Perspective relational quantum theory / Q&A discussion / Peter beim Graben: Classicality in QM (1st part)

0:00 Thank you for your attention. Our first speaker this morning is Carlo Rovelli, who is going to take perspective as included. Okay. First, thank you very much for protecting this ground, you know, for using the language for such important lectures. I want to present some ideas which are not more popular than most of what... From the work I did about 15 years ago, but mostly I will talk about what was in that paper. I wrote a paper 15 years ago, almost never talked about that, but I did not follow up much.

2:30 And the final part that I'd like to end up with is this idea. Witten has been an increasing, I mean, not in the paper, not in red, but basically in red, but Witten has been an increasing knowledge system in the federal field system for the field lab, which I mentioned at the end. But I think it used to mean some sort of... What is this about? This is about a suggestion on a possible way in which a function is happening and it might be a bit more meaningful to get rid of that happening aspect by adding some But the way it might be that this is happening is that I'm using some notion which is not a portrait. And the notion that I want to take away, just as it is, is the notion of absolute state of the system, or absolute means of subservient independence, or equivalently, I will say equivalently, absolute value of physical quantity, or of subservience.

5:00 The idea here is that quantum mechanics is the outcome of more than semi-turnouts, so what I'm suggesting here is that, from the perspective of the meeting here, this is the moment I would say that I want to take away from the turbo-independence phase of the system, that means that what remains is the turbo-dependence. So what remains is obviously a theory. For an Italian like me, it was necessary to start talking about this text if you think about Piero e Francesca, the most Italian painting of the Renaissance. It was very significant that at the time there was no sort of treaty about this text. The first treaty was this text to be corrected. This is one of his more recent paintings. This is just an analogy, nothing more than an analogy. This is one of his best known paintings and famous not only for his beauty but for the art of his perspective.

7:30 I remember being in high school and my art teacher explaining to me that this is perspective so well worked out here that you can actually find out the true story about it. And this is a true story, mainly this is the... I remember sitting in my desk and thinking, well, okay, this is the view of the scene. Why is this a true story? This is just another perspective of it. But if this is a perspective, a scene from here, a scene from above, where is the real thing in that particular case? This is not like in that film. Well, in that particular case, the reason is... Now, let me go to a bigger analogy. It's still an analogy, which I'm well aware of, but that's sort of a motivating, or an inspiring analogy. I could say a bit properly that what Einstein did, especially when he was pregnant in 1919, but the equation belongs to him, so what did he do later on? Nothing.

10:00 So what did he do? He took this equation, he provided it to him, so how did he do that? Not by explaining the physics we find in Rollins' translation, which is what several people were trying to figure out. Even Rollins himself was trying to figure out the meaning of the term contraction in terms of some physical mechanism that would explain why an object moving fast becomes short. Rollins was working on this idea, but had some electromagnetic interactions. That actually single atoms of the body are made shorter when the body moves faster. Lawrence was really not doubtful about that, but again, it didn't turn out to be the most effective way of happening in the universe. All of this was not to explain, somehow, an additional story, but to take away something from the thing. What Icon says in his writing of our paper is, look, there's always confusion about the invariant and the non-variant. This confusion goes away when you stop saying things about us. Convince yourself of using a certain idea. This certain idea forces the fact that you won't happen every time. The fact that you would give the same, same, same, same... A meaning independent from any, that you can be with a meaning, but only if you refer to a certain body of events. Take away from your way, take away from your attention the idea that there is any kind, God's view of the now of the universe, and suddenly, especially with the king.

