Is Reality an Illusion?

[ajw]

Is Reality an Illusion? | Full Debate | Gerard 't Hooft, Chiara Marletto, Christopher Timpson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222VtNqloRI

Interesting how these philosophical views coexists for so many years among physicist, without much change in supporting evidence.

[gill1109]

Is Reality an Illusion? | Full Debate | Gerard 't Hooft, Chiara Marletto, Christopher Timpson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222VtNqloRI

Interesting how these philosophical views coexist for so many years among physicists, without much change in supporting evidence.

The change in supporting evidence is that time and time again, empirical predictions of conventional quantum mechanics are confirmed by experiment.

[FrediFizzx]

Is Reality an Illusion? | Full Debate | Gerard 't Hooft, Chiara Marletto, Christopher Timpson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222VtNqloRI

Interesting how these philosophical views coexist for so many years among physicists, without much change in supporting evidence.

The change in supporting evidence is that time and time again, empirical predictions of conventional quantum mechanics are confirmed by experiment.

Sure, the predictions are confirmed but not the interpretations. It is awfully strange when a theory has so many different interpretations. The answer is simple; something is not quite right with the theory. Or... most likely it could be missing something. Ha! To be continued soon...

But I have to say that reality is NOT an illusion at all. It is really a stupid question to ever ask.

[gill1109]

I agree, Fred! I feel with every fibre of my being that reality is not an illusion. I think that quantum theory is inconsistent. I think we need what Slava Belavkin called "eventum mechanics". Today I propose to call it "martingale-like disciplined passion at a distance", thereby honouring Abner Shimony and Paul Lévy and Joy Christian (who talks of the exquisite *discipline* of the quantum correlations).

But you could also just say "quantum-non-locality". Or in other words still, I would say that one just has to grow up and accept the facts of life. Which really comes down to "shut up and calculate". We don't *need* an interpretation as long as there are no experiments that can distinguish between interpretations. I am pretty sure that we are never going to get an interpretation which we like because of the limitations of our own brains.

Anyway, I firmly believe that an even deeper theory underlying QM and relativity theory, of which the QM predictions are merely an "emergent property" in the appropriate limiting circumstances, would necessarily be weirder still. I believe that that is what my colleague Gerard 't Hooft thinks.

You could also say that I have finally gone completely bonkers. I have no problem with that.

[Joy Christian]

You could also say that I have finally gone completely bonkers.

"Bonkers" is a British slang, meaning "stark raving mad." I like it.

***

[gill1109]

You could also say that I have finally gone completely bonkers.

"Bonkers" is a British slang, meaning "stark raving mad." I like it.

***

I hoped you would, Joy! A little peace offering from me to you.

[FrediFizzx]

I agree, Fred! I feel with every fibre of my being that reality is not an illusion. I think that quantum theory is inconsistent. I think we need what Slava Belavkin called "eventum mechanics". Today I propose to call it "martingale-like disciplined passion at a distance", thereby honouring Abner Shimony and Paul Lévy and Joy Christian (who talks of the exquisite *discipline* of the quantum correlations).

But you could also just say "quantum-non-locality". Or in other words still, I would say that one just has to grow up and accept the facts of life. Which really comes down to "shut up and calculate". We don't *need* an interpretation as long as there are no experiments that can distinguish between interpretations. I am pretty sure that we are never going to get an interpretation which we like because of the limitations of our own brains.

Anyway, I firmly believe that an even deeper theory underlying QM and relativity theory, of which the QM predictions are merely an "emergent property" in the appropriate limiting circumstances, would necessarily be weirder still. I believe that that is what my colleague Gerard 't Hooft thinks.

You could also say that I have finally gone completely bonkers. I have no problem with that.

I don't think quantum theory is inconsistent. It is the interpretations that are inconsistent. It is Bohr and Heisenberg that started this mess. Mermin and Feynman tried to fix it with "shut up and calculate". Which I suppose supports my "quantum mechanics is about real probability factors for real physical events and that is it". All the weird stuff comes from other interpretations. And there is no "passion at a distance". You can continue to let Nature trick you into believing that, but we know better since there exists a local realistic model that explains it.
.