 Hey everybody, today we are debating whether or not there is evidence for God from physics and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. If this is your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button because here at Modern Day Debate, we strive to host debates in a nonpartisan way to give everybody a shot to make their case on an equal playing field on topics such as science, religion, and politics. And so, for example, we are very excited as we will have our first debate on whether or not alien abductions happen. That's coming this Friday. So that should be a really interesting one and we have plenty more besides that. So with that, we wanna get into this debate, gonna do a couple of quick housekeeping things. Four starters, very excited folks. If you have not heard, if you have been in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears, wanna let you know Modern Day Debate is invading the world of podcasts. So this is in addition to the YouTube channel. We are excited. Check out your favorite podcast app. If you can't find us on your favorite podcast app, we will work to get on there. So just let us know and we'll make it happen. So excited for this debate. This is gonna be a lot of fun folks. Kind of a fairly easy going flexible format. And by that, I mean we have a roughly 10 to 12 minute opening from each side followed by a 60 minute open dialogue section and then 30 minutes of question and answer. So if you have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with that Modern Day Debate, makes it easier for me to try to get every single question in that Q and A list. Also, Super Chat is an option. It gives you the option to either ask a question or if you want, you could also make a statement for the question and answer state session in which case both speakers or either speaker would get a chance to respond to that statement. Also, it will push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q and A. So with that, very excited to wanna let you know we are thrilled to have both of these gentlemen here and wanna let you know as well that both Rick Delano and Tom Jump are linked in the description. So if you're listing and you're like, hmm, I wanna hear more. You can hear more at those links that they are conveniently located right there in the description box. They're waiting for you. So I wanna say thanks so much, Rick and Tom, just for joining, just kind of being here to hang out with us. We really do appreciate it, guys. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Thanks for inviting me as always. Happy to be here. Absolutely. So with that, we usually have the affirmative go first. And so Rick, if you are ready to give your opening statement, we can hand it over to you. Thanks again for being here. The floor is all yours. He's overjoyed. He's in shock. He doesn't know what to say. I think we might have a connection issue where it's slowing down just a bit, Rick. But hopefully it'll kind of smooth out. I can see you now just fine. It did seem to get me up there. But let me get right to it. Thank you. It is the assessment of myself personally and of the subject of my recent documentary and the quote from reality, Dr. Wilkings Smith, that we have reached a really significant point of inflection in the 400-year arc of human history that really coincides with what we call the modern scientific world. That over the past decade, particularly, profound dead ends have been reached in particle physics, in evolutionary biology, and in cosmology. These dead ends are well known within the theoretical community, less well known, but the most important dead ends that we face in physics now are related to the failure of the... I think what we might have to do, just to be sure. To cut any sign at all of the supersymmetry particles that were predicted by the experimenters. I hate to interrupt, but Rick, forgive me for interrupting. Just because I think that it might be kind of an extra load on your Wi-Fi, the video, is it okay if I cut the video at least for now? Oh, absolutely. And then that we will... Absolutely. Thanks so much. And so, I'm just gonna turn, and I think what might be good is, from your end, actually, if you're able to turn off your cam in Zoom, and that way it'll be less kind of, you could say, weight being put on Zoom. And so, on the top right of your picture there in the Zoom window, you should see that little box with three dots. So if you click on it and then click stop video, that should be a little bit less kind of, you could say info for Zoom to kind of upload. Hey, you muted yourself, Rick. You gotta unmute yourself to be able to speak again. Unmute. All right, we can do it. Now I'm back. Okay. All right, so let me try this one more time. It's my position that I intend to defend today that we are at a point in the development of science, modern science that is without precedent. We have reached profound dead ends in particle physics, in evolutionary biology, and in cosmology. The world's story that we have pretty much all, to a certain extent adopted, based on a Big Bang cosmology, a Darwinian biology, and a particle physics theory, the standard model of particle physics. All three of these have essentially reached crisis dead ends. The most important of these is probably the part of the physics dead end, because the standard model of particle physics has for many, many decades faced serious problems in incorporating gravity into the model, and in overcoming some ungainliness that has really bothered many of the theorists. About 50 years ago, the high energy physics theoretical community bet the farm on something called string theory. And they bet the farm because the mathematics were so beautiful and profoundly compelling that the theorists were able to persuade not only a majority of theorists, but even more importantly, the governments of the world to come up with an enormous amount of money to build the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and to attempt experiments at energy levels that had never even been approached before, in the hopes that we would discover their evidence of the particles that were predicted by string theory. They have come up completely empty in this regard and it is a profound disappointment for the theorists. It's a very difficult thing for them because at the levels of energy that they're working at now, you can't just say, oh, well, that's too bad. Let's go back to the drawing board and try again. It's tens of billions of dollars for every try now. And I think it is fair to say that there is profound disappointment in the theoretical field for the failure of the Large Hadron Collider to provide even the slightest bit of a hint of evidence that the supersymmetry particles predicted by the string theorists are going to show up at anything like the energy levels that we have. So that's pretty much a dead end. Particle physics is stuck. They're gonna have to go back now and try and find a way to circumvent what has turned out to be Senechi's bat on string theory. At the other end of the scale, we have Big Bang cosmology. And Big Bang cosmology has, especially just in the last few years, encountered just profound observational challenges. We made a film about this fact five years ago called The Principle. The Principle, of course, is the cosmological principle, a foundational assumption that has to be true if our picture of the world is given to us in the Big Bang Standards of Mology pictures, true. The observations over the past, especially 10 to 20 years, have just been devastating. Essentially, we now know that the cosmological principle is not found in the sky. No matter how far out we look, it's just not there. The universe is not the smooth isotropic homogeneous universe that the theorists required it to be in order for them to develop the equations, the applications of the Einstein equations to generate a theoretical model of the universe. That too has failed. And at this point in time, we really don't have a standard model of cosmology anymore because the observations are in frank contradiction to the predictions and assumption of the standard model of cosmology. The third thing is the most important of them all, I believe, and probably the least appreciated. The great breakthrough in physics at the beginning of the 20th century was the discovery and formalization of quantum mechanics. First by Bern or Heisenberg, very shortly thereafter, what turned out to be equivalent formulation were arrived at by Irvin Schrödinger and Paul Dirac. And you say quantum mechanics and everybody's eyes lays over because everyone is assured that no one understands quantum mechanics. After all, Richard Beiman, the greatest American physicist said that no one understands quantum mechanics and it's quite true. We are faced with a stunning development in physics. We finally got ourselves all the way down to the bottom of the world that everyone from Newton and even further back from democracies themselves said we would find these fundamental little particles that the world was made out of. And all of physics has been essentially chasing after these fundamental particles ever since. At the beginning of the 20th century, we found that our instrumentation and experimental methodologies became sophisticated enough for us to begin to contact that fundamental part of the world that physics had been looking for certainly since Newton and Galileo. And what they discovered was so astonishing that nobody believes it to this day. What they discovered is that there are no hard little balls down at the bottom of the world. These fundamental particles, in fact, do not exist in any way that classical physics would understand the term existence. This required a profound breakthrough on the part of the theorist, the first one, the great genius with Brenner Heisenberg who was so frustrated by the failure of all of the attempts to explain the puzzling observations related to the emission spectra of hydrogen