00:00:02
the name is wrong it's not artificial
00:00:04
intelligence intelligence would involve
00:00:07
Consciousness from the girdle argument
00:00:09
you see this is the plot which I think
00:00:11
has got lost now a computer is a very
00:00:13
specific kind of mathematical structure
00:00:16
it means computational mathematics it's
00:00:19
a very limited part of
00:00:22
mathematics I don't think they will ever
00:00:24
become conscious by virtue of being
00:00:27
computers in our current sense of the
00:00:29
word
00:00:30
but I think Consciousness it's not
00:00:33
computational that's still true with AI
00:00:36
you talk to an AI thing it doesn't know
00:00:37
what it's toing computers have got so
00:00:41
powerful that they've lost the thread of
00:00:44
what they're
00:00:45
doing I think the point has got
00:00:48
lost I think touring wasn't too far off
00:00:52
I I think people have lost the
00:00:55
plot few times you talk about the Nobel
00:00:58
Prize um we' back from Stockholm uh this
00:01:02
year we've been there
00:01:04
interviewing Nobel Prize winner don't
00:01:08
you think that this year Nobel Prize is
00:01:11
the tribute to the Nobel comedy for
00:01:15
artificial intelligence Nobel Prize
00:01:18
Nobel Prize and physx father for fathers
00:01:21
of of AI Nobel price in hemistry uh sir
00:01:26
Demis hassabis co-founder of deep mind
00:01:29
that's AI system David Baker computer
00:01:32
vision digitalization of proteins don't
00:01:36
you think there the tribute for AI I see
00:01:39
well you have to be careful first of all
00:01:42
the name is
00:01:43
wrong it's not artificial intelligence
00:01:47
it's not
00:01:48
intelligence intelligence would involve
00:01:51
Consciousness and I've always been a
00:01:54
strong promoter of the
00:01:57
idea that these devices is are not
00:02:00
conscious and they will not be be
00:02:02
conscious unless they bring in some
00:02:04
other ideas the comput they're not
00:02:07
they're all computable Notions but
00:02:09
intelligence it's not
00:02:11
Consciousness it depends on
00:02:14
Consciousness you see well it depends on
00:02:16
how you use the word I think when people
00:02:18
use the word intelligence they mean
00:02:21
something which is
00:02:23
conscious I mean that you see I
00:02:26
developed my own ideas after going to a
00:02:29
course course you see when I was a
00:02:31
graduate student in Cambridge I went to
00:02:34
three courses which were nothing to do
00:02:36
what I was supposed to be doing one was
00:02:39
by Bondi on general relativity one was
00:02:42
be dra on quantum mechanics the seem
00:02:46
wish very distinguished Paul D and the
00:02:50
third subject was on mathematical logic
00:02:54
and I learned about touring machines and
00:02:57
comput the notion of computability
00:03:00
and I know knew what computability meant
00:03:03
and I learned about girdle's theorem and
00:03:06
girdle's Theorem I found stunning
00:03:10
because it told you that there are
00:03:13
things that the
00:03:15
understanding transcends the use let me
00:03:19
put that more
00:03:20
clearly what girdle does it's very
00:03:22
clever what he does is to produce a
00:03:25
statement now suppose you you you're
00:03:27
trying to develop your mathematical
00:03:30
methods of proof what do you mean by
00:03:33
proving a theorem in mathematics how do
00:03:35
you know it's really true will you prove
00:03:37
it what does proof mean well you see
00:03:40
does it mean okay you've got a set of
00:03:42
rules and if you follow these rules that
00:03:45
makes it a proof now how do you know
00:03:48
these rules only give you truths well
00:03:51
you've looked at them carefully and you
00:03:52
say oh maybe AI create its own rules ah
00:03:56
no no you see have to be careful about
00:03:58
this this is the point but I I learned
00:04:00
from from Ste this is a man called Steen
00:04:03
who is a logician and I learned from him
00:04:06
this important thing about girdle's
00:04:09
theorem now girdle's theorem is
