Simon Saunders talk (last part) / Q&A discussion

0:00 And I think the gerunds of the human being, if you had it at one time, you would see it all here. Actually, if you look at how that catches up to the human position, you wouldn't go anywhere. And I think that, particularly in the context of everywhere, we think the gerunds wouldn't go through. But if you went to the very start of the semester, one could see that, as I say, we collect together all of those qualities of the identical in some initial set. And that was essentially the whole of the scenario. I have a question to Mr. Weinstein. So, I think I understood that you made a link between causation and determinism. So, in a deterministic world, I can well understand how one can identify causes and then apply their time direction, which is, yeah, the hour. What's the relativity? There are a number of different fields of study in the field of mathematics and physics.

2:30 There are a number of different fields of study in the field of mathematics and physics. There are a number of different fields of study in the field of mathematics and physics. There are a number of different fields of study in the field of mathematics and physics. There are a number of different fields of study in the field of mathematics and physics.

5:00 I think that I think of that piggyback, the probabilities of what I would use in my paper. Simon, did you have a comment on this? No, it's a dead end. Okay. Then it was on, right? Question to Simon. I can... Can someone... You kind of assume, Levi, you're right, that theoretical, visionary metaphysics would be always dismissive against... It's like ordinary knowledge, ordinary language, because I think it looks like a very old part of the thing, and saying only atoms and void exist, for example, but then, if you really, of course, we always need some story, how, you know, if it works, how, say, you could heal it, you can not only find a way, say, then say pragmatically and so on, but you can also say radically, metaphysically, so in that case, it can empower. Would it be compatible with... No, but when you exceed that, it will...

7:30 I think models are a consideration. Your point is to kind of think here about... Well, the dress decided now. Maybe your rationale for this interpretation is that you want what started to do with... In other ordinary, small systems, you say, well, let us try to apply this, or whatever it says, to the universe as a whole, and now question arises, I mean, how do you get decoherence? What is doing the measurement of whatever you want to say? There's no reaction of the world within, beyond it. This, in my mind, is a very bizarre interpretation. I agree that I don't see how to deal with the universe as a whole, but I want to give an analogy here that comes from mathematics. In the 19th century, set theory arose. And until about the beginning of the 20th century, one produced the notion, for instance, of the power set of a set, the set of all subsets of a set and so on. And then people, you know, in campus then showed how this leads to a larger, to a... One of the large Italian algebras, the original one, and so on. But then, Russell applied the same margin as Cantor to the universe of sets, just like you apply, Ebert is applying, and he gets a contradiction, just like you're saying here, if you apply it to, if you apply it to what I do. So what is mathematician?

10:00 You can't take the power set of the universe because you're going to get a contradiction. You're pointing out a similar contradiction if you try to apply what happens to ordinary systems. Except it leads to this interpretation here. But I want to say that a similar thing has also happened in mathematics. Most people would say, look, you can't apply the power set axiom. The universe as a whole doesn't exist. But there are interpretations of new foundations where they do exactly the same sort of thing and they lead to exactly the same kind of bizarre situations. New foundations are full of paradoxicals. It exists and you can apply the same operations. I think exactly this happens. It may be bizarre. No, no, I'm not saying there's a contradiction. In this interpretation, I'm just saying, if you, just the opposite, if physicists normally do get a contradiction, what is there to apply to you as a whole? So I agree with you, there you have to be bizarre in mind. The only way to deal with it...

12:30 No, no, no, but because normally, normally what the physicist says about this given system has to be another one, not necessarily a measurement. However, for the universe as a whole, you don't have any... There's no need to distinguish. Within the history framework, there's no need to distinguish. That has its own problems because it's been shown to be inconsistent by several people. Yeah, certainly. No, I cannot... What is shown to be inconsistent is if you... The full theory was shown to be inconsistent, and then they say, well, we have to limit the inconsistent history. So it has its own problems. You can't act as if the original theory was inconsistent. Rather than focus on mathematical physics, I strongly disagree. We have five minutes. Rudd wasn't going. That's right, Rudd. I'm drawn not metaphysics. Unified metaphysics of everything. This fundamental theory of physics, a project that one should get over, and if you want to put it in perspectival terms, say that there is a common sense perspective on the world.

15:00 Quantum mechanics, the idea of a universal perspective, leads you basically mainly into, not that you don't get sometimes overlap, right, I mean, I would argue that in common sense, objects have intrinsic colors, the function also of their visual system, okay, but it's not as if we have to go around and knock people over the head and say, you know, are you wrong about this, that's not really brown, blah, blah, blah, right, no, that's crazy, okay, so anyhow, but the idea is... I see a lot of people refusing to answer these questions. Now, just a point, a point. GRW, a theory of GRW, it has a way of thinking. It has a way of thinking, and it has a full structure, but it has these trajectories as well, that for some people that makes it absolutely impossible to know. So that again, there is no other realist contender that I know of There's a lot of power in what I say is to properly work it out. Having touched on the quantum physics part, the physics should not concern itself with it.

17:30 In some cases, it's to take seriously. It's enormous, enormous. Are you rejecting what that means? Is this true? Out of order, out of line, taking on the challenge, shouldn't this apply to you? I think you're confusing two things. That something is possible, plausible, and something is the only possible solution. This is why everybody's reacting. You say, look, this is possible, this is plausible, this is real, and this is the only solution to come. No, it's not possible. I think that it's based on a misunderstanding. The reason is to take the wave function as the true fundamental, basic object of the problem. And this is a view that many people reject. How about my theory of GRW, even realism? We've really got to have it, because we can't carry on talking about this in public. GRW is not the structure in how it works.

20:00 We will have to have it. I can't address everything. Just a small point. So, in certain circumstances, I would be concerned to hear this move. One can and may well shouldn't, and should in various instances, everywhere, where no one else can, but I don't think it will ever, I think, in the face of that group, something that every particular theory, why, or... Yeah, just that I can't make it clear that it's not true. Well, can I just comment on that? I suppose, and I was not able to agree to it, a very...

22:30 Quantum mechanics in this correction is involved one or other, the whole thesis of the charity was really, I would tend to say, we had the wrong analysis, we had made a fantastic discovery, this description of that, and that we were using one or other in certain circumstances, and we focused on both psychology, we focused on biology, but hold on, I just want to say, all of that was real. And physicists followed that theory up until the failure, and up until delivering a lot of classical structure, and making it a subject in all of the families, and that hasn't happened, that hasn't happened. It's not for suspicion that all we can use a fundamental theory as classical in quantum mechanics. This is standard law, this is standard law. The first of these terms, the first of which I think is fantastic, is his book. Now that was a view I think that the problem was pulling out of that, which is he called themselves boring, neocritical papers, but they don't have that. Lying, denying the truth, that is a platform, it's a form.

25:00 I'm sorry, I have to cut this short, and I'll cut the whole discussion short, because we have to answer Hilary's question, because she's been waiting for so long. You're hot. You're hot. Well, Chris, it's your... So, thanks to my speakers again, and see you tomorrow at 9.30, as usual.