sadia naeem

Ph.D in Physics and interested in foundations of Physics and philosophy. I’m active on Facebook

[Michael Levin @drmichaellevin]

Given the recent discussion about aging (and our approach to it) in https://t.co/sL9cRfXXEH, it might be worthwhile to mention that my perspective is:

birth defects, failure to regenerate complex organs after damage, cancer, degenerative disease, and aging are all *the same problem* at root. It is all about how living matter implements a collective intelligence to maintain a specific anatomy over time (whether regenerating from: 1 egg cell, a.k.a. embryogenesis, from a damaged tissue, or from the small-scale wear and tear of adult life), and how we can facilitate that process of renewal. Regeneration, in the broadest sense, is the answer to all of these problems. It is not going to be possible to accelerate (or prevent, for those who want to) anti-aging research without feeding (or squelching) these other aspects of medicine and basic science.

If you're truly arguing against longevity research, it's not just the elderly billionaires that you're targeting, it's also the kids with cancer, the people born with damaged organs, victims of injury, those damaged by pathogens, etc. etc. It's all the same pool of suffering, with the same root cause.

https://t.co/DdEhwS2yuO

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@skdh I respect your honesty and in all honesty we all make mistakes and what matters is how we correct our errors and you are awesome.

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@skdh @OTC_Bitcoin They probably haven’t thought of this because they believe in some abstract platonic ideal version of physics which doesn’t actually exist in the real universe.

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@skdh @OTC_Bitcoin I’ve been jumped on for saying this and I unfortunately have to shove Penrose in their face to take me seriously. But seriously, how can a working physicist not know that. Here’s Penrose in case anyone is interested ( from his book Fashion, Faith and Fantasy)

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@Hassaan_PHY Penrose giving us a dose of reality on mathematical consistency of theories in physics

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@Hassaan_PHY I would be more surprised and kinda disappointed at the universe if the supposed constants were the same everywhere. I expect universe to be more wondrous than my imagination, I suppose

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@Sam_kuyp lol

[Curt Jaimungal @TOEwithCurt]

In this episode, I traveled to Harvard to meet with Jacob Barandes, a theoretical physicist and philosopher of science at Harvard University. Together, we explore the intricate foundations of quantum mechanics, its philosophical implications, and the challenges it poses to our understanding of reality.

LINK IN COMMENTS

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - Introduction
01:26 - Jacob's Background
07:32 - Pursuing Theoretical Physics
10:28 - Is Consciousness Linked to Quantum Mechanics?
16:07 - Why the Wave Function Might Not Be Real
20:12 - The Schrödinger Equation Explained
23:04 - Higher Dimensions in Quantum Physics
30:11 - Heisenberg’s Matrix Mechanics
35:08 - Schrödinger’s Wave Function and Its Implications
39:57 - Dirac and von Neumann's Quantum Axioms
45:09 - The Problem with Hilbert Spaces
50:02 - Wigner's Friend Paradox
55:06 - Challenges in Defining Measurement in Quantum Mechanics
01:00:17 - Trying to Simplify Quantum for Students
01:03:35 - Bridging Quantum Mechanics with Stochastic Processes
01:05:05 - Discovering Indivisible Stochastic Processes
01:12:03 - Interference and Coherence Explained
01:16:06 - Redefining Measurement and Decoherence
01:18:01 - The Future of Quantum Theory
01:24:09 - Foundationalism and Quantum Theory
01:25:04 - Why Use Indivisible Stochastic Laws?
01:26:10 - The Quantum-Classical Transition
01:27:30 - Classical vs Quantum Probabilities
01:28:36 - Hilbert Space and the Convenience of Amplitudes
01:30:01 - No Special Role for Observers
01:33:40 - Emergence of the Wave Function
01:38:27 - Physicists' Reluctance to Change Foundations
01:43:04 - Resolving Quantum Mechanics' Inconsistencies
01:50:46 - Practical Applications of Indivisible Stochastic Processes
01:57:53 - Understanding Particles in the Indivisible Stochastic Model
02:00:48 - Is There a Fundamental Ontology?
02:07:02 - Advice for Students Entering Physics
02:09:32 - Encouragement for Interdisciplinary Research
02:12:22 - Outro

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@martinmbauer Physics doesn’t have goals, physicists do and they cannot not use aesthetic judgments in creating theories. While one of the goals is to look beyond our aesthetic judgments but we only ever replace one aesthetic judgment for another

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@Sara_Imari @leecronin But we are not causal “structures”- only our theories are structural but causality is real and not captured by the structure of our theories but added on by us

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@Sara_Imari I would go further to say that the word “existence” cannot be applied to the non-structural aspect of reality because to exist is to have constraints. Activity of time generates structure at the boundary of structural and non-structural aspects of reality.

[Arjun Khemani @arjunkhemani]

My conversation with Julian Barbour and @Sam_kuyp.

Julian is a renowned physicist known for his groundbreaking work on the nature of time. He is the author of “The End of Time” and “The Janus Point”.

Sam is a theoretical physicist interested in the foundations of quantum theory and time.

Links to watch on YouTube or listen on popular podcast platforms below.

Timestamps:
1:10 - The instant is not in time, time is in the instant
6:27 - Time capsules and evidence of time passing
9:22 - Newton’s view of absolute time and space
18:46 - Shape dynamics
24:33 - Mathematics of variety
37:51 - Newton’s theory as a theory of creation
56:23 - How shape dynamics relates to general relativity
1:06:50 - Entropy and heat death of the universe
1:28:13 - Free will and determinism
1:33:22 - Carpe diem
1:34:13 - Julian’s interest in Shakespeare
1:40:54 - Question from @DavidDeutschOxf about quantum theory
1:48:56 - Question from @ToKTeacher about general relativity and QT
1:51:51 - Final remarks

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@leecronin @DavidDeutschOxf @EffectiveDecel This is precisely my issue whereby some physicists say future is open and time is real but when you ask further questions they really mean it “seems” that way. I hope David would clarify his stance: Does he agree with popper on indeterminism?

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@DavidDeutschOxf @EffectiveDecel Do you differentiate between deterministic and predetermined? I.e. is the future evolution of the universe deterministic?

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@leecronin Passage of time (active time) is the process of actualizing I.e. generating novelty at local level and is not restricted to life. The diversity of universe is generated by active time that some called local becoming.

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@leecronin Mining would imply novelty existed already in a platonic sense. I think life genuinely creates novelty as new functionality with present actuality and an unformed environment.

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@leecronin People often perceive a threat to their ideas as an existential threat. One has to train oneself to think that one can let their ideas die in their place and death of an idea doesn’t leave us deficient in any way but opens up the opportunity for improvement.

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@skdh I’m not trying to undermine the importance of math and I get the point that’s being made. But sometimes it’s the non-mathematical analogies that is the starting point and math is developed afterwards.

[sadia naeem @snchou0]

@skdh But mathematics itself serves as an anology to whatever we are trying to describe. It’s not like there is isomorphism between reality and math. In other words reality is not mathematics.

[Sara Imari Walker @Sara_Imari]

LIFE AS NO ONE KNOWS IT is out TODAY! And, I’m especially excited for three things (1) inspiring thoughts/debate on the fundamental nature of life (2) catalyzing discussion on how we might solve it and (3) your thoughts! (photo from the fab @caitlin_oh)