12:30 So with all the view differences, my suggestion here is that perhaps quantum mechanics shouldn't have this thought. We want to be seeing at the moment an idea with some extra physics that produces the kind of things that we want to be able to do, but have not got the right direction to go past the direction that we want to be able to achieve in the effective era. Okay, let me get close to the main story. Before starting the main argument, I want to give three definitions. Because I'll use the measurement, but everybody uses this one. I want to do it many times. Otherwise, and the way I use these three words is by measurement, please just pay attention to the three definitions, otherwise they're not there. By measurement, I mean the following thing. There's a physical system, S. So there's a physical system, S. And there's another physical system, O. And there's an interaction. During the interaction, the interaction affects the system. If you look in particular at O, look how O is affected. And of course the way O is affected, the interaction depends on the particular state in which it is.

15:00 In particular it will depend on some variable, x, the variable x. And the variable x will take a value, say the value a, little a equals the quantity x. When all this happens, I say that there is a measurement and that the variable x is measured and the value a is the absolute solution. So notice here that there is no need of a record, there is no need of a point, there is no need of something, there is nothing like that, and here this is a particular, if there is a record, if there is a function, if there is a man looking at my outcome, then we are still in that, but that's another issue. So here is an example, S is a particle, hole is a screen, the particle moves around, X is the position of the particle. The particle hits the screen and has an effect on the screen, maybe just bounces or moves. Of course, the effect depends on where the particle is. It depends on the position. If the impact is in position A, I would say that the case of the screen has made the particle in the position of the particle. Now, accordingly, all I could observe in that case. For an observer, there is no connotation whatsoever of humanity, consciousness, complexity, meaning anibus, or anything of the sort, just anything in the system. Now you can ask, why do you use a word so charged, like observer, in context? Because, first because, and second because of special relativity, again, special relativity, we constantly use the word, in fact, not just special relativity, but linear relativity, we say that velocity is non... And of course the observer can be a stone, can be a table, can be any object. The observer has no connotation of a tablet, is moving a certain velocity of my hand, a certain velocity of the table, the table moves.

17:30 And finally, information, I'm sorry, a couple of days ago there was a reaction to information. Oh, I have to apologize, but I use information tackling this Shannon level with the most basic, I mean, my only, so information here is defined as 49 degrees by Shannon, just as the number of different states in which a system can be when the system is reached, the fact that it is in one position carries the weight. More precisely, I will use the information, relative information, which is also defined in the same way by Shannon, communication, and it defines one end as information about the other end, where the possible states in which two variables of the communication channels are related. You have something here, and something here, and something here, and if you know that this is up, this is up, this is down, this is down, then you say that this system here has information. There is nothing to do with observing. We use information to store information and that will be sort of the thing kind of... Every time you have an idus, a consciousness, humanity, a man or a woman, who use information or make an observation around something so much more astute, much higher level than it, down below there is still this... You cannot have information...

20:00 Unless there is some sort of correlation, it may be complicated. So this is a sort of a ground-level physical story behind, underlying, whatever I'm going to describe. All this was preliminary. It took too much time. Let me go to my main album. The main album is this one. So here we can get to the core of this stuff. The other quantum system. So this is a quantum system. I didn't know how to draw a quantum system. So I had little spiny animals and... Yeah, well, so this is a way of two electrons, one electron moving or it could be anything. It's just a system. And you want to study this system, so some experimenter, some physicist, or the student who wants to study this, can make a measurement in the sense of whatever sense you want. So this is an experiment in making a measurement. Now, I will use, I will describe this using quantum mechanics. And by quantum mechanics, I mean sound effects and quantum mechanics. I'm a student at Stanford University. I take the direct moves of quantum mechanics. I just use Ines Yaro and quantum mechanics. So I just write it the way it happens and describe it as a physics movement. So what physicists would do, would say attach to this S the Hilbert space, etc, etc. The quantity measured with this X will have some eigenvalues, let's say AB, some eigenvectors AB, and if the state is in a superposition, then the variable will be measured. Only one of the eigenvalues will be measured, not the middle of the two. And so, at the moment of the measurement, the value will have the value A.