00:04:11
extremely clever you make a statement
00:04:15
which asserts that it's it cannot be
00:04:19
proved by these
00:04:20
rules it's just you the clever thing is
00:04:23
to make it do it it says you give your
00:04:26
rules which you regard as the rules of
00:04:29
proof proof and you could put them on a
00:04:31
computer so that mean they're
00:04:32
computational
00:04:34
rules now I knew that there were things
00:04:37
that you cannot put on a computer I
00:04:40
learned from this course that there are
00:04:43
non-computable things there are things
00:04:45
in mathematics which are not computable
00:04:48
now what does computable mean it means
00:04:51
that you can make a
00:04:53
computer well you have to Define what a
00:04:55
computer is and touring had one
00:04:57
definition of a computer there with
00:05:00
several other church and Curry other
00:05:03
people had their definitions of comput
00:05:06
they all turned out to be equivalent so
00:05:08
there is one universal notion of
00:05:11
computability which is what you mean by
00:05:14
what can be done by a computer maybe
00:05:16
this is only language problem that the
00:05:19
language development has not kept out
00:05:21
development of AI maybe we have just
00:05:23
only language problem that we cannot you
00:05:27
know describe what we create it no I
00:05:31
don't agree with that it's not a
00:05:33
language problem you see you make your
00:05:34
new language sure you can do that you
00:05:37
make your new language and that's what
00:05:39
you can do see let me describe the
00:05:41
girdle theorem how it works you see see
00:05:43
the girdle theorem says you construct a
00:05:45
statement which says you you see what it
00:05:50
means the way you've constructed the
00:05:52
sentence you can see what it means what
00:05:54
it means is I am not provable by those
00:05:58
rules
00:06:00
and it does that it really says that
00:06:03
then you see okay well is it perhaps it
00:06:06
is provable by the rules if it is
00:06:08
provable by the rules then it must be
00:06:10
true well I've said it the wrong way
00:06:12
around doesn't matter the other way
00:06:14
suppose it's false then that means it's
00:06:16
provable by the rules and if it's
00:06:18
provable by the rules you've understood
00:06:21
the rules you said you looked at them
00:06:22
all and say yes that's okay that's okay
00:06:24
that sure if you follow those rules it
00:06:26
is true so that means you believe
00:06:30
that the rules only give you truths so
00:06:33
therefore it is true that it's not
00:06:35
provable by the rules if it's false you
00:06:38
see then it is provable by the and
00:06:40
therefore it's true so it has to be true
00:06:42
and not provable by the rules I found
00:06:44
that amazing but still I don't
00:06:46
understand why AI cannot create its own
00:06:49
rules
00:06:52
because it doesn't know that they're
00:06:55
true you see that's the whole point
00:06:57
about the girdle theorem the whole point
00:07:00
as far as I'm concerned about the go
00:07:02
theorem is how do you transcend the
00:07:05
rules and that's what you do by
00:07:07
understanding them you understand them
00:07:10
why they're true it's not that you use
00:07:13
the rules but you understand why use of
00:07:15
the rules only gives you truths and
00:07:18
that's how you can prove things which go
00:07:20
beyond the rules by knowing why they're
00:07:24
true now knowing why they're true well
00:07:27
what does it mean what it means means
00:07:29
you understand them what does understand
00:07:32
mean you've got to be conscious of them
00:07:35
you see you the wording is clear it
00:07:39
means that you have to know what you're
00:07:41
doing you have to know why they're true
00:07:43
not that they're true you can be told
00:07:46
that they're true you can have you can
00:07:47
learn at school that they're true that's
00:07:49
not the point you have to know why
00:07:51
they're true why they're true needs
00:07:53