related to the behavior of light in double fluid experiments that he was forced to essentially give up every assumption he had always relied on as a physicist and to say, I am going to simply look at what the data is telling me, no matter how strange and I am going to find a way to mathematically account for and predict those observations. The result was quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an astonishing, brilliant triumph of the human intellect. It is by orders of magnitude the most accurate physics ever achieved in the history of the world. We are conversing over computers and over networks that only exist because quantum mechanics is the correct theory of these fundamental bottom of the world phenomenon. They turn out not to be particles in any sense of the classical sense of that word. Brenner Heisenberg was able to do this by doing something that turns out to be profoundly relevant to the question of does physics give us evidence for God? Now the evidence is indirect and it certainly is not theological, but it is profound in that Brenner Heisenberg divided the world into two distinct domains. He said, we have the quantum system, the photon, the electron, the particles down there at the bottom of the world, and then we have what he calls the environment. And the environment includes things like detectors and measuring instruments. And this is where it gets very strange indeed. The equations of quantum mechanics, as I have said, are the most accurate by orders of magnitude in the history of physics. Right up until you measure a quantum system, the strangest thing in the world happens whenever you measure a quantum system. In other words, whenever you bring that photon or that electron or that quantum system into physical contact with a detector capable of registering an outcome, the equations of quantum mechanics collapse. Right then, right there instantaneously every single time. And for a hundred years, physicists have been trying to figure out why that should be. This is called the measuring problem and it is to my mind, the most stupendous discovery in all of the history of physics. We have an equation that will describe the quantum world perfectly except it requires things to be in multiple places at one time, have multiple velocities at one time, multiple locations at one time. And clearly we do not live in a world where objects are in multiple places at one time and moving at multiple velocities at one time. There's a fundamental discontinuity between the world of the physicists. What Wolfgang Smith, the subject of our recent documentary calls the physical universe. The world of the physicists. The world that is disclosed to us by the methods and procedures of physics obeys absolutely profoundly different law than the world in which we live and move and have our being. This is troubled physicists for a hundred years. It is called the measurement problem. And I would argue that a full and deep understanding of the measurement problem leads us absolutely inexorably to the recognition that Heisenberg was right. That we have two fundamental domains here. One that answers to the physicists' methods and one that answers to perception. The things we can see and taste and touch and feel. And there's a fundamental gap between those two worlds. And it turns out that it is the higher of those two worlds. The corporeal world, the world in which tables are brown and birds sing and skies are blue and the sunset is beautiful. This world of our intuitive and sensory experience turns out to be causally superior to and determinative of this lower quantum domain. Wolfgang Smith calls this an example of vertical causation. An example of causation that is now absolutely present in every quantum experiment ever done anywhere in the world and has been for a hundred years. This form of causation is unknown to physics because it cannot be expressed in terms of a differential equation. It is in fact an example of causation working from the top down, which brings us right back to a world which does not bubble up out of a quantum vacuum. In fact, a world which is held in being from forms of causation that are above the domain of physics. So these three things, the fact that the cosmological principle has failed and all the recent large-scale cosmological observations are showing stunning earth, the supposedly insignificant pale blue dot is in fact in a very special, even central location in the large, with respect to large-scale structure of the cosmos. The fact that quantum mechanics is disclosing a form of causation that does not reduce to those recognized by physics and is in fact a vertical form of causation. These things taken together point to a recovery of a world where substantial forms are necessary in order to bridge the gap between the quantum world and the world in which we live and move and have our being. Granting that form of causality is actually operative and actually disclosing itself to the physicists, we have indirect evidence for a world that is held in existence just as the religious traditions of mankind have always said and existed, held in existence at each instant by what humanity would generally recognize under the term God. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate that opening statement from you, Rick. And now we will switch it over to T-Jump for his opening statement as well. Tom, glad to have you on the floor is all yours. Thanks, James. Thanks, Rick, for coming on and having a debate. Appreciate the opportunity. So the debate topic is does physics or quantum mechanics indicate the existence of God? No, nothing in quantum mechanics or physics indicates the existence of God. Those are fields that are the edge of human knowledge and like all fields that are the edge of human knowledge, they are gaps that we can't explain, things we don't know how to explain. And theists pick up on these and they hear the terms don't know or can't explain and they're like, oh, I know, we can put a God in there. And we can use it to God of the gaps, typical God of the gaps. There's lots of things in physics we can't explain, lots of things in quantum mechanics we can't explain, none of that's evidence of God, those are just things we can't explain. They are far better explained by naturalistic explanations that are in physics, physics naturalistic explanations that are combinations of principles, particles and laws in physics than an anthropomorphic supernatural non-physical mind being that can create infinitely many universes and there's even worse than string theory. So, nope, none of it's actually evidence of God, like there's perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations for all of those things. And they are actually supported because they are combinations of verified principles, particles and laws in physics. All of the parts of those theories are combinations of things that have been verified. All the laws, principles, particles and physics are all just combinations of verified principles, particles and laws. Whereas none of the properties of God have been verified at all. They're just kind of random amorphous generalizations based off of feelings and not really much else. So the God hypothesis doesn't really have any predictive power. It's the opposite of simplicity. It's the most complicated thing possible. It's even more complicated than string theory. It can account for literally all possible predictions. It doesn't do anything to explain the physics. I mean, as Sean Carroll put it, when we're asking for explanations of the physics, there are certain criteria you need to explain, like what are the boundary conditions? Why are they that way? Why is that this specific pattern that we see and not another pattern, just saying God done it doesn't explain anything. It's just an assertion. And you can just say the spaghetti monster done it and have an equally plausible explanation. So no, nothing in physics or quantum mechanics or biology or evolution or any field indicates a God, which is why the vast majority of experts in all of those fields don't believe in a God because none of the evidence actually indicates a God. Thank you. Thanks so much. Also forgot to mention, before we jump into the open conversation folks, excited that we just confirmed earlier today that the debate that we were originally gonna have about a week ago on whether or not Islam fits in Western society is a juicy one. But don't worry, we'll eventually do one on does Christianity fit? Does atheism fit? That way we insult everybody equally. So that's going to be tomorrow afternoon though. So hopefully we'll see you for that. And with that, we're gonna jump right into this open conversation. Feel free as I mentioned folks to fire questions into the old live chat. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Well, thank you, Tom. Obviously the question is what physics can tell us. If the question is what metaphysics or philosophy can tell us, multiverses and things of that nature, that's a different discussion. But what physics can tell us is that we know that there is a sharp distinction between the physical universe, the universe of the quantum physics, the foundation of the world that is disclosed to us by the 400 year arc of scientific development. There is a sharp distinction, a sharp discontinuity between that world and the world in which we live and move and have our being. This is nothing to do with the God of the gap. This problem is a fundamental problem in physics and has been for 100 years. And what it presents is a profound empirical reputation of the fundamental assumptions, one of the fundamental assumptions of the entire scientific enterprise. This is the idea that you explain everything large in terms of things that are small. You explain the behavior of a planet by means of explaining the atomic constitution and sub-atomic, atomic constitution of that body. This was a fabulously successful postulate for about 300 years, but it completely falls apart in the face of quantum mechanics. I'd like to just take a minute to share with you what a definite atheist physicist has to say about this. Before you do that, I mean, I understand there's a distinction between the physics that describe the micro world of quantum mechanics and the macro world. And I grant that is a thing, but that isn't evidence of God. That's just something we can't explain yet. So why was that evidence of God? It is evidence for a form of causality actually operative in the laboratory. This is not the flying spaghetti monitor. What do you mean by vertical causation? Because I understand that to just be standard quantum mechanics explained by other quantum mechanical theories. No, no, there is no explanation for the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. That's the whole problem. That's why it's been a problem for 100 years. Anybody can make up an explanation. That's not a problem. Problem is, can we demonstrate one explanation is correct? That's why there's- Well, we can demonstrate is that every explanation today has been incorrect and incorrect on physical ground, not theological ground. Okay, but there's still not evidence of a God. So the saying that we got some wrong isn't evidence for a God. As I said at the beginning, it is evidence of vertical causality. It's also- I'm asking you, how so? You haven't explained how. It's actually operative in the laboratory. I'd like to read for you exactly how so from Sabine Hansen's older blog. Sabine wrote a really interesting book called Lost in Math a couple of years ago that was a critique of the very dead end in particle physics that I addressed at the beginning of the program. They're in trouble. The attempt to describe the world in which we live in terms of quantum mechanics and particle physics is at a dead end. And one of the supreme problems that is simply resisting any attempt through reductionist approaches to resolve is the measuring problem that she sets. Why is the measurement postulate problematic? The trouble with the measurement postulate is that the behavior of a large thing like a detector should follow from the behavior of the small things that it is made up of, but that is not the case. So that's the issue. The measurement postulate is incompatible with reductionism. It makes it necessary that the formulation of quantum mechanics explicitly refers to macroscopic objects like detectors when really what these large things are and what these large things are doing should follow from the theory and quote. And the problem, Tom, it doesn't. In other words, the world in which you and I are having this conversation today is not described by quantum mechanics. There is a fundamental discontinuity and it shows up every time we measure a quantum system. There is no differential equation in the world that can predict the outcome of any quantum experiment. Something, however, is establishing a value in every one of those quantum measurements that ends up yielding the world that we live in and quantum mechanics can't explain that. They've had a hundred years. I'm still not seeing any evidence of a God there. So yeah, there's things quantum mechanics can't explain. Wait, I'm not quite done yet. Let's kick it over to Tom and I promise we'll come right back to you, Rick. So one is that's false. We can perfectly explain all of that with just quantum mechanics. There's lots of theories that do it. Do we do it perfectly? No, but you don't need to. You just need accuracy with testable predictions which the current equations provide. So yeah, we can do that. The larger systems are just larger wave functions. That's not a problem. But even if we granted that what you're saying is true and that there is some problem that quantum mechanics cannot currently explain, that doesn't mean God can explain it. That's not a thing. Like we could just say, unknown quantum mechanics can explain it. Just like you're saying that an unknown God can explain it. None of that's actually evidence of a God. You're just saying, here's an unknown. I can insert God into the unknown. Okay, well, we can just do the same thing and say we can insert unknown quantum mechanics into the unknown and say, that's no God, it's just natural stuff. So how is that anything you said actually evidence of a God or what you call vertical causation? Yeah, I'm happy to answer the question. Sabine has already answered the question. The problem that we face in the measurement problem is that there is no answer to the question of when I measure this quantum system right here and I want to determine the value of an observable. How can I predict what that value is going to be? You just said we can do that. That's false, Tom. We cannot do that. We have never been able to do that. That's the measurement problem. There is no equation in physics that can tell me what the value of the chosen observable is going to be before we measure it. That is fact. And it's interesting that you deny that because it is in fact, we deny all of quantum mechanics to deny that. The fact is quantum mechanics is based upon the fact, the observational fact, that we cannot under any means in our toolbox predict the outcome of any single quantum measurement. Somehow, every time we measure a quantum system, the equations of quantum mechanics collapse at that very instant, why? They haven't got the faintest idea why and haven't had for 100 years. Therefore, there is a discontinuity, a formal discontinuity between that system before it comes in contact with the larger world, the world of detectors, the world of solid things and the world that we live in and after it comes into contact with that world. Therefore, there is something causing that collapse time and physics has not the faintest idea why that should be. And the answer to why that should be is found remarkably enough in a recovery of a view of the world that involves forms of causality unknown to physics. We call these forms of causality vertical causation because first of all, they are instantaneous. It is absolutely unknown to physics to discover a process where there is an instantaneous discontinuity. They call it a quantum jump where a system that is in one state that is perfectly described by the equations of quantum mechanics suddenly upon measurement jumps to an entirely different state, a specific value. Nobody knows where that value comes from. Nobody has any idea from within quantum mechanics how to predict that value that every time we measure a quantum system, we end up with one value. Where is that value coming from? Well, I just to be sure that just forgive me, I'm so sorry just because there's a lot of points for Tom to kind of respond to, maybe if we'll give you a chance to make this last point. Sure, absolutely. Yeah, I'll just jump in now. So yeah, that's all perfectly explained in quantum mechanics, just as information. There's lots of different theories. No, it isn't. No, don't interrupt. Yeah, it is. That's why the consensus of quantum physics is all just naturalist. There's no vertical causation there. And all you've done is a certain vertical causation can explain this, but you haven't actually demonstrated that in any way. You've just asserted it. Like I can just assert the spaghetti monster, explains it, and now I have an equally plausible explanation. Everything you just presented is quantum mechanics can't explain, therefore God is just a classical argument from incredulity. And you presented it in the form of a deductive argument. It's impossible that quantum mechanics can explain this, therefore God, but that's just, you can't prove a negative. It's just classical argument from incredulity. You can't say it's impossible and then assume that it proves the alternative. It's not how it works. You just can't prove a negative. So all, again, the consensus in the entire field of everyone in physics and quantum mechanics, cosmology and every field related to the topic is, no, this is purely just materialistic, physical processes. There's no God thing there, and you're just asserting this. Like there's no, as far as I know, there's no evidence supporting this at all. It's just your assertion. Again, you're wrong. I already gave you the first physicist who disagrees with you entirely. Let me re-quote her. I didn't say that all physicists agree. The measurement part is incompatible with reductionism. Now, understand, Tom. That's false. That's immediately false. The measurement part, please don't interrupt me. The measurement problem is part of quantum mechanics. It is part of the mathematics of the theory. And what Sabine Haas-Empelger has just told you is what the physicists have known for a hundred years. There is no way to account for what is happening in the experiment from within the equations of quantum mechanics, which is, by the way, the most accurate discovery in the history of the world. Something is going on in a measurement that lets us know that the forms of causality written into the equations of quantum mechanics do not apply. And consequently, you're wrong when you say we don't have evidence of a form of causation that is not reducible to the causes that are expressed in differential equations. Every time we measure a quantum system, there is an event that cannot be explained from within the framework of those causes. That's why we call it a vertical causation. Okay, Rick, I got to jump in here. So every time you say it cannot be explained, it's an argument for ignorance. It's immediately not evidence of the God. So the fact that it can't be explained by quantum mechanics is not in any way ever and never will be any evidence of the God. You have to actually be able to explain it by some other methodology. Secondly, we can't explain it. It's, again, consensus in just every field relevant. Quoting one physicist isn't relevant. Wait, wait, don't interrupt, don't interrupt. Quoting one physicist isn't evidence of anything. You can find physicists who believe lots of crazy nonsense