22:30 And so there is a fact that has happened, there is an event, something in the universe, and in particular if I want then to use the state, to use this information, I know that I will have to think, to associate with the system S, a quantum state, which is, I'll get back to that. For the moment, just think with a microphone. So this is the situation. Now, I want to look at this from a particular point of view. And I want to think, and this is for me the core of the mystery of quantum mechanics, I want you to think that this allure and freedom moving the cat, I want you to think that this is a physical system, so I mean the system energy, and that can be studied by somebody else who actually studies the whole system, and that's quantum mechanics. And again, I think my... Monsieur, mademoiselle Ginette can also study the Iraq and can to describe what happens here. So what is, what is she doing? Well, she will take the Hilbert space with the tensor product between a Hilbert space associated to S and a C, and she will say, well, she's not measuring anything at time t1, she's going to measure something at a later time, maybe on the basis

25:00 And she's going to say that one way of an interaction between the two, and this interaction would be described as a linear evolution with Hamiltonian or something. And since there is an effect on all the dependent variables, there will be a correlation happening, and I just call OX, which is two values, OA, OB, the point invariant of this revolution. And of course, since she hasn't done any measurement at time t1, at time t1, after time t1... The variable this is a state, and the variable x has no value, and the fact, whatever, the fact A, the fact of the state, has no value. So, my discussion is about the relationship between these two descriptions of this event in just one. One story happening in a kind of standard text, in part, in a laboratory, allows the question which one of the two is correct. I want to remind you that they're both correct in the sense that quantum mechanics forces accept both of them and therefore to say that both as an observer and both prime as an observer necessarily give different accounts of the same sequence of events. Not only give a different attribution of states, but give a different value to one. Everybody in one case and the other case, or there's a different set of facts that have happened in the description you can associate with.

27:30 Of course, I'm not the only one who has made this observation. Simon has, Hilbert has, many other people. Now, let me articulate a little bit better. So, why do I... suppose... let me go a step ahead. First, let me come to Simon's question. What about all? Is all here macroscopic, or is all... One possibility for avoiding this sort of stabbing of the story is to say, well, it depends. One story is correct if the core is microscopic, the other story is correct if the core is macroscopic. This might be, of course, but I want to discard it. I want to assume that quantum mechanics, as technical, as it is, is a correctness feature for small or large... If you think that quantum mechanics only applies to modeling, then in a sense they're not common. But quantum mechanics is the best, after a century, it's not a serious matter. It's the best principle, framework. So the question I'm asking is whether we can use it to make sense of the world altogether, including quantum mechanics. If so, then O'Prime is forced. Then they say it has to be correct also for O or S whether O is microscopic or non-microscopic. So, therefore, I discard any interpretation of quantum mechanics in which small things are more logical and correct. Now, one possible point of view. All right. This is the correct solution. So the oldest thing chose the correct one. Could this be the solution? Of course, no. Because if the fact A has happened, then according to quantum mechanics, no interference effect between two branches can be measured.

30:00 If one of the data is that A has happened, then this disappears and there is no interference. Quantum mechanics tells me that in principle, time can measure interference. So, if I think that the theory is correct, it could not be that the fact A has happened. In giving the prediction of the, of the, you could say yes, but there's a difference. So these effects are very small. And so what? Since something is small, then that's the thing. Well, suppose that the woman here, the scientist, has enough money and enough intelligence and enough capacity to measure very small things. Is she going to measure them or not? Either one or the other. So if she's going to measure them... Then, even if they are very small, with all the decorum of the world, she's going to measure them, and therefore there's a contradiction in quantum mechanics, right, which would be the fact that A didn't happen. She's not going to measure them, so it could not be that this, that the first one is this, that this is the right description, so therefore this is the right description, okay? It's not one or the other. Now we have no contradictions there. Now the story is perfectly clean and clear. But look, if the fact A has not happened, then anything that O will measure... I can look at it from the point of view of a third observer outside and say that does not happen either. So nothing has happened. No value has ever been defined. No fact ever happened. If we think from outside, we take away all. Now quantum mechanics is not about this. Quantum mechanics is about this. Unless they are there somewhere, we don't have a theory.

