Here's another case of synchronicity in my life...
I've heard of the claim that there is error-correcting computer code in physics...
e.g. 10:01 in "The Simulation Hypothesis" documentary:
https://youtu.be/pznWo8f020I?t=601
But I'd never found it convincing - not for a second. At the moment I can't recall any other example of evidence for something I believe in that I instantly reject for no clear reason...
Later I noticed this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznW...youtu.be&t=657
James Gates was asked about his belief in a simulation by Neil deGrasse Tyson... but then the video changes to another topic!
Then I was watching a two hour large-scale debate video and found this:
https://youtu.be/wgSZA3NPpBs?t=1933
32:13: James Gates said:
"This point about error correction is something that when people have - general public has looked at my work, they say, “Oh, you must believe in simulations.” And I’ve said, no, actually I don’t."
I guess my reason for not finding his finding convincing is that I think the simulation mainly involves machine/deep learning rather than mostly being computer code....
Last edited by excreationist; 09-12-2020 at 04:37 AM.
Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" was his criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, not QM itself which he contributed quite a bit to.
Just as "Schrodinger's cat" was Schrodinger's criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation, not his example of how QM works. Schrodinger was one of the primary founders of quantum mechanics and, like Einstein, didn't think much of the Copenhagen interpretation.
YouTube videos can be very helpful..
That one explained Einstein's beliefs....
Maxwell says the speed of light is a universal constant while Newton says that velocities are relative - "with respect to" something....
Another video for beginners was surprising - it is about something that can travel faster than light! (in water)
He understood entanglement quite well. It was the Copenhagen interpretation of what it meant that he had problems with... the same problems Schrodinger had, and many physicists today have, with the interpretation.
Pretty much the reason for the "shut up and do the math" method of working in QM.
Executive summary: He knew because Maxwell's equations told him so.
What I've heard is that for the forty-odd years before Einstein's "miracle year", physicists had been trying to wrap their collective minds around the mathematical difficulty of reconciling Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism with Newton's equations for motion. The general approach was to subconsciously assume Newton was a divine oracle, infer that Maxwell's equations were only an approximation, and therefore look for subtle differences between measurements and Maxwell's predictions, in order for physicists to get a handle on what modifications to Maxwell's equations would be needed to account for the discrepancies. This process culminated in the famous Michelson-Morley interferometry experiments, which should have been sensitive enough to detect the failure of Maxwell's equations to take into account the motion of the earth around the sun. But to the limit of accuracy Michelson and Morley could measure, Maxwell's predictions turned out to be spot on. This led to a flurry of activity by a lot of physicists, some trying to come up with even cleverer modifications to Maxwell, others trying to come up with clever modifications to Newton. Among those pursuing the latter approach, Einstein succeeded first. If Einstein had never lived, Poincare would allegedly have discovered special relativity within another year or two.