On the one hand you might say yes whatever
theories we have at a given time even if they're
our best established theories the best of
working with you know perhaps as some success
or theory which will have some other features
than the current theory we're looking at.
So that's one thing that we're being urged
to look at Jared. And it could be that in
whatever the success of theory is it's business
as normal with regard to the status of the
observer vis a vis the rest of reality something
like a return to classical physics. Well maybe
but the question is on what basis do we make
that judgment. And it doesn't seem to me that
things need be like that. Maybe it'd be nice
if there was hope but maybe maybe we can actually
be more excited by what. If you look at the
content of many general claims you take the
whole Given quantum mechanics as predictive
success that in fact a more natural thing
to think is that there isn't any more fundamental
microscopically non very complete theory to
be had. What do I mean by that. We have the
process of looking at the general claims made
by quantum mechanics looking at the confirmed
experimental predictions formulating a yet
more general theoretical scheme in which these
can be embedded and explained and then drawing
conclusions about what further kinds of theories
could possibly produce the results that we've
seen in experiments. These are called no go
theorems and no go experiments in quantum
theory. What you're trying to pin down not
features of quantum mechanics itself but features
of what the world itself needs to be like
in virtue of the predictions of quantum mechanics
being confirmed experimentally. And it seems
to me that the outputs of these theoretical
and experimental results is in many ways very
naturally explained by saying there isn't
a fundamental complete completion. There isn't
a fundamental set of laws at the microscopic
level describing everything which behave in
much the way that physics tradition is taken
to do. And what's the problem with that. So
I want to ask you here why the insistence
for for this atavistic notion of the underlying
physics. Well.
I find that all alternatives are much worse.
So I think the best of all possible worlds
that I can imagine will be a completely deterministic
one. And once you say part of deterministic
then you fail completely then you say okay
deterministic but in Belle's famous Gordon
can experiment Bob and I still have the free
will to choose that orientations. Then I say
wait a minute now you're violating something
and now you're putting yourself in a difficult
position. And if you look very carefully at
the mathematics I claim that bell didn't have
his definition of causality correct. So causality
to him means that the future will not affect
the past but of the past will affect the future.
That sounds reasonable but it isn't in our
models. Yes but in the world as soon as you
change anything in the present you must have
had that preceded by change in the past. Otherwise
a change couldn't have happened. So that the
problem the Bellas was struggling with was
that he didn't want to change the past but
he did want to change the decisions that Bob
that is made to measure something that is
forbidden and that itself is a very strange
thing. That that makes it very hard for us
to make models that show that show Bell salt
because his arguments those models are impossible
and I can know we haven't such hard enough
but I don't think they're impossible.
So you want to say that quantum mechanics
may have appeared to its discoverers and the
generation of science offered to involve this
sort of randomness if you like but you think
they just need to peel back that layer and
underneath there will be some rules which
are deterministic which are like rules up
here.
You have to actively search for that if you
don't do that you'll never know. You never
do such a thing. For instance you you've got
string theory which thinks he is also fundamentally
quantum mechanical. So this is why I have
a daft also for string theory. Well you're
not. Yes they are. They're not there yet.
Yet by a long.