understanding them and understanding
00:07:55
them requires to being conscious of them
00:07:59
now that's require that you see the
00:08:01
point I was making is
00:08:05
that Consciousness enables you to
00:08:08
transcend the
00:08:10
rules you see why they're true and that
00:08:12
goes you beyond it you see what the
00:08:14
girdle theorum does it tells you how
00:08:19
to use your understanding of why the
00:08:22
rules are true to transcend the rules
00:08:25
you think that AI is the simple tool or
00:08:28
simple thing that we can use in the
00:08:30
single case no I don't say single it's
00:08:33
obviously infinite no clearly that's not
00:08:36
the
00:08:36
point the point is it doesn't know what
00:08:39
it's
00:08:39
doing that's still true with AI you talk
00:08:42
to an AI thing it doesn't know what it's
00:08:44
doing it has it speaks from experiences
00:08:47
if you like you see people have confused
00:08:49
the story the story is they've lost it
00:08:53
in the power of
00:08:54
computing the thing is that computers
00:08:56
have got so
00:08:57
powerful that they've lost lost the
00:09:00
thread of what they're doing they're
00:09:03
Computing do you regret it that it's so
00:09:06
power I well it's it's losing the
00:09:09
point you
00:09:12
see I think the point has got lost I
00:09:15
think touring wasn't too far off you see
00:09:17
he he was a little bit confused person
00:09:19
in way because he it was not clear what
00:09:22
he
00:09:24
believed but he did call this thing the
00:09:27
touring test how do you de decide
00:09:29
whether an entity is conscious or not
00:09:32
will you have a conversation with it you
00:09:35
talk to it maybe AI is a new sphere of
00:09:39
human existence no it's missing
00:09:44
something I think yeah that's the
00:09:46
trouble you see it's all I mean
00:09:49
obviously it has a role to play I'm not
00:09:50
going to say that clearly it has a role
00:09:52
to play it has a role but you must
00:09:54
mustn't be confused the fact that it has
00:09:57
a role to play it's to do with the power
00:09:59
of computation sure you computers have
00:10:02
got so powerful now that they can do
00:10:04
things Way Beyond what humans do in comp
00:10:07
Computing sure and you can take a mass
00:10:10
of data and you can analyze that data
00:10:14
and you can see what the data says and
00:10:17
does this thing in in accordance with
00:10:20
previous things in the data or is it not
00:10:23
and a that's all it does it doesn't
00:10:26
understand what it's
00:10:28
doing and and understanding is different
00:10:30
from Computing because inside a black
00:10:34
box there is just only statistic that's
00:10:38
this simple statistic
00:10:40
machine well if it's a machine it's not
00:10:43
conscious no I I think people have lost
00:10:46
the plot yes no that's true you see I
00:10:50
wrote my book The Emperor's New mind but
00:10:53
what does it mean that people lost the
00:10:54
plot yeah I think they've lost the plot
00:10:58
because
00:11:00
the whole point of my train of thought
00:11:02
was we've got to find something in
00:11:06
physics you see I believe I'm a
00:11:08
physicalist and that I believe whatever
00:11:11
is going on in our heads whatever
00:11:14
creates Consciousness is part of the
00:11:16
physical world I don't believe it magic
00:11:19
comes in from who knows what black boxs
00:11:21
it's also part of the physical rule but
00:11:24
what you mean by Black Box we know
00:11:25
what's at the input we know what's at
00:11:28
the output but we have no idea what's
00:11:31
deep inside that's the Black Box yes but
00:11:35
that's doesn't help because you don't
00:11:36
know what's inside what kind of physics
00:11:38
is inside that box maybe new physics yes
00:11:43
but new physics of a particular kind
00:11:46
what I'm claiming from the girdle
00:11:48
argument you see this is the plot which
00:11:50
I think has got lost what I claim is
00:11:53
saying that the physics that in is
00:11:57
involved in conscious thinking has to be