32:30 So let me just get to the final point. Let me say that I made two assumptions here. One, that the position of quantum theory are correct, and second, that observers are no special systems. One of these reports is, I want to claim that this observation point, the quantum theory distance survey, may be the case. Now if this happens, then if the observer gives the same account, the same sequence of events, it means that the accounts are relative to the observer. It means that the fact that something has happened is just true or not really dependent on the fact that A has happened, A has not happened. This could very well be if, for instance, we say, well, this is just a description of what one or the other could see. Behind that, there is a true story, a sort of observer-independent that is not hidden by the field. This is a well-known thesis. The theory is incomplete. There is a missing story here. Hidden particles, Bohm, nothing wrong in searching for these quantum mechanics. But on empirical grounds, on experimental grounds, there is no indication whatsoever that the theory is incomplete. On philosophical grounds, one can say, look, I don't accept the idea that there is no underlying picture of the world.

35:00 So therefore, I'm not having this story. I have to add something to it. But I want to suggest that, this is my take, that we should not, you know, the starting point of all the discussion was, look, maybe like in special relativity, we are not, we are not, we are not confused because there is a system, we are confused because there is a prejudice in looking about gravity, if you can get rid of this prejudice, my suggestion is that what we have to do is to take the sort of most effective physical theory that we have and give us a suggestion in the way... So therefore, I want to make a third assumption, which is complete, and I want to say that, okay, this is the complete description of the world. Quantum mechanics is a complete and self-consistent scheme, in the normal terms I'm not sure I'm understanding it correctly, but described in the physical world, which is fully appropriate, of course, it's not the final, you know, it's not the final, but at the... At the present level of empirical knowledge, as far as we have studied the world so far, it's really a problem. It works very well, but I think it's complete. If so, then quantum mechanics is a thing about this picture of the physical system relative to other systems, and this is a completely different picture of the world. The thing is, I want to thank you, but there is no contradiction. There isn't any contradiction. You can have a complete understanding of the world, which is limited to the way... In the same sense, but in a much wider context, in which you can have a perfectly consistent picture of the world, in which velocity is meaningful, only relative to another observer, only relative to the system at the end, you cannot say anything about the true velocity of a phenomenon, right? Objection to the linear. Unless you tell me what is the real, real...

37:30 As you tell me what you do, it doesn't make any sense. I don't understand. Forget about it. Forget about the real, real. If you want, you can add it. You don't need this ensemble picture for this webinar. Will you believe me if we take this seriously for a moment? There is an immediate reaction. You've just taken more quantum mechanics. If you recur it to one observer, which is... And if you multiply it by infinity, you multiply it by the number of systems, every system observes with respect to the rest. Okay, to do that, you have to have a sort of solid system view of each system, who has its own perspective on the world, and where is the coherence, like the monads with their own. Can this monad, can this system talk to one another? Is there anything in common between what is real quantum science and what is the core of quantum mechanics? The answer is no and yes. If you want to construct a picture, the variable x of the value a and also the variable of the value a doesn't work.

40:00 It doesn't work, and that's the picture of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the relations are different. Because, very simply, all of the prime can talk. Jeannette, the physicist, and Monsieur Dupont, the physicist, they can communicate. In particular, they can check one another and one can measure the quantum variable of the other. Mainly, Jeannette can say, hey, Monsieur Dupont, why are you measuring? Why? They can communicate. But the communication is a physical interaction. And a physical interaction is quantum mechanical in nature. Physical interaction between observers is quantum mechanical. In other words, imagine that O'Kline makes at a later time a measurement which is asking all, what are the measures? So in particular what he can do is make... Now, suppose we get the answer OA. Now, the reason of the effectiveness of the answer is the fact that if O time does so, and then measure the value X itself, or vice versa, measure the value X itself and then measure the point of value, she gets consistency.

