Kind: captions
Language: en
what is real let's start with an easy
question put another way how do we know
what is real and what is merely a
creation of our human perception and
imagination we don't know you don't know
this is science I presume was talking
about science and we believe or I
believe that there is a world that is
independent of my existence in my
experience about it my knowledge of it
and this I call the real world so he
said science but even bigger than
science what sure sure I need not have
said this is science I just was you know
warming up warming up
okay now that we warmed up let's take a
brief step outside of science is it
completely a crazy idea to you that
everything that exists is merely
creation of our mind so like there's a
few not many this is outside of science
now people who believe sort of
perception is fundamentally what's in
our human perception the visual cortex
and so on the the cognitive constructs
that's being formed there is the reality
and then anything outside is something
that we can never really grasp is that
the crazy idea to you there's a version
of that that is not crazy at all what we
experienced is constructed by our brains
and by our brains in an active mode so
we don't see the raw world we see a very
processed world we feel something was
very processed through our brains and
our brains are incredible but I still
believe that behind that experience that
mirror veil or whatever you want to call
it there is a real world and I'm curious
about it can we truly how do we get a
sense of that real world is it through
the tools of physics from theory to the
experiments or can we actually grasp it
in in some intuitive way that's more
connected to our ape ancestors or is it
still fundamentally the tools of math
and physics that really allows us to
grow so let's talk about what tools they
are what you say are the tools of math
and physics I mean I think we're in the
same position as our ancestors in the
caves or before the caves or whatever we
find ourselves in this world and we're
curious
we also it's important to be able to
explain what happens when there are
fires when they're not fighters what
animals and plants are good to eat and
all that stuff and but we're also just
curious we look up in the sky and we see
the Sun and the moon and the stars and
we see some of those move in we're very
curious about that I think we're just
naturally curious so we make up this is
my version of what we make up stories
and explanations and where there are two
things which I think are just true of
being human we make judgments fast
because we have to we're to survive we
is that a tiger is that not a tiger and
we go act we have to act fast on
incomplete information so we we judge
quickly and we're often wrong or at
least sometimes wrong which is all I
mean for this we're off in Iran so we
fool ourselves and we fool other people
readily and so there's lots of stories
that get told and some of them result in
a concrete benefit and some of them
don't and so he said were often wrong
but what does it mean to be right right
that's that's the that's a that's an
excellent question to be right
well since I'm I believe that there is a
real world I believe that to be you can
challenge me on this if you're not a
realist
realizes somebody who believes in these
this real objective world which is
independent of our perception if I'm a
realist I think that to be right is to
come closer I think first of all this a
relative scale is not right and wrong
this writer more right and less right
and you're more right if you come closer
to an exact food description of that
real world now can we know that for sure
now in the scientific method is
ultimately what allows us to get a sense
of how close were getting to that real
world no one to counts first of all I
don't believe is a scientific method ha
I was very influenced when I was in
graduate school by the writings of Paul
fire Amin who was in it an important
philosopher of science who argue that
there isn't a scientific method there is
or there is not there's lot can you
elaborate if so if you were going to but
can you elaborate on the what does it
mean for there not to be a scientific
method this notion that I think a lot of
people believe in in this day and age
sure Paul Farben or he was a student of
popper who taught opera Karl Popper and
Farben argued both by logic and by
historical example that you name
anything that should be part of the
practice of science say you should
always make sure that your theories
agree with all the data that's always
been take that's already been taken and
he'll prove to you that there have to be
times when science contradicts when some
scientist contradicts that advice for
science to progress overall
so it's not a simple matter I think that
I think of science as a community and a
people of people and as a community of
people bound by certain ethical precepts
percepts whatever that so in that
community a set of ideas they operate
under I'm meaning epically of kind of
the rules of the game they operate under
don't lie report all your results
whether they agree or don't agree with
your hypothesis check the training of a
scientist mostly consists of methods of
checking because again we make lots of
mistakes we're very error-prone but
there are tools both on the mathematics
and the experimental side to check and
double-check and triple-check and a
scientist goes through a training and I
think this is part of it you can't just