00:11:59
non-computable physics now the physics
00:12:02
we
00:12:03
know there's a little bit of a glitch
00:12:05
here because it's not completely clear
00:12:07
but as far as we can see the physics we
00:12:10
know is
00:12:12
computable you see uh what about general
00:12:15
relativity where we have wonderful
00:12:17
machines which compete what black holes
00:12:19
do when they spiral around each other
00:12:21
and produce gravitational wave signals
00:12:23
and you could say yeah yeah yeah that is
00:12:24
a black hole Collision because this has
00:12:27
this very clear feature yeah you can do
00:12:29
all that that is fine but that's not
00:12:34
what I'm talking about what I'm talking
00:12:36
about is the physics has to be a physics
00:12:39
which is in principle
00:12:42
non-computable so AI can blast his go
00:12:45
ahead as much as it likes it's not going
00:12:48
to be able to get this you talk about a
00:12:50
black box but you don't know what's in
00:12:52
that box is it a
00:12:54
computer is it a computer of the kind we
00:12:57
understand now is it something which
00:13:00
involves a physics which involves a
00:13:04
non-computable process not so far I'm
00:13:08
not saying that won't happen I dread it
00:13:11
because I don't want it to happen I
00:13:13
can't help it because I suspect it will
00:13:15
happen someday but it's not AI as we now
00:13:18
know it AI we as we now know it is
00:13:21
computer-driven
00:13:23
and that means it's not going
00:13:26
superhumans AI will never exist
00:13:30
what you trouble is that AI is a bad
00:13:32
term it means artificial
00:13:36
intelligence now intelligence in my view
00:13:39
is conscious that's what intelligence is
00:13:42
about okay so how I can call it
00:13:46
artificial um cleverness how about that
00:13:50
AC you can see the difference to some
00:13:54
extent when you do mathematical you have
00:13:56
mathematics students some of them
00:13:58
understand what they're doing some are
00:13:59
just clever they can they can repeat
00:14:02
what they've learned they know how to do
00:14:04
it very cleverly they can calculate very
00:14:06
well but they don't necessarily
00:14:08
understand what they're doing the the
00:14:10
physics we don't
00:14:12
know involves non-comp
00:14:15
computability so that's my claim so I
00:14:18
made this claim in the emperor's new
00:14:20
mind and I made it more a little bit
00:14:23
more forcefully in Shadows of the mind I
00:14:26
mean that maybe it's not the
00:14:28
consciousness maybe it's something
00:14:30
absolutely new maybe it's not a wordness
00:14:33
but that's there may be completely
00:14:35
unknowns which we have no concept of at
00:14:37
the moment that could be true I'm
00:14:40
talking about
00:14:43
things you see if you're talking about
00:14:47
AI that means unfortunately it's a bad
00:14:50
term because it says artificial
00:14:52
intelligence which to me what people use
00:14:56
that term they mean things that can be
00:14:58
done by by
00:15:00
computers that's what they
00:15:02
mean they have computers and their
00:15:04
computers are very powerful and then
00:15:08
what they mean by AI is using computers
00:15:13
it may not be using the Straight logical
00:15:15
way usually as I haven't studied these
00:15:18
things so I'm probably out of date but
00:15:21
but as far as I can see what it is is
00:15:24
you look at masses of data and then you
00:15:26
s look for patterns or you you try to
00:15:29
analyze it in that kind of way but it's
00:15:32
all computational you're using
00:15:35
computers but it's very nature it's
00:15:38
computational the word means
00:15:40
computational means by a computer now a
00:15:43
computer is a very specific kind of
00:15:45
mathematical structure it means
00:15:47
computational mathematics if you study
00:15:50
the mathematics as an abstract subject
00:15:53
you rapidly learn that there are things
00:15:56
Way Way Beyond
00:15:57
computability it's a very limited part
00:16:00
