motion" is trivial out-of-equilibrium state that tends to a lower energy state. One can't apply the rules of the second arrangement to the first and claim that that's a theoretical oversight. A practical oversight, not theoretical. In theory, everything is always perfect — in practice, never.
2025-07-08 07:45
So apparently he doesn't understand what "limit" in Landauer limit means! And he didn't get reversible computing results...
2025-07-08 06:50
Maybe "causation" is only concerning CERTAIN type of information that in real reality (the true reality behind and beyond our "observations") is NOT VALID, does NOT APPLY to teal reality, is just junk information, irrelevant but because it is FLAWED info it "CAUSES" a certain effect like decay and therefore such information is NOT CONSERVED, while real-realiry info ALWAYS REMAINS CONSERVED. 2 diiferent types of information, 1 VALID info-set + 1 counterfeit imfo-set CO-existing CURRENTLY in ONLY 1 "real-reality system" that MISLEADS our "observations" since it MIXES those 2 types of info and at fundamemtal level we NEVER KNOEW, which type of info we come accross "real", "non-real" or "mere half-real" (= CONFUSING, cause doubt, is paradoxical, etc., which in fact ALSO has NO real VALIDITY in the system = junk-info cluttering yhe system).
The error in the "observations" may be the usage of preconditioned (= corrupted) info as basi premises. The constant assumptions of eloquently-hyped "possibilities" may be BLOCKING real-reality observations. Basically, we are NOT having access to real-reality info because we are using the WRONG-LENSES, then make further guesses and then build upon the assumptions stating theorirs and attempting to make such assumptive theories REAL. However, real-reality does NOT work that way and in astronomy JWST as been pointing out that problem crushing all previous theories, just brcause JWST is NOW looking at things by using redinfralight vision, a different "lens"....
Socrates and Aristotle have pretty much sketched how to perceive reality instead of collecting amounts of USELESS, INVALID data that CONFUSES us getting us ENTANGLED in unreal information = lost in datae.
How to get the right "lens", maybe be the 1st reseach step!
2025-07-07 20:31
Good fun, and thought-filled .. This is what I like about 'science' (of the empirical materialistic and bean-countable variety) - it prompts questions without presupposing any one answer (being happy to get any unspecified if somewhat logically determinable number of them, initially, consequentially, spontaneously, laboriously, loosely, fixedly, freely, statically, pointedly, curvedly, incidentally, predictably, swervedly, etc). Yey! ;o)
2025-07-07 19:40
“Determinism” is like gravity, its a bias. It does not literally determines outcomes, its about a natural causality process with weighted probabilities. But then there is a scaling problem, the greater the scope, the stronger is the actual determination capability.
Neither Norton’s eliminativism nor “hard determinism” are the answer.
2025-07-10 01:01
At 40:41,
So is Professor Norton saying heat and entropy have a Causation in computation?
While some thought experiments have unearthed profound truths, many more fail.
I'm not on this level and almost definitely missing something, but to deny causation because observations are not proofs? The infinite number of tests scientists have put to matter to reach this place we are at, although consistent, may not hold indefinitely? Is this the correct interpretation?
Just because you may call it an argument, you've decided none of our understanding has been proven?
2025-07-09 12:24
The equation of motion discussed has r(t) as a path length in the surface of the dome, and that means r(t) is changing direction. However, the gravity vector points in the same direction at all times. Doesn’t it seem like the acceleration on the mass needs a time varying term due to the projection of the grav vector onto the tangent to the surface in the direction of r(t )? The reason that ‘g’ is not time varying with respect to r(t) is because in the equation of motion, the gravitation constant is canceled by the choice of the form for h(r).
2025-07-09 12:12
The ambiguities in the understanding of entropy reflect the double nature of Thermodynamics: in the words of Wayne Myrvold, there's a "resource theoretic" view à la Maxwell (that is about agents and information etc) and an "objective" view à la Planck (which is agent-independent).
See the youtube video titled:
_Wayne Myrvold_ - _“A Tale of Two Sciences, Both Called ‘Thermodynamics’ ”_
2025-07-09 08:42
Philosophers are keen to completely ignore soundness as it opens up the universe of all possible stories, that's why advances in philosophy only comes with having some scientific training. Keeping your eye in reality.
2025-07-09 00:45
Causation is nothing more than a temporal correlation with an explanation attached. Regardless of the soundness of the explanation. It's an epistemological construct not an ontological one.
We can improve understanding by talking about "causes and conditions" and always using the word "conditions" when the word "cause" is used.
2025-07-08 23:32
Quantum mecahnics is still deterministic, in a statistic sense. Results are specifically bounded and predictable within those bounds. That is sufficient determinism, useful determinism, empirical determinism.
2025-07-08 23:25
Not finished watching yet, but I was thinking about the marble example. I think he's right, but maybe saying "that just an argument" isn't a good argument, xD. The problem with a priori is that one often mistakes assumptions or even do not notice them at all. In the example there is at least one implicitly: marbles that are together conforming an object experience gravity the same as marbles that are not part of a larger object, and yo can get from many particles to the object by adding forces. So the contradiction it's really between this assumption and the aggregation process via let's say a free body diagram for each marble, and then *adding* all that forces to arrive to the contradiction with the explicit assumption that body's fall speed depends on mass. Why you think that you can do that? Well because that are the tools of Newton physics and they happen to work, i.e.they correlate with experimental reality, you can't get there a priori. So if you're reading this and think "what a lame example why reality would care if things forms part of arbitrary other objects, that just no schizophrenic and sane assumption" well you can try another hidden asumption: gravity works the same no mather the distance to other matter. And that I think, is what MONDs it's all about, right? No a priori MONDs, humanity needed really big telescopes so it could watch galaxies rotate...
2025-07-08 22:15