stuff. What we look for in evidence is, you can just cherry pick papers. That's what inspiring philosophy does. It cherry picks crazy papers with crazy conclusions. There's lots of stuff out there. You can find that, which is just common knowledge. So it's not actually evidence to quote, to cherry pick a quote from a single physicist as if that's some kind of evidence. The evidence is the consensus says, no, that's nonsense. Like, no, we all just accept it's natural, physical. The consensus on the majority accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics are all physical. There's no supernatural thing there. God is like idealism. The fact that this, I think is something like what you're calling vertical causation. It is like a single digit percentages of physicists, like 6% on the polls that, as far as I've seen all of them, no one accepts that. It's all just materialistic viewpoints from the most part, like 80% materialistic. So what you're just saying is nonsense. It's just, you're cherry picking a few physicists saying, oh, I'm gonna adopt this, this like little cherry pick position that supports my delusion. Like, okay, that's nice, but I'm gonna go with the consensus and we'll all reject everything you said. And yes, there's definitely problems in quantum mechanics we can't explain, but the fact that can't explain it is not in any way evidence of a God. And you haven't actually demonstrated in any way there is evidence of a God. You said that there's this other kind of causation which may or may not be true, but even if there is this other kind of causation that doesn't mean God did it. It's just a different kind of physics. Well, thank you for admitting that you're contradicting yourself, by the way. But yes, there is a measuring problem in quantum mechanics. I never said there wasn't. Yes, you did. You said that I'm delusional and I'm cherry picking and there's only one physicist and I'm cherry picking your question. That's ludicrous, Tom. No. The physics community is fully 100% of quantum physicists understand the measurement problem. 100% of them. We're not listening to what's happening. Excuse me, let me finish, please. Excuse me, I'll let you finish. Can I finish now? Thank you. 100% of physicists recognize and acknowledge the existence of the measuring problem. So your earlier attempt to distinguish the illusion, yes, you did. No, I didn't. And the point is what it represents is a problem for reductionism. So can I restate my point and then you can address my actual point? No, no, listen, excuse me. I'll let you talk. I'd appreciate it if you would participate. Thank you. I'm going out on a tangent of something I never said, so I wanted to get back on top of it. I didn't tell you, you were, you know, we've been through this once before, Tom. If we're going to do this, then each of us has to have an opportunity. Well, I want you to actually address my point and then I'll have a strong answer. I certainly want you to make yours and I'd appreciate, well, you're not in the position to dismiss my arguments as a strong answer. You just made an absolute blunder. No. In asserting that the measurement problem is a cherry picking of a particular quote. I never said that. Well, again, let me clarify my position. You're wrong about that. I think just before. The measurement problem is a well-established. I never said it wasn't. You keep strong and strong men's. Okay, so before we go, I think we got the basic idea where Tom is, he's heard information such that he's like, oh wait, before we go too far, I think that there might be something I could clarify just to be sure that we're all on the same page. So we, I promise you'll come back to this. Well, he's always the measuring problem, so that's fine by me. We can go from there. Yeah, you have always acknowledged the measuring problem. So let's start with Tom. What was the thing that you thought that maybe was misunderstood by right? Yeah, so the consensus in all physics fields, yes, the measuring problem is a thing. They all grant that. But the consensus is materialism. There is no vertical causation. They all reject the vertical causation. Yes, the measuring problem is a thing in physics. They all grant that. It does not indicate vertical causation. That's an assumption that's unsupported that no one really accepts, except like a few cherry picking examples. That's the cherry picking. The measurement problem as a problem is a thing. Yes, it does not indicate vertical causation. That isn't accepted. The most common interpretations of quantum mechanics are purely materialistic, as demonstrated by the poles of the consensus. So that's what I was said. I didn't deny the measurement problem. I said the consensus accepts. So let me ask you a question, Tom. Let me ask you a question in that case. So how does your consensus of materialists explain the measuring problem? You say that there is a overwhelming consensus on this point. I'm fascinated to hear what it might be. The consensus is materialism. So it's not vertical causation, because that would be like idealism or dualism. Perfect. So materialism means atoms, electrons, et cetera, et cetera. And obviously, we already know from quantum mechanics that none of those can explain it. So what is the material explanation? No, that's actually false. We actually do believe that materialism can't explain it. So no. So it's saying it can't explain it isn't actually evidence. So explain it. Let me see if I can find the poles, because they actually did a poll on this and actually showed. It's not a poll. It's an explanation that I'm asking for. Yeah, yeah. So you ask, what is the consensus explanation? And they gave you- You say that this explanation is fully consistent with the consensus of the physics community. What is the explanation? Yeah, that's what I'm looking for the poll, because they actually gave all the different interpretations. And I can tell you, this is the one that's the majority. I know that poll. Can I tell you what I've said? Go for it. I know the poll you're talking about. Go for it. Okay. About 34% by far, the plurality, except what is called the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is just quantum mechanics. In other words, we can't explain it. We don't know. We simply do the calculations. We get good answers, and we don't take it anywhere beyond that. That's 34% by far the plurality of responses. 6% in that particular poll suggested something called the many worlds interpretation. You mentioned Sean Carroll earlier. Sean Carroll wrote a book last year that was trotted out as a great insight into reality. And basically what Sean is telling us is that, well, every time that there is a measurement imposed upon a quantum system, the universe splits off into as many copies of itself as there were possible values for the chosen observable in that measurement. This is what we call the many worlds theory. Only 6% of the theorists in this pool accepted the many worlds interpretation. And since you are very big on consensus, I assume you would agree with me that the consensus has rejected Sean Carroll's many worlds interpretation, right? I think so, but I believe the percentage on the many worlds was actually higher than that. But yeah, that's not what I'm going for. Not in that poll. Maybe you're talking about a different poll. One clarification. The Copenhagen interpretation, even though it doesn't say anything about the ontology of the universe, the consensus is that randomness is a just fundamental part of the ontology of the universe. They do have a naturalistic explanation. It's not vertical causation. It's just randomness is the thing that exists in the universe in the same way. They have no explanation at all for the measuring problem. They admit that it exists and they can't solve it. Wait, I just proved that false. They, no, you did not. Yeah, I did. They believe that randomness. There is no solution of the measuring problem from within the company. I'll give you a solution. Let me give you a solution. Randomness is a thing that exists and is a fundamental part of reality. Therefore, it can explain the collapse problem. No, it doesn't explain the collapse problem because the collapse is not random. The collapse results in a world where the equations of classical physics which involve exquisitely predictable phenomena, we can trace the course of a cannonball or a planet with absolute accuracy by classical physics. Why does that work? What? What are you even saying? At the level? Wait, wait, wait. I don't understand. I don't understand. It's pretty simple, Tom. So, when I said randomness. Classical physics works, excuse me. Wait, I'm trying to get clarification here. In the domain, in the domain in which we live. I'm trying to get clarification here. Is it Tom or are you thinking work? Is there a point that you're thinking there was like a misunderstanding of your own argument, Tom? Yeah, definitely. So, when I say randomness is a fundamental part of the universe, it doesn't mean random things are always going to happen in all cases everywhere and then just square circles are going to pop out of existence. It means in certain cases, like collapsing particles, the causal determining factor is going to be this random feature of the universe, which is what determines the measurement problem. It determines the information. The information is carried in that random quality of the universe. It's not everything is random. It doesn't mean everything in the universe is random. It doesn't work that way. It's just to explain like this specific phenomenon. So, you didn't address the argument at all. That does explain the problem. And I intend to address that one right now. Now, that's not true, Tom. You're simply wrong about that. The outcomes of a quantum measurement are always found to be within the weighted probability averages of the wave function. We know going in that we're going to get a value that is described probabilistically by quantum mechanics. So, it