of mathematics some of the mathematics
00:16:03
is involved is not computable you can't
00:16:07
get at it by an algorithm now you see
00:16:09
people often think well AI doesn't use
00:16:12
algorithms because it's using sort of
00:16:15
random methods or something I don't know
00:16:17
I haven't studied in detail what AI
00:16:21
really Asser what is called AI really
00:16:25
involves when you put it on a computer
00:16:27
but it is being done by my computer so
00:16:30
it's still something computational no
00:16:32
question about that I'm claiming that
00:16:35
you want something non-computational now
00:16:37
you see people tend not to believe this
00:16:40
because they just think of computers and
00:16:42
they don't know there are non-computable
00:16:44
things if you study the mathematics
00:16:46
mathematical logic you see that there
00:16:48
are non-computable structures there are
00:16:51
could the logic the physics of the world
00:16:53
could easily be
00:16:54
non-computable and my view is that yes
00:16:56
it is non-computable
00:16:59
and that somehow Nature has been clever
00:17:01
enough to produce beings which can tap
00:17:05
into the non-computable aspect of the
00:17:07
physics and they managed to do this
00:17:11
using natural
00:17:12
selection I have no idea how far down
00:17:15
the animal kingdom and goes humans are
00:17:18
certainly conscious I believe anybody
00:17:21
who owns a dog is absolutely convinced
00:17:23
that dogs are conscious I believe it
00:17:25
cats probably elephants certainly
00:17:29
way down way way down probably octopus
00:17:32
is I'm
00:17:33
sure I don't know is a bacteria I'm
00:17:35
conscious I no idea is a is a a frog
00:17:40
conscious probably yes is a uh an amoeba
00:17:44
conscious I have no
00:17:47
idea I'm just speculating I've no real
00:17:50
reason for leaving these things but I
00:17:52
think
00:17:53
Consciousness is something
00:17:55
different it's not computational
00:17:59
and the thing is that it's just people
00:18:01
are so hypnotized I don't should use a
00:18:05
rude word like that really by the fact
00:18:07
that computers have got so powerful that
00:18:10
yeah there's the answer the computers
00:18:12
are so powerful we found the answer it's
00:18:15
just computers I'm saying no it's not
00:18:19
the answer is something much more deeper
00:18:22
than that it's not it's not more
00:18:24
complicated than that it's deeper than
00:18:26
that it involves a kind of physics which
00:18:28
we don't probably know yet it's deeper
00:18:32
because it's based on the quantum
00:18:35
world it's is beyond the quantum role
00:18:38
you see the quantum World Is Still
00:18:40
computable what's not computable in far
00:18:43
as we know what we don't there's a basic
00:18:46
unknown in Quantum world the quantum
00:18:49
theory is fundamentally
00:18:51
incomplete I call it even wrong in a
00:18:54
certain sense
00:18:56
because it believes that Quant
00:18:59
superpositions persists at all levels
00:19:01
maybe when we ever create the universal
00:19:05
quantum computer we can create a
00:19:08
synthetic
00:19:11
Consciousness
00:19:12
maybe yeah no I have nothing nothing
00:19:16
against the department for that I don't
00:19:17
like
00:19:18
it now I have
00:19:20
nothing um theoretically against that do
00:19:24
you agree with thate Nobel Prize
00:19:27
committee uh when you look at the Noble
00:19:30
in physics for father sopi I I haven't
00:19:34
looked at the details of it what I don't
00:19:36
know what they say for
00:19:40
fundamental
00:19:42
uh work
00:19:45
under synthetic neutral networks for
00:19:48
Jeffrey Hinton is it
00:19:52
physic I'd be rather doubtful whether
00:19:54
it's really
00:19:56
physics I'm not sure you see Nobel
00:19:59
prizes you might question some of their
00:20:02
decisions
00:20:04
sometimes I would question a few of them
00:20:07
maybe I would question this one I'm not
00:20:09
sure you I haven't I haven't looked at
00:20:10
it carefully it depends exactly what