walk off the street and say yo I'm a
scientist you have to go through the
training and the training the test that
lets you be done with the training is
can you form a convincing case for
something that your colleagues will not
be able to shout down because the last
did you check this and did you check
that and did you check this and what
about seeming contradiction with this
and you've got to have answers to all
those things or you don't get taken
seriously and when you get to the point
where you can produce that kind of
defense and argument then they give you
a PhD that's and you're kind of licensed
you're still going to be questioned and
you still may propose or publish
mistakes but the community is gonna have
to waste less time fixing your mistakes
yes but if you can maybe linger on it a
little longer what's the gap between the
thing that that community does and the
ideal of the scientific method was the
scientific method is you should be able
to repeat
experiment there's a lot of elements to
what construes the the the scientific
method but the final result the hope of
it is that you should be able to say
with some confidence that a particular
thing is close to the truth
right but the there's not a simple
relationship between experiment and
hypothesis or theory for example Galileo
did this experiment of dropping a ball
from the top of a tower and it falls
right at the base of the tower and an
Aristotelian would say Wow
of course it falls right to the base of
the tower that shows that the earth
isn't moving while the portal is falling
and god leo says no wait there's a
principle of inertia and nazan inertia
in the direction with the earth isn't
moving and the tower and the botany or
thought moved together when the
principle of inertia tells you at his at
the bottom it does look like therefore
my principle of inertia is right you
know Stettin Ian says no peristyle
science is right the earth is stationary
and so you gotta get an interconnected
bunch of cases and work hard to line up
in expletive centuries to make the
transition from Aristotelian physics to
the new physics it wasn't done till
Newton in 1680 something 1687 so what do
you think is the nature of the process
that seems to lead to progress if we at
least look at the long arc of science of
all the the community of scientists they
seem to do a better job of coming up
with ideas that engineers can then take
on and build rockets with or those
computers with or build cool stuff with
I don't know a better job than what
then this previous century so century by
century we can talk about we'll talk
about string theory and so on and kind
of possible well you might think of as
dead ends and and so on not too well
string listen straight but there is
nevertheless in science very often at
least temporary dead ends but if you if
you look at the through centuries you
know the century before Newton in the
century after Newton it seems like a lot
of ideas came closer to the truth that
then could be usable by our civilization
to build the iPhone right to build cool
things that improve our quality of life
that's the progress I'm kind of
referring to let me can I say that more
precisely yes well I think it's a it's
important to get this it's the time
place is right yes there was a
scientific revolution that partly
succeeded between about 1900 or late
1890s and into the 22 1930s 1940s and so
and maybe some as she stretched it into
the 1970s and the technology this was
the discovery of relativity and that
included a lot of developments of
electromagnetism the confirmation which
wasn't really well confirmed into the
20th century that matter was made of
items and the whole picture of nuclei
with electrons going around this is
early 20th century and then quantum
mechanics was from 1905 it took a long
time to develop to the late 1920s and
then it was basically in final form and
the basis of this partial revolution we
can come back to why it's only a partial
revolution is the basis of the
technologies you mentioned all of I mean
electrical technology was being
developed slowly with this and
there's a close relation between
development of electric electricity and
the electrification of cities in the
United States and Europe and so forth
and the development of the science the
size of the fundamental physics since
the early 1970s doesn't have a story
like that so far there's not a series of
triumphs and progresses and there's not
a there's not any practical application
so just to linger briefly on the early
20th century and the revolutions in
science that happened there what was the
method by which the scientific community
kept each other in check about when you
get something right when you get
something wrong is experimental
validation ultimately the final test
it's absolutely necessary and the key
things were all validated two key
predictions of quantum mechanics and of
the theory of electricity and magnetism
so before we talk about Einstein yeah
your new book before string theory
quantum mechanics song let's take a step
back at a higher level question what is
that you mentioned what is realism what
is anti realism and maybe why do you
find realism as you mentioned so
compelling realism is you is the belief
in the in an external world independent
of our existence our perception our
belief our knowledge a realist as a
physicist is somebody who believes that
there should be possible some completely
objective description of each and every