is not entirely random. What we see is a fundamental dissolution between the world of the wave function and the world of the measurement. Something happens at that detector, right at that moment where the quantum system comes into contact with the detector that collapses the wave function and yields a value that allows us to do classical physics. All right, so I found the paper. Question one, what is your opinion about randomness and the individual quantum events, such as decay of radioactive atoms? Randomness is only apparent, 9%. There is a hidden determinism, 0%. Randomness is irreducible, 48%. Randomness is a fundamental concept in nature, 64%. So, I was right. Yeah, it's just randomness is a thing in itself. You weren't right about many worlds. Now, what you're talking about. Many worlds is the first question that we addressed. What was the solution to the measurement? Many worlds is 13%. So, you were wrong about that. It's 18%. That's 6% in the survey that I referenced, which is on our ARX ID. But the point is, consensus has nothing to do with it in the first place. If there is no experiment that you can run in front of my eyes upon demand, repeat it as many times as necessary for me to see that you have actually discovered the solution. It doesn't matter what 89 or 62 or 115% of the physicists believe. The point is none of them can predict the outcome of a quantum measurement. But all of them understand that that value will be found to lie somewhere within the probabilities established by the born ruler. So, the poor randomity is not a factor. The points of the consensus is that the consensus are the people who are qualified to evaluate the evidence and see if the evidence indicates the conclusion you're saying it does. That's not quite true, Tom. Not quite true, Tom. One second. Let's see. If it's a strong man, I'll kick it back to Rick just to clarify, but otherwise, if it's an objection, I'll let Tom finish his point just to make sure that it's all right. So, go ahead, Tom. So, yeah, the consensus is the people who can evaluate the evidence to see if it's reliable or not reliable. Your assertion that the measurement problem is solved by this vertical causation thing is rejected by the consensus. The people who are most qualified to assess the evidence have seen your argument, find it wanting and reject it completely and see these other explanations as far better, like significantly better, which is what the percentages represent is how significantly better they see those explanations over your explanation. So, your explanation fails to be able to make any kind of prediction even more so than these other explanations. These explanations are better than yours, this. Even though they can't explain it, they're still better than yours. That's funny. They're better than mine even though they can't explain it. That's a classic. Yes, yours can't explain it either. That's why they're better. Oh, yes, we can. We certainly can. Because we understand that the form of causation responsible for the decision of the universe to pick one particular value out of all of the possible values is not coming from the world of the physicists. And Franklin, excuse me, Frederick Belinfante made this point profoundly. Can you correctly predict the measurement problem? Excuse me, my turn now, thank you. The universe that discovered itself published in 2000, here's what he says on this exact point. If I get the impression that nature itself makes the decisive choice about what possibility to realize where quantum theory says that more than one outcome is possible than I am ascribing personality to nature. That is to something that is always everywhere. An omnipresent eternal personality which is omnipotent in taking the decisions that are left undetermined by physical law is exactly what in the language of religion is called God. Okay, so Ken, your explanation. We are not the only people who are aware of this problem, Tom. Okay, so how do you solve the measurement problem? Can you accurately predict the collapse? Yes, yes, we can accurately predict that upon, yeah, please listen, because this is important. We can accurately predict, Justice Heisenberg said at the very beginning of quantum mechanics, that quantum mechanics will not describe the world which includes the detector. There's something different about that world of detectors, human beings, mountains, planets, sky. There's something in that world which is not present in the quantum world. This is what the measurement is telling us every time. Every time a quantum system comes into contact with something that has substance, substantial being. It has qualities, it has color, it has texture, it has all the things that don't show up in the equations of the physicists. The most remarkable thing happens, Tom. Every time a quantum system comes into contact with one of those beings, the quantum equations instantaneously collapse. And guess who wins? It's the corporeal world in which we live and move and have our being that always collapses in the quantum wave function. Okay, I'm just kidding, I'm hearing words. We are looking at a form, let me just finish, I only have a little more to go, thank you. This means that this world of corporeal substances is affecting the wave function in a way that discloses a form of causality unknown to the methods of physics. Every single time the quantum system impacts the detector, the wave function is collapsed instantaneously. Okay. And that value becomes part of the world in which we live and move and have our being this is a form of causation that is properly termed, vertical causation. Oh, gosh. Wait, wait, wait, come on. You gotta stop eventually, come on. We'll kick it over to Tom. All right, so give me your methodology for your vertical causation that we can use to predict which way the measurement problem is going to collapse, go. Sure. Every single time a quantum system is brought into contact with a corporeal device, a corporeal measuring device instantaneously, it is a collapse. Again, physics knows nothing about it. Yeah, we know collapse happens, but I'm asking you to give me the prediction, predict which one is going to collapse. It happens instantaneously. And we know that the cause, what is causing, that collapse. I don't care about the cause, I want to know, give me a prediction. Oh, that's what you wanted to know about causation. I thought you wanted to know about the resolution of the measuring problem. I want you to predict to me which way it's going to go. I want you to- Precisely, I mean, look, I'm trying to help you. Well, let's just, just because we did give you plenty of time, Rick, let's give Tom plenty of time just to say what's going on. As much time as you need. Let me know when it's my turn. Right, so I don't want to hear a filibustering explanation. I can make up my own random word explanation of what causes the measurement problem. I can say there's the magical spaghetti monster tentacles that cause the measurement problem to collapse in certain ways. And yeah, okay, we're done, solve problem. Oh my God, spaghetti monster. But you need to actually be able to make a testable future prediction from your explanation that demonstrates it's correct and the others are not correct. And if you can't do that, then you're just blowing hot smoke out your mouth, just like me saying tentacles spaghetti monster did it. So none of the things you actually said there were evidence. What would be evidence is you can say, what my explanation gives us this ability to make a novel future testable prediction about the collapse problem and the measurement problem in this specific experiment that we can repeatedly do. And my explanation is going to get the correct answer and yours isn't. That means mine is evidence. So give me one of those. Give us a practical prediction. That's great. Okay, again, Tom. Nothing I am saying here today wasn't already said by Werner Heisenberg in 1925. When he stated that quantum mechanics can tell us nothing about the world of detectors, human beings, observers, none of those things are described by the equations of quantum mechanics. How do we know that? Because he specifically introduced the measurement function, which states that upon measurement, in other words, in contact with a device which is perceptible, it is not part of the physics world, the world of equations, the world of the physics procedure, but the world in which we can perceive the outcome. Those are two different worlds. This is the fundamental breakthrough that allowed Werner Heisenberg to formulate quantum mechanics in the first place. And he referred to this process actually in a very interesting way. Are you answering my question? Excuse me, my turn, my turn, thank you. Are you gonna answer my question? Excuse me, my turn, thank you. The wave function he says is reminiscent of a quantitative version of Aristotelian potency. Now that's the founder of quantum mechanics. I don't know how many of us answers my question. It certainly answers your question. The measurement problem is resolved by understanding that the physical universe, the universe of the physicists, which reduces always to quantity, does not allow us to arrive at the world of substance, forms, and beings. Something is missing, and that something more is precisely what Heisenberg is telling you. That's not actually my question. In Aristotelian philosophy, can I clarify my question so you can answer it? You know what? Excuse me, moderator, am I going to be allowed to make my point, or is that a constraint that is only going to be applied to me? I think that just to be fair with time, I think that it is true that your responses are maybe a bit longer than average. And so what we'll do is give you maybe a minute to kind of wrap up, and then we will kick it back over to Tom. Fine, I only need 30 seconds. Thank you. Heisenberg recognized that the world of quantum mechanics is different than the world of the detector, of the environment, what