00:20:13
they
00:20:14
say you see it's a technological advance
00:20:17
I would say it's probably making use
00:20:22
of I is it a theoretical advance or is
00:20:26
it's I don't think so is it but I mean
00:20:29
the Nobel committee normally doesn't
00:20:31
give the prize for purely
00:20:34
theoretical I mean it doesn't it does
00:20:37
you have to have a a physical
00:20:39
application of it yes now here I'm not
00:20:43
quite
00:20:46
sure I I'd have to see what the wording
00:20:48
is in the Nobel Prize to say whether I'm
00:20:51
happy with it or not I don't know my
00:20:53
question to is about this self-driving
00:20:55
car they are processing the thousand
00:20:58
hundreds of data maybe there is the
00:21:01
Consciousness there is the one of the
00:21:04
way of AI development that we are using
00:21:08
something like a digital sensus
00:21:11
collecting the numbers of data about the
00:21:14
reality around I don't think they're
00:21:17
conscious in any
00:21:18
sense but they could drive better than
00:21:21
humans that's possible I don't know what
00:21:24
the comparison is now um they certainly
00:21:27
make stupid ACD for time from time but
00:21:30
so do humans so so I I I it may be that
00:21:34
they become more reliable than humans
00:21:36
and that may not be too far off for all
00:21:38
I know I have no complaint about that I
00:21:41
don't think that's any indication that
00:21:43
they have
00:21:45
Consciousness after all we have uh
00:21:47
devices which
00:21:50
already turn off the lights at certain
00:21:52
times and maybe they know better when
00:21:54
the lights when it's getting dark and so
00:21:56
on or how to how to how how to economize
00:22:00
on on the on the use of electricity and
00:22:02
things like that how do you look at the
00:22:04
AI development and what's your
00:22:07
prediction about the future of AI see I
00:22:10
don't really know what AI does these
00:22:14
days you see so you're asking me a
00:22:17
question outside my area of expertise I
00:22:20
would say an area of expertise has to do
00:22:22
with whether these
00:22:25
devices actually do what we do I don't
00:22:28
think they do because they're not
00:22:30
conscious I don't think they will ever
00:22:32
become conscious by virtue of being
00:22:35
computers in our current sense of the
00:22:37
word I don't know if that's an answer to
00:22:40
your
00:22:41
question um it doesn't mean that they
00:22:44
won't be better than us the biggest risk
00:22:48
of AI development is I think there is a
00:22:50
risk involved here part of the risk is
00:22:54
people thinking that they're
00:22:56
actually that there is a conscious
00:22:58
they're conscious yes there might be an
00:23:01
even more of a risk if they were
00:23:03
conscious you see it maybe one could
00:23:05
understand what's involved in
00:23:07
Consciousness and developed some kind of
00:23:08
device I'm not calling it computer
00:23:11
because it in my view it would not be a
00:23:13
computer it would be something else some
00:23:15
device which is conscious and since I
00:23:18
believe Consciousness is a physical
00:23:21
process I don't think we understand it I
00:23:24
think it involves the collapse of the
00:23:26
wave function
00:23:28
that's partly a negative conclusion from
00:23:30
I don't see it anywhere else
00:23:34
um but the collapse of the wave function
00:23:36
is very
00:23:38
mysterious and involves certain
00:23:41
retrocausal things which are a little
00:23:43
bit
00:23:44
puzzling I think the way that time works
00:23:48
is not so clear when you're talking
00:23:50
about but there are certain
00:23:53
things which are in contradiction you
00:23:56
almost say with ordinary causality
00:23:59
it's not so much that they are it's that
00:24:02
you have to have different concepts of
00:24:04
what you mean by
00:24:06
reality and there are two concepts which
00:24:09
I've tried to separate from each other
00:24:11
one is classical reality and the other
00:24:13
is quantum reality now classical reality