42:30 If you measure OB, say, then you project on the state here, so therefore you assume you measure B. So, if I ask Cronon, what color is that chair? He'd say blue. And then I look at the chair, it's blue. Okay, ah, okay. There is intersubjectivity here. The system S is, in fact, in the state A or in the state B after the measurement. Observer, whom you're capable of talking to one another. This makes perfect sense because quantum mechanics provided that you remember that from the perspective of O' the choice between the two doesn't happen in the moment in which the interaction happens, but happens only in the second one, when O' is interacting. In one case, the S becomes rather blue for O at a premium. It's an eigenstate of some operator O'. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You can construct an operator which measures the position of the pointed iron. This brings me to some important observation. That O' can ask critical questions. I can ask you, I can know what is your sign, or I can know that you know what is your sign without knowing your sign.

45:00 So O' knows that O knows about S without knowing what O knows about S. We can know that O knows about S without any particular value assignment of the variable X and B. In particular, you can define an operator M which projects on the correlated state here. This is an operator with a tensor in the Hilbert space of the OS, which is a projection operator, so it has two eigenvalues, 1 and 0. And the eigenvalue 1 obviously corresponds to the fact that there is a correlation between them. So from the point of view of M prime, of O prime, if the OS system is in the Egen space of M, this means that a measurement has happened. If low value attribution, which means that there is a perfectly coherent story about O knowing about S, I've been using this slogan here, if O knows about S, knowledge has the connotation of O. High-level connotations, but beyond the physics is the same sentence. It means that there's a correlation between some variable here and some variable here, and that the correlation is a testable with an operational meaning to say if there's a correlation or not, which is just that O' can just measure this operator here and see whether it would be having value of one or not. So the fact that the pointed variable that we know has information about S as measure Q is expressed from the applying perspective, but this is a correlation theory. So the existence of this correlation is a measure of properties. This is what I just said. Now, this sort of correlation is exactly what channels can be measured.

47:30 So in this sense, in a specific sense, this is what I meant in that example. Physics is just a theme of the relative information that systems have about one another, where here information is precise. This means that physics is only that. You cannot talk about the absolute state of the world, the absolute state of affairs, you can only state the state, talk about the state of affairs with respect to some of them. Within each perspective, it makes perfectly sense to say that any such system has information about something else. Because information, in the sense of Shannon, is what is captured by this correlation with correlation with nature. So there is a consistency between sort of the internal knowledge of nature and the internal knowledge of life, if I can know it this way. Maybe I can skip this. During a discussion with that in Paris, in fact, Guido and Simon Sonnes raised an objection, which is in the Pinterest version. Let's summarize here. Suppose all measures S and O'Kline measure the same variable and obtains a difference on a different number. Nothing prevents that. How can you get rid of this? Now, the answer here is simple, and it takes once more out the core of the matter. This is meaningless if you accept the premise I'm suggesting. Because you cannot make two perspectives, you cannot just take two perspectives and bring them together and sum them. The rules of the game don't do that. It's like saying that in reality is this happening first or is this happening first? There's no reality to that. You can say this happens first or this happens first with respect to some standard law. So if you bring in a certain, if you bring in another observer, which can be all or a private self, you have to choose one of the two, then this question makes sense, and you can ask whether this is possible, and then quantum mechanics tells you that this is not possible, because this is exactly the moment that this is possible. So this is the conclusion of quantum mechanics. I'll use my last few minutes.

50:00 The main conclusion of quantum mechanics is the genetic formalization of experimental studies that factor relative to observers that you can ignore as soon as you get out, get towards the small hd. As soon as you describe things with a big respect to the Planck act of processes. Long list of things that I wanted to discuss, but I don't have time anymore, so I'll just... Okay, so let's do one minute for each one of them. More like 50 seconds. 50 seconds for each one of them. Basically, I'll give you a list of titles just to let you know that something has happened. The first one, in the paper there's much more. There's much more. There's a long technical part. So the dream was to follow. Einstein not only provided the... but it was so rhetorically effective in doing so because he used a fantastic strategy. He said, look, let me write down some simple facts about the world from which the formalism of the knowledge of nature, which I thought was not mathematical, then I have understood the knowledge of nature.

52:30 In the paper, there's a long attempt of reconstructing quantum mechanics on the basis of simple postulates, such as this one, where the maximum amount of credit information that can be extracted from the system is always possible to acquire new information about the system, which is not in contradiction with the first one, which is irrelevant. So when you acquire new information, some old information starts to be relevant. Relevant here means such that it affects, it allows me to predict something about the future outcome. So, the way this was done is very similar to the kind of thing that Simon Cotten does, so the yes-no questions corresponding to the interaction with the system form a Boolean algebra, the combination of But since information can be erased, then there could be different Boolean algebras, and what I assume is that there are probably conditional probabilities between this and this, and by just looking at these probabilities and cheating and adding some stuff, we could... Now, Alexey did that much better than me in a much more precise way later on, but there is always the need of those. Let me skip this, even though I know this. Also, use one minute for EPR. Where is the problem for EPR from this point of view? It's very simple. If you want to see that mathematics is violated at your local level, you have to say, space assimilation, you have to say that something happens here and something happens here. You have to bring them together, but if you have an observer here and an observer here, they are two different observers. From the point of view of this observer here, nothing happens here. It's just a parallel. From the point of view of this observer here, nothing happens here, including with respect. Can you bring them together? Of course. Just wait for them to come together. Or you will have another one who will later time interact with the two. But then the very qualities are violated, fine, but not the space-time separation.

55:00 Only the moment in which they come together. It's so simple as that. Van Trassen had a postulate, and Michel Bigelow has a very interesting comment about that, but I'll pass that in my letter. This is a wide speculation. So this is the conclusion. Quantum mechanics, I would suggest, is the experimental discovery of the task of an ethical study. In the silent space, when I go back, when I'm at 20 minutes, when I'm at 20 minutes, when I'm at 20 minutes, when I'm at 20 minutes, when I'm at 20 minutes, when I'm at 20 minutes, when I'm at 20 minutes, And let's just look at the interactions, so we don't have to worry too much about position and so on. And one observes the other in this case. In that case, say if there is a decomposition, and to put in an extra thing,

57:30 say that given the Schmidt decomposition, which is a sort of canonical object that comes out of quantum mechanics. You then put in the extra one that you say that it actually has one of the states that's given in the polar decompositions, that's the proton and the correlated one, the electron. Putting that in gives you a way of generalizing observations, so it's replaced by a general one saying there's always sort of decoherence happening at every instant. And so on. And it also tells you, not only what happens at the screen, but what happens all along. It gives you a sort of twinkling of the spin of the system being measured as it moves along. That was one possible solution to have a preferred basis like this. You take that away, and then my question here is, in an experiment, before you get, you don't want to talk about decoherence and what happens in two microscopic systems. What is being observed and correlated in that case? Yeah, I'm not sure I'm capable to answer it completely. In fact, I'm not. I traveled a lot with the bioproblems before I ended up discarding it completely for reasons that I think are the ones that, in all physical situations, seem to me to be an extra... In theory, that seems to be very reasonable in some cases, but not in other cases. Not to mention the fact that there are degenerate cases. Not to mention the fact that there are degenerate situations which are not defined. My problem was with the crisis, the rise and so on. I think there are a number of problems with it. But what is the solution?