you call the environment. What is different? Something more has to be present in the world of the detector than atoms and electrons and protons and neutrons and protons. What is that something more? Heisenberg gave us the clue when he said a quantitative version of Aristotelian potential for the traditional schools of wisdom of mankind, objects that we can perceive are composed of form and matter. Matter was never conceived of as hard little balls, hard little atoms, was always conceived of as a receptivity. And Heisenberg is telling you, Tom, that that is exactly what allowed him to formulate quantum mechanics. It was the recovery of that world of potential and act. Something is actualizing the potential. What is that something? The world of substantial form. And it is a formal discontinuity to the world of physics. Therefore, there is a form of causation presenting itself to us in every measurement that is unknown to the physics. Okay, we'll kick it over to Tom. All right, so yeah, that's definitely false. So just saying, here's something in quantum mechanics we can't explain. Yes, I agree. There's something in quantum mechanics we can't explain. That doesn't equal God. You just saying, here's something we can't explain and I can make up a God explanation for it isn't actually evidence. For it to be evidence, you have to say, here's my God hypothesis. And if my God hypothesis is true, then I can make these future testable predictions that we can use to demonstrate my hypothesis is true. If you can't do that, then all you're doing is called post-hoc theorization. You Google that, so technical term means making crap up to explain something we already know. So you look at the data, you look at the quantum mechanics data, you look at the measurement problem and say, oh, look, a thing physics can't explain. Oh, I'm gonna say God can explain it. That's not evidence, like anyone can do that. What you need to do is you need to go beyond that and say, if we have testable predictions, we need to say, if my hypothesis is true, I can make testable predictions which indicate the truth of my hypothesis. So when I keep asking you is can you demonstrate with testable predictions that your hypothesis is true? How do you create a testable prediction from the measurement problem that your hypothesis can make? Sure, here is the first one. There will never be a physics that encompasses the world that is based on the wave function. Eisenberg told you that 100 years ago and every experiment since then has confirmed it in the form of the measuring problem. Second hypothesis, since no experiment will ever be able to resolve the measurement problem, we have 100 years under our belt so far to know that. Something more than the equations of physics will be required to accurately portray what is going on in a measurement. That something more is precisely what the ancient schools called the substantial form. This is why the detector collapses the wave function. The wave function is collapsed instantaneously upon contact with the substantial form. This is a form of causation which is revealed to us in every quantum experiment which is unknown to the procedures of physics. It presents a paradox to them because they don't recognize this additional form of causality. Yes, it's unknown to the physics. Once they do, all of a sudden, they have the resolution to the measuring problem. Okay, so your prediction was, never will physics do something. That's not a prediction, that's a negative. You're saying, there will never be a quantum measurement that is predictable, that will be predictable in advance. That's our prediction. So saying some other hypothesis will never do something isn't a positive prediction from your hypothesis. So that doesn't provide any evidence at all. So what you need to say, if my hypothesis is true, then I can make this testable prediction which will be demonstrable on my hypothesis. Saying a different hypothesis won't do something or a different hypothesis will do something isn't in any way evidence of your hypothesis at all. I'm afraid you'll come. Physics will never do something, doesn't- There will never be ever under any circumstance, under any theory, a resolution of the measuring problem that does not involve a state, form of causation that is vertical and unknown to the present hypothesis. Okay, okay, let me go back. So saying other theories will or won't do something isn't evidence for your theory ever. It is never evidence- It's a prediction, it has to be a prediction. Wait, let me finish, let me finish. Do you have a theory that- Let me finish, Rick, Rick, Rick, let me finish. Let me finish. Okay, go ahead. So it is never evidence to make a prediction about what other theories will or won't do. That is not in any case ever evidence. It's an argument from ignorance. Is it a shifting of the burden of proof? You're saying, oh, they won't do something. Therefore, that counts as evidence for me. No, that is not how evidence works, Rick. What evidence is, is you have to say, if my hypothesis is true, here is a testable prediction we can do that will show, that will demonstrate my hypothesis is true. Other theories don't matter. You can't reference other theories here. You can't say, well, other theories won't be able to do it. That's not evidence. What is evidence? You say, if my hypothesis is true, here is a positive claim it can make. Okay, here is a positive claim it can make. No formulation of quantum physics will ever be able to solve the discontinuity that occurs upon contact between a quantum system and its detector. There will be no physical theory that can ever resolve that problem. Okay, so when I say positive claim, that means you can't say no or never or won't or don't. You have to say this. All measurements ever to occur in the laboratory now or in the future will show a formal discontinuity that interrupts the wave function whenever a quantum system impacts a detector without exception. Okay, we already know that. That's something we already see in the measurement problem. Let's just state in the measurement problem. So that isn't evidence either. Okay, that's the first one. So we agree on that one. Great. Now the second one. There will be no formulation. You said no again. Okay. Every formulation of physics that ignores the difference between potential and actualization will fail to account physically for what is observed in the laboratory. Let me give you an example. Let's take many- Wait, I don't need an example. You're saying the same thing again. You're saying the other theories won't do this. That isn't a prediction. No, not the other theories. No theory. No attempt to formulate the world from the standpoint of physics will ever be able to arrive at a solution to the measurement problem because there is a form of causation involved in the measurement that is unknown to physicists. Okay, go back to positive flames. So do you know what this form of causation is something that is testable? This is something that is testable. If there is any form of causation that can resolve this measuring problem, then it has to be something that can be formulated into a theory and tested. All theories that have been formulated and tested have failed, Tom, every single one of them. Testable means you have to be able to do an experiment to verify it. Saying something will never happen. You can't do an experiment to verify it. You're just waiting. So that isn't false. No, actually, all you have to do is one experiment that does the both of us. Let's take many worlds, for example. Let's take many worlds, for example. You say that, what percentage of physics community was it that you said supported many worlds? 18. 18%. Okay, so 18% of the physicists ought to be able to show off that the equations of the Everettian many worlds theory match observations when put to the test in the laboratory. In fact, they fail every test. Right, I agree with that, Rick. I agree. That's why I don't accept the many worlds hypothesis. But again, that isn't in any way answering my question. Is there another hypothesis that you'd like to test? Well, I go with the randomness one, that one I like. So, but wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Rick. That's not a resolution, Tom. Rick, my question was still, you need a positive claim. Saying other things can't or won't, where? You haven't made a positive claim at all. You've just said other things won't. There is a form of causation, vertical causation, unknown to the physics community, which is absolutely essential for bridging the otherwise unbridgeable gap between the wave function and the measurement. There's no other way around it. Give me an experiment we can do to tell us something we don't already know. So, we already know that. I can do better than that, Tom. I can do better than that. I can do much better than that. Okay. Every single quantum experiment ever conducted in the history of physics exactly confirms my hypothesis. Okay, so that's an experiment. That's one of the qualities of pseudoscience is when you say everything in the past confirms my theory, but you haven't done anything new. You have to go- Oh, pseudoscience. That's pseudoscience now. In other words, repeatable testable prediction is pseudoscience. Well, no, I'm afraid that's physics. If you say all of the past data that we've seen in the past all confirms my theory, but you can make no future theory, no future testable prediction. But science can say nothing about the future, Tom. Science can only say what experiments show right here right now. Science is not about the future. Science is about making testable predictions right here. The first one is- What? No formulation of quantum mechanics will be able to solve- That's not a prediction, Rick. I already covered that. No, we already did. We've established it. Every single quantum formulation has failed to resolve this problem. And- That's not a prediction, Rick. And it isn't that. The form of causation that is operated in