00:24:16
is the sort of thing we normally talk
00:24:18
about we can touch we understand using
00:24:21
our senses but the main difference I'm
00:24:23
saying is you can ask the system say if
00:24:25
I I take this glass and I can ask the
00:24:28
glass I can say hello glass what shape
00:24:30
are you and don't do it that way but I
00:24:32
say okay what shape is the glass and I
00:24:34
say oh it's got a round top it's more
00:24:36
less cylindrical the classical it's
00:24:39
classical reality yeah now Quantum
00:24:41
reality is more
00:24:44
like well Einstein had a nice Criterion
00:24:48
but he didn't call it quantum reality
00:24:50
I'm calling it quantum reality this was
00:24:52
how do you know that the wave function
00:24:54
is real is the wave function of a
00:24:56
particle real or not
00:24:59
and a good example of this is the spin
00:25:02
of a spin half
00:25:04
particle now the spin of a spin half
00:25:07
particle is a Quantum thing now can you
00:25:10
ask the system hello hello system which
00:25:14
way are you
00:25:15
spinning it doesn't it looks at you
00:25:17
blankly and says I don't answer
00:25:19
questions like that ask me a different
00:25:21
kind of question please the right thing
00:25:23
to do is you say Okay particle is your
00:25:27
spin in that particular direction you
00:25:30
see the spin has an axis the way that
00:25:32
spin works for a spin half particle it
00:25:35
has a particular axis that's how you
00:25:37
describe the quantum state of a spin
00:25:39
half particle it has one particular
00:25:42
direction and it spins about that
00:25:43
direction now Can you ascertain that
00:25:46
direction no you can't it's Quantum
00:25:49
reality you cannot ascertain Quantum
00:25:52
reality you can only confirm it so I
00:25:54
like to use those two words ascertain I
00:25:57
can Asain Ain the shape of this glass
00:26:00
that's classical reality I can only
00:26:03
confirm Quantum reality I can if I think
00:26:07
I know which direction it's spinning I
00:26:09
said yeah I've got my calculation done I
00:26:11
said you've done this blah blah yes it's
00:26:13
probably by now spinning that way I say
00:26:15
hello State I think you're spinning that
00:26:18
way have I got you have I got it right
00:26:20
and if I have got it right it says yes
00:26:22
with certainty so that was Einstein's
00:26:25
Criterion so if you can confirm with
00:26:27
certainty
00:26:29
that it's then this gives you an element
00:26:32
of reality he called it an element of
00:26:33
reality I'm calling it an element of
00:26:36
quantum reality classical reality is the
00:26:39
other kind you can conf you can
00:26:40
ascertain classical reality you can only
00:26:43
confirm Quantum reality and you need
00:26:46
those two ideas and you need to separate
00:26:49
them and Quantum reality behaves very
00:26:52
peculiarly it actually behaves retr
00:26:55
causally what you might think there are
00:26:58
these experiments with I think you talk
00:27:01
about the Nobel Prize the one before
00:27:03
that one to Zing Ear and people about
00:27:08
these I think epr type experiments I
00:27:11
can't quite remember what they got it
00:27:12
for but it's something like that you
00:27:14
have these effects which seem to affect
00:27:16
the instantaneous you see you share a a
00:27:19
spin between Alice and Bob and Alice and
00:27:23
Bob originally have a spin zero and
00:27:26
their spins are opposite so if Alice's
00:27:29
spin is this way Bob's is this
00:27:31
way now suppose Alice measures her Spin
00:27:34
and she finds it to be that
00:27:36
way retr
00:27:39
causally along the past like cone so
00:27:42
it's not just simultaneous worse than
00:27:44
that it's into the past but not faster
00:27:48
than the light could go from this one to
00:27:50
this one so strange way around but retr
00:27:54
causally it becomes the opposite of
00:27:56
Alice's measurement Bob can't ascertain
00:27:59
it so he can't she can't send a signal
00:28:01