1:00:00 There is no interaction, there is no value assignment of what we all have to do today, there is nothing happening. If there is an interaction, then the way one system is affected by the other depends on some quantity of the other, which is coded in the interaction of the economy. And so the system is measuring... So the answer to that would be just take your Copenhagen and treat the observer system as if it is a bore apparatus, measuring the other one. The down, well, if there's a spin-spin interaction, there is a spin. So it will see the spin up or see the spin down. But in which direction? That's the whole problem. If you take the, by taking the polar decomposition, if I take away, I'm taking away the direction. No, let me go all the way to the back. I'm just trying to move around. Everybody's hands get up at the same time. If I assume that you are not a student, so that means that you are an underlying student of the end, so the sequence of events changes as far as the understanding of how to communicate is concerned, how to communicate, so it's always been the same, the backwards-like process, so, but, as I said, the sequence of events has better meaning.

1:02:30 Yes, yes, very good. In fact, it reveals that the strategy I used to present this was a sort of... I mean, I started from a realistic description. I took the point of view of God, somehow, to give you a realistic description of that. And then I showed that it doesn't work. So, in a sense, what I'm saying is that this same sequence of events I was talking at the beginning doesn't exist. You're right. I mean, at the end of the day, what the point has started from is meaningless. I agree. What remains is meaningful. So there's a perspective of hope, there's a perspective of hope for time. They're both consistent. And there's a nice way they can communicate. And that's the only way. I'm saying that from... What is my perspective when I'm saying that? It's... Yes, exactly. A long time ago. I think I have a question that's actually related to something. If you go back to, I don't know if it was the third or fourth slide, where you had alpha A plus theta B, arrow A to alpha A. Write down alpha a plus b plus b, or a, but alpha a plus b plus b is, after all, identically equal to gamma c plus delta d plus the whole infinity of other expressions of the same form.

1:05:00 I mean, you say the variable x has the value a because you've written it down, but, I mean, you know, you could have written it down the exact same. The left-hand side is expressed differently, so what proves out the A as opposed to the C or the D or the S or the G? I'm just saying, this is just short information. Sure, sure, sure. This is at the silent. Using here standard effects with quantum mechanics. Standard effects with quantum mechanics tells me that if I am, if I am old and I make a measurement on old time, I have an apparatus. There are many different types of equations which interact with this, such that the final effect on the apparatus, the pointer variable, depends on a variable x of the system. Then I'm measuring the variable x and I'm projecting on one of the eigenvectors of the subjunctive matrix. So it's the interaction that determines, it's the physical interaction that determines. All that depends on the theory. Well, all this talk about if I have one system, making an interaction between the other two, I mean, all that is... If you add something about the mathematics of the ancient and the engineering, it's not only quantum mechanics, which is just what you're talking about. Oh, very good, very good, very good. So here you're defining quantum mechanics. You're using a definition of quantum mechanics, which is a unique resolution of the universe. I don't believe... This is a useful way of viewing quantum mechanics. I believe that the useful way of viewing quantum mechanics is not this one, but rather the one that you find in the book of Tilak, of Inesia, of all the people who write textbooks on quantum mechanics, which is that quantum mechanics is, first of all, the structure of the projection postulate, and also the state. For me, the state is just the... Let me say this because... The state... What is the state? I've just skipped over the construction. The state is not a physical thing. It's just a device, so a mental, technical device for coding the result of... I interact with the system a number of times, and I've seen it spin up, so therefore I write this piece of paper saying, oh, I have some knowledge about the system, so I know that it evolves, so it's burning, or whatever, so I know the evolution.

1:07:30 That is just some knowledge of my previous interactions. There is no reality in the state at all. The reality is the outcome. From this point of view, your question becomes...

1:10:00 I don't think there is a difference between science and science. There is a difference of the perceived to the one in that I'm talking about. Recognize that, in fact, you just take what you mean by the major language.