the collapse of the wave function cannot be reduced to any form known in physics. You've already said that, Rick. You've already said that. That still doesn't answer my question. Not deterministic. Therefore, the experiments are disclosing to us a form of causality that is unknown to the physics community. As a matter of fact, we're ruled out in advance by the physics community. You've already said this like 10 times. Nonetheless, that form of causation is in front of our eyes every time we measure a quantum system. All right, so- So we have a form of causality that is vertical. It's- You're repeating yourself again. It's a category of deterministic. It cannot be expressed in any differential equation. And this is experimentally verified in the Lamborghini. So that's what you have to deal with. Good luck. So yeah, again, that's not a prediction. That is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. Philosophy 101, that doesn't work. You need to be able to go into the future and say, here's something that my theory can do that the others can't do. When the other theories- Sure, my theory resolves the measurable problem. One second. You're not gonna get it right. Okay, sorry. The other theories can or can't do is irrelevant. So saying they will never do something is just pseudoscience argument. You can't just say what other theories can't do something. They all say that. The flat earth they're saying, but we will never be able to go to space. They all say that. All pseudosciences- Well, that's from falsified. I'm not quite doing it yet. So all pseudosciences make the claim that, well, science will never be able to do X. That isn't evidence. That's why science doesn't do that. Science doesn't ever try to prove a negative because we know that's a dumb argument. What science does is it makes future testable predictions. What it says is, if I have a hypothesis about something new, like general relativity, then I'm gonna predict we're gonna see something different that we never knew before. Like the rate of the curvature of light around the sun will be different than anyone ever predicted. And we'll test it and feel like, oh, look, we discovered something new that was never seen before. And then that will be good evidence of general relativity. That's how science progresses, is that we'd say, we don't know stuff. And so if we have a good theory, we're gonna be able to predict one of those things we don't know and discover it before we know it. And that's how you make a good theory. That's what evidence is, is you make future forecast predictions, novel, testable, repeatable, falsifiable predictions about the future. Just being able to explain the past, no one cares. Everyone can do that. It's called post hoc theorization. It's well-known in philosophy. Anyone can do that. Flat earthers can do that, not a problem. You need to be able to go into the future, make a positive prediction for your hypothesis. Say another theory can't do something, it's not a positive prediction. Are you done? Okay, great. The flat earthers have been falsified and are falsified every time you happen to go outside at night and watch a satellite go overhead. By the way, NASA provides us with timetables. So if you wanna go out and look and see it go over your head, you can. Flat earth is falsified experimentally. What is not falsified experimentally is the measuring problem in quantum mechanics. The measuring problem is disclosing to us what takes the appearance of the paradox. In other words, the physicists can't explain it. The point is they can't explain it because they are not recognizing a form of actual causation that is occurring right in front of their eyes every single time they measure a quantum system. And every attempt that has been made to somehow make it so that the wave function does not collapse like in many worlds or in Bohmian mechanics or in flash matter or in any of the attempts to make the quantum world real to make it something that he's not what Heisenberg called potency has failed and will change because the quantum world is in fact potential. The quantum system does not own its measurable values prior to measurement. That makes it potency in order to be actualized something more than the quantum system is required. A form of causation is required beyond quantum mechanics to get to the world where tennis balls don't multi-locate and chairs don't experience multiple velocities at the same time. Something has to get us across that bridge bomb and that's something will not be found within quantum mechanics itself. And I think that's all this time. So you said that this problem will not be solved experimentally, which means you just admitted your theory is completely useless because it can never make a prediction. The experiments have already clearly delineated Tom that there is no physical cause that can explain what happens when we measure a quantum system. We already go back and read the consensus that says you're wrong. That's the most certain fact in all of the physics, Tom. You already go back and read the consensus of physicists that says you're wrong. Hold on, let me just finish here. Let me just finish your thing. There's one fact that is more certain than every other fact in physics, which is that there is no explanation to why the measuring act collapses the wave function from within quantum mechanics. We have to look outside of quantum mechanics to explain that problem. Here's where we know that. Every attempt to explain it from within. Okay, good. I'm glad that we totally agree. If I agree with that, that means we look outside of quantum mechanics. There can be lots of things outside of quantum mechanics, including a God or a not God, other natural things that we don't know about yet. So the fact that we have to move on. The form of causation that we can't explain from within quantum mechanics will do for now, Tom. And I'm very grateful to you for agreeing with me on that. Because what we have now done is established that forms of causation that do not operate in terms of a differential equation are actually active in our world. They're actually happening. They happen in front of our eyes every time we measure a quantum system. Well, then it is not quite. It's introduced, what? No, not quite. It's no known differential equation. So whenever physics can't do something. No, no, no. Okay, this is an important point. Let me just, we're getting somewhere here. So let me focus in here. There is no, it is impossible, impossible for the measuring problem to be resolved by a differential equation. It can't be done. There is no differential equation that can possibly do it because it is a formal mathematical discontinuity. There is no better equation that can get you past a formal mathematical discontinuity. Singularity. There is one state before we measure. There is a completely different and unpredictable state after we measure. Something is pausing that. Can we agree on that now? No, that's absolutely false. You can't ever say it is impossible. You just agreed to it a minute ago. No, you can never say it's impossible in principle because that's called proving a negative. You can't do that. No, it may or may not be a differential equation, but there's lots of different things we could discover in the future which could solve this. Would you agree, we could discover the many worlds? It is impossible to one plus one equals three. Rick, Rick, Rick. Like we could discover the many worlds hypothesis is true and that would solve the problem with a differential equation. No, we know that's impossible. We know that the many worlds hypothesis is false. It's falsified by direct observation. Plenty of time in the same way we gave you that segment of maybe two minutes. Okay, go ahead, go ahead. So we definitely haven't proven it false which is why about a fifth of all physicists accept it, 18%. So no, we haven't proven it false. You just like to think it's been proven false. Pretty much most of the theories in interpretations of quantum mechanics, any of them could be true. They're all logically possible. All of them can explain the measurement problem. All of them can be explained by differential equations. They could all be solutions. So they could all solve the measurement problem with differential equations. So all your argument is, is that you can't imagine there being a solution with a differential equation. Therefore, you think it's the case that it can't be. It's impossible in reality. That's called an argument from incredulity. You can't imagine, therefore it applies to reality. That's exactly what the physicists did where the philosophers did when they said Einstein's time can't been because we can't imagine it can't been. It's a classical mistake and theism to say it's impossible to do this. Like people say it's impossible for life to come about by a biogenesis. Like, no, you just can't imagine it. It's called an argument from incredulity. So yes, all of the consensus in physics, all of the models accepted by the consensus in physics are all differential equations. And they all explain the measurement problem. And if we can discover them to be true, then they're going to explain the measurement problem with differential equations. So yes, it is not, it is not in principle impossible. It is completely impossible. If they can prove that one plus one equals three, they'll be able to solve the measuring problem with a differential equation. Let me ask you a question. Is it possible to prove the negative that we will never find that one plus one equals three? Is that possible to prove? Never, it's definitional, it's analytic. Is it possible to prove? It's analytic, it's true by definition. Oh, by definition. Now, is it possible, so if it is possible, by definition, to exclude any argument that some mathematical theory will prove that one plus one equals three, there will never be such a mathematical theory, correct? Right, yes. Okay, good, thank you very much. In exactly the same