faster than light because he can only
00:28:03
confirm it he doesn't know which way it
00:28:06
is so you need that idea to make sense
00:28:10
of these epr Einstein pki Rosen type
00:28:14
experiments which I think would I'd have
00:28:16
to check exactly what the Nobel Prize
00:28:18
was the year before this one but I think
00:28:22
it was to do with that that's a very
00:28:24
important and fascinating Discovery but
00:28:27
to to understand what's going on I think
00:28:29
the best way to do it is using Quantum
00:28:32
reality and you you certainly can't send
00:28:35
a signal faster than light by these
00:28:38
means but you can
00:28:40
retrocausal backwards faster than light
00:28:43
or not as fast almost as fast as light
00:28:46
backwards if it's only Quantum reality
00:28:49
as long as we don't understand how
00:28:52
Quantum world work we cannot replace it
00:28:56
into I think it's not as bad as that you
00:28:58
see don't understand is
00:29:01
saying rather trying to put it into a
00:29:03
classical
00:29:04
perspective we can understand the
00:29:06
mathematics of it and we can get used to
00:29:08
it okay and that is involving an
00:29:12
understanding if somebody asks somebody
00:29:14
ask me a question I may not understand
00:29:16
it that well but I could do my best and
00:29:19
I might understand the quantum mechanics
00:29:21
well enough to give the answer that
00:29:23
quantum mechanics would say now that
00:29:25
means understanding sure it's an
00:29:27
understanding of what's going on you
00:29:30
there's this famous comment was it
00:29:31
nobody understands quantum mechanics was
00:29:34
that I I know
00:29:36
I I think I think it was bore yes no you
00:29:40
see I think that's
00:29:42
misleading you
00:29:44
see
00:29:46
understanding doesn't require it to be a
00:29:50
classical understanding we are
00:29:53
determined by the nature to understand
00:29:56
the classical world Quantum world is
00:29:59
indeterministic and it's
00:30:01
ununderstandable for our our mind a
00:30:04
little bit you need to use the formulas
00:30:07
to try to understand the quantum world I
00:30:09
think it's it's unfortunate to use the
00:30:11
word understanding in limited you can
00:30:14
say I don't know what word to use but
00:30:18
if understanding in the in the sort of
00:30:21
classical sense and that sure that fails
00:30:24
yes that does fail but it's not lack of
00:30:27
understanding you get the picture and
00:30:28
you can see oh yes I know how to make
00:30:31
the predictions in quantum mechanics
00:30:33
work and they can be quite yes no
00:30:35
predictions some of these predictions
00:30:37
don't have to be just probabilities so I
00:30:40
think the view is it gets sort of mixed
00:30:41
up with the idea oh you only know the
00:30:43
probabilities or something I think
00:30:45
that's
00:30:47
misleading these things are puzzling not
00:30:51
just because they're probabilistic they
00:30:53
are sometimes just probabilistic but
00:30:55
that's what makes them consistent by
00:30:57
having them only probabilistic but the
00:30:59
things which I find Most Fascinating
00:31:01
about quantum mechanics are not
00:31:03
probabilistic things they're like these
00:31:05
epr
00:31:06
effects sure it's probabilistic if you
00:31:09
ask somebody to to make a measurement
00:31:11
and it's only a Quantum reality that I
00:31:15
mean he's trying to make a classical
00:31:17
reality measurement he's only going to
00:31:19
get a probability as
00:31:21
answer I just think one has to separate
00:31:23
the
00:31:25
quantum reality from the classical
00:31:27
reality and and realize that the quantum
00:31:30
reality behaves differently yeah F but
00:31:33
it doesn't mean it's beyond
00:31:36
understanding I don't know if that's the
00:31:38
way people use the word understanding
00:31:40
often in that that way I think that's a
00:31:42
bit a bit misleading thank you very much
00:31:46
for your time right okay my pleasure no
00:31:49
it's been good fun thank you