1:12:30 And maybe you do want to take it like the coherence and the aspecting that I really propose. I think there's one really fundamental difference remains, and that's when you talk about the system of one, there is one value which registers quite often, or continues to, and that is value B. So, yes, I take the suggestion. But let me start from the end. The main difference is obviously the one that you mentioned at the end, and from that point of view, I thought it would be, from my point of view, I would say, all right, nothing prevents Simon from having this enormous subordination of his stuff, but just to make him happy for his whole version of physics, it's much easier for me. ...to just pad away all this baggage and eat one copy of each. So this is a similarity, this is a difference, I can either have or commit. Regarding decoherence, the decoherence, first of all, Zouya's decoherence has explained us almost why we don't see, why we don't try, so I don't think this is a new thing.

1:15:00 But Zouya himself says that the version of decoherence that Simon uses, which is the one of G. Martin and Hermann Raffi... What really the difference is, is a way of replacing the Copenhagen-Covid measure to take the same time, but then you have to update it every time with the projection postulate. So you can get rid of the projection postulate by using the same measurement, but you have the same way of forbidding measurements at the same time. It's here. It's here in the same text. I mean, Boh cannot measure the quantity x in another virus. So it's not that something is missing, rather than people find something, because what I'm saying is just use text with quantum mechanics. Boh described that the system x can only measure local using things. When it measures something at a later time, it erases the information. I agree with what you've said, it's just that when you go to the microscopy system here, the intimate measurements fit in. Why don't you meet me? What did you say? Um, uh... We are more, actually we are more than out of time. We have to be back here by 11 o'clock.

1:17:30 Three more minutes. Or we can get three more minutes. Three more minutes? Okay, I'll go back to that. A short question. In your pictures, they are torn or nested. I'm just wondering if it's, let's say, central for the argument. But how will that be solved? But if you read Van Drassen's paper, he has a horrendously complicated distribution of final terms, which I don't have. Oh, that's how that's it. This may be unfair, but yesterday you told me you were working on quantum cosmology in which you're using the quantum state of the universe. Do you have a quantum state of the universe? Do you know the quantum state of the universe? How does this fit? Do you want me to answer? Yeah, yeah. So, first answer, well, I'm good at simple answers. No, in fact, the second, the serious answer is no, I'm not. I want to be real serious. I think there is a confusion in cosmology. This is the thing I think is important. When one says the quantum state is numerous, one means two different things which have nothing to say, nothing to do one way or the other. There is a confusion between two different notions of quantum state of the universe. Notion number one, this is the state of everything. So it's the state of the totality of things such that they don't matter. I believe that the full content of that is that it's the meaningless notion of everything. Second notion of quantum state of the universe. The unit is composed by a long number of staff. One particular staff is the gravitational field, which we can describe interactively, macroscopic and Copenhagen, in particular the gravitational field has one beam of freedom, which is the total volume of the unit. So I'm just describing mechanically one component of the unit, which I can observe from the...

1:20:00 There is also an external, as an external circle interacting with this measured volume, and I do the quantum mechanics of a sub-system, a sub-component within it, and it happens to be a sub-volume. This is supposed to be legitimate. It doesn't break Copenhagen. It can be done in Copenhagen. So there's no potential. And you're saying that all of them are moving? But also, in the same sense, they're moving. In the same sense, they're moving, yes. You measure the scale faster and measure the scale faster. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention.

1:22:30 I was worried that some people thought that they were drunk. Some people thought that they were drunk. Thank you for your attention. I wonder how they do it, because there is a That's why I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. I'm in the direction of the game. Thank you for your attention.

1:25:00 Okay, how do you, how do you fix it anyway? Thank you for your attention. It seems to me that you've got a notion of what the same sequence of events means for young people, that science is the only sense in the value of the sea, and that it is the only sense in the value of the atmosphere, and that in general, you can't do stuff like that, you can't do stuff like that, you can't do stuff like that, you can't do stuff like that, you can't do stuff like that, you can't do stuff like that. Put it back, stick it in there, and then we can be doing this for a while. It's hard to stretch far enough. A little bit of talk is going on.