way, there is no differential equation that can bridge a formal discontinuity. Did we discover this in general relativity as well as the singularity? At the singularity, things just break down and you can't go on and further, you're dividing and multiplying by infinity over zero and you have a singularity. There is no hope for a better equation to come along under those circumstances. You have reached the point where your system has failed. It has broken down in the face of empirical evidence. This is exactly the problem with the idea that differential equations can solve the equation if that's the way it works. It's called a collapse for a reason, Tom. Kick it over to, I think what we might do is maybe the next five minutes we'll go into Q&A. So we'll let Tom respond now and then if either of you is willing to defer to the other, giving them the last word, awesome. Otherwise, at about five minutes from now, I'll bring us into the Q&A. Yeah, so I already demonstrated that false because the consensus of experts in the field who know more about this than you do by a significant margin say, yeah, we can solve this with differential equations just by the models here or the interpretations we have. Not just in the one side. Wait, wait, Rick, Rick, Rick, Rick. So the physicist in the field can explain this with these models, these interpretations of quantum mechanics. Your opinion doesn't matter. They don't care about your opinion. They go on being physicists and don't care about your vertical causation thing, which is just rejected by the vast majority, 90-something percent of physicists. They don't care because that isn't supported by the evidence. And you still haven't prevented, you still haven't prevented me with a positive prediction. You said, it can't be explained there for God. That's all you've done. Well, are you done? Yes, go ahead. Okay, well, the point is that a while back, you agreed with me that there would never be a solution from within quantum mechanics to the measuring. No, I never agreed to that. Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Now, you are now attempting to backtrack from that and say that maybe there'll be a differential equation sometime that comes along. You have ignored the point that a formal discontinuity cannot be bridged by a differential equation. We have a formal discontinuity in the collapse of the wave function. So to say that there is a consensus among physicists that there will be, they all would deny that except about me. Every single supporter of the many worlds theory would deny that there is a solution to the measuring problem based on differential equations. Why do we know that? Because they don't solve it via the differential equation. They solve it by a branching of the wave function by saying that every possible value is instantiated in some other universe. Now that happens to be falsifiable on experimental grounds. And we don't need to get into that. But the point is that is contrary to observation. So that's gone, divided in many ways. Wait, let me jump in there. So just looking at the interpretations here from the same paper, the average many world attempts to solve the problem. The de Brogne solves the problem. The Heisenzer, I can't pronounce that name, decoherence resolves the problem. All of these things solve the problem. Oh, they don't solve the problem. Yeah, they all do. Like every single one of these literally does solve the problem. I'm looking at the measuring problem. It's just on here. They would be able to stand up and do an experiment. Am I wrong about? I think that this is, maybe we had just heard from Rick for maybe about a minute or two. And then we'll give a time a minute or two and then pretty quick here we'll go into the Q and A. Yeah, so as I said, the consensus of the experts in the field think all of these solve the measurement problem. It literally says here, the Hewlett average many worlds attempts to solve the problem. The de Brogne tries to solve the problem, solve the measurement problem. The, this one, the whatever these name is that can't pronounce solves the problem. They literally solve the problem. This is what you're just making crap up. Like all of the experts in the field say you're wrong and I'm just reading it from them. Well, it's very interesting Tom. They all say it solves the problem and they all contradict each other's solutions completely. Yeah. Now I thought that you were the one that said that consensus of the experts was the sign of something that we poor unwashed toy poloid could put our faith in. The point is you have all these physicists putting directly contradictory solutions on the table and none of them, not a single one of them has actually achieved consensus. I don't think you understand my point. Well, this solves it. Well, why doesn't the rest of the physics community agree with you? Because there's no experimental basis upon which to assume that they actually have solved the problem. I don't think you understand my point. So when I say solves the problem, I mean, these present a potential solution. They present, when you say it is impossible in principle. Potential solution, what does that mean? You said it was impossible in principle to solve the measurement problem with the differential equation. So here are all of the differential equations, Tom. Rick, Rick, Rick. They don't use differential equations, not on one of them. Well, let's see. Like I promised, we'll give you a chance to respond, Rick. Here are a bunch of naturalistic, materialistic theories with no vertical causation that solve the theory. And you said no theory could ever do that. So these all present natural. No, the question could differential equations. Hold on one second. Let's just give Tom maybe another 60 seconds. I promise we'll come back to you, Rick. So again, when you said it was impossible in principle, no theories will ever do this. This was your prediction. I just falsified your prediction. I just destroyed your entire, stop, stop, Rick. I just destroyed your entire theory. Your entire theory just happened. Garbage, because stop, Rick, stop, Rick. So because I just showed that it is possible in principle. I just listed three different theories where it is possible in principle, where you said it could never be done. And I just did it. That's a pure straw man. The question was, Rick, whether they could solve it. Let's give Tom maybe just like 40 seconds or so. Come on, Rick. So again, I just trashed your entire theory, because you said it was impossible in principle. You did another one. We do have to let Tom. We do have to give Tom a chance to respond here. All right. So I just destroyed your entire theory, Rick, because you said it was impossible in principle. And I just demonstrated three theories where it is definitely possible and it is the majority consensus in physics that these are the ones that are going to solve it, not your ridiculous vertical quotation. Therefore, your theory has been trashed. Thank you. Okay, no, in fact, what we saw here was a magnificent example of the straw man. The question was whether differential equations could solve it. And of course, what he realized he couldn't solve it by differential equations. He now jumps trots off and does his gish gallop to other theories. Well, none of those theories involve differential equations, Tom. And of course, that's the problem with your demolishing of my entire argument, because you didn't even address my argument. You said no theory ever. No, I said no theory involving differential equations, Tom. And of course, you ignored that. But anyway, I'm very happy that you agreed with me, that no solution to the measuring problem can be found or will be found from within quantum mechanics. That's a very important thing for us to agree on. Oh, no, no, that's wrong. I proved that false. We have to look for the solution to something beyond quantum mechanics. So I just presented quantum mechanics solution. What we'll do is, I think it'd be ideal. Yeah, I'm ready to go to the community. I just got trashed this theory. I won this over. I give. Just because, just because we had Tom or Rick get the ball rolling. Tom, if you have any last words, I just wanted to be sure that you were going. We can go to Q&A. I trashed his theory. It's completely done. We'll do it too. Next. I'm so happy that you think so, Tom. Frank, we will jump into the Q&A. Thanks so much, folks, for your questions. Really appreciate it and excited for this as the first one comes from Frank's 92. Appreciate your super chat. It says, James is the best moderator on earth. Thanks. Appreciate that. Yeah, yeah, I agree. You are. Thank you for your kind words, folks. I love the positivity. It means a lot. And Steven Steen, nasty guy. I love him. These are benevolent droll. He's a friendly one. Says, cut offs are the sign of a serious debater. Tom, showing off the guns tonight. We're loving it. Making this show sexy. OK, thanks for your. This is my post-surgery stuff. Well, it looks great. And Jungle Jar, you look good in anything, Tom. Jungle Jar again, thanks for your question. Says, ask T-Jump if he knows that all power comes from a greater power or whether he knows that God is defined as infinitely powerful. I'm not sure what that means, but you can define all powerful in lots of different ways and in any way you define it, it doesn't work unless it's not all powerful. There's many logical contradictions with absolutely, like, infinitely powerful. So most of the theologians define it as maximally powerful, which means the ability to do everything that isn't a logical contradiction. And even that doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, because it essentially just gives you string theory plus consciousness, which is weird, even less reasonable. So there's lots of different ways to define all powerful. Gotcha. Next up, thanks for your question. This one comes in from TooSexyForMyShirt. Says, E-soilution is a lie. The soily answer, soy-only answer, is