process at the fundamental level which
which describes and explains exactly
what happens and why it happens that
kind of implies that that system in a
realist view is the
terr monistic meaning there's no fuzzy
magic going on that you can never get to
the bottom you need to the bottom of
anything and perfectly describe it some
people would say that I'm not that
interested in determinism but I I could
live with the fundamental world which
which had some chance in it so do you
you said you could live with it but do
you think God plays dice in our universe
I think it's probably much worse than
that
in which direction I think that theories
can change and theories unchanged
without warning I think the future is
open
you mean the fundamental laws of physics
can change you okay we'll get there I
thought I thought we would be able to
find some solid ground but apparently
the ground is the entirety of it well
temporarily so probably okay let's uh
so realism is the idea that while the
ground is solid you can describe it
what's the role of the human being
our beautiful complex human mind in the
in realism do we have them are we just
another set of molecules connected
together in a clever way or the observer
does the observer
our human mind consciousness have a role
in this realism view of the physical
universe there's two ways there's two
questions you can be asking it does our
conscious mind do our perceptions play a
role in making things become in making
things really Epstein is becoming that's
question one question two is does this
we can call a naturalist view of the
world that is based on realism allow a
place to understand the existence of and
the nature of perceptions and
consciousness in mind and that's
question 2 question 2
I do think a lot about and my
and so wishes nine answers I hope so but
it certainly doesn't yet so what
question one I don't think so
but of course the answer to question one
depends on question two right so I'm not
up to question one yeah the question two
is the thing that you can kind of
struggle with at this time as what about
the anti-realists so what flavour what
are the different camps of anti-realist
that you've talked about I think it
would be nice if you can articulate for
the people for whom there is not a very
concrete real world as there's divisions
or there's a it's Messier then the
realist view of the universe what are
the different camps for the different
views I'm I'm not sure I'm a I'm a good
scholar and can talk about the different
camps and analyze it but some many of
the inventors of quantum physics were
not realest weren't I realist in there
are scholars they lived in a very
perilous time between the two world wars
and there were a lot of trends in
culture which were going that way but in
any case they said things like the
purpose of science is not to give an
objective realist description of
nature's it would be in our absence this
movie might be saying Niels Bohr the
purpose of science is as an extension of
our conversations with each other to
describe our interactions with nature
and we're free to invent and use terms
like particle or wave or a causality or
time or space if they're useful to us
and they carry some intuitive
implication but we shouldn't believe
that they actually have to do with what
nature would be like in our absence
which we have nothing to say about do
you find any aspect of that because you
kind of said that we human beings tell
stories defined aspects of that kind of
anti-realist view of Niels Bohr
compelling that were fundamentally are
storytellers and then
we create tools of space and time and
causality and whatever this fun quantum
mechanic stuff is to help us tell the
story of our world sure I just would
like to believe that is an aspiration
for the other thing driving being what
the the realist point of view do you
hope that the stories will eventually
lead us to discovering discovering the
real world as it is yeah
it's perfection possible by the way
though oh well that's you mean will we
ever get there and know that we're there
yeah exactly that's not mine that's for
people 5,000 years in the future we're
certainly nowhere near there yeah do you
think reality that exists our sight
outside of our mind do you think there's
a limit to our cognitive abilities is
again descendants of apes for just
biological systems is there a limit or
mind capability to actually understand
reality sort of there comes a point even
with the help of the tools of physics
that we just cannot grasp some
fundamental aspects of that again I
think that's the question for 5,000
years in the future I think though I
mean I think there is a universality
here I don't agree with David Deutsch
about everything but I admire the way he
put things in his last book and he
talked about the role of explanation and
he talked about the universality of
certain languages of the universality of
mathematics or of computing and so forth
and he believed that universality which
is something real which is it somehow
comes out of the fact that the symbolic
system of our mathematical system can
refer to itself and can every I forget
what that's called can reference back to
itself
and build in which he argued for a
universality of possibility for our
understanding whatever is out there but
I'm I admire that argument but I it
seems to me we're doing okay so far but
we'll have to see whether there is a
limit or not for now we got we got
plenty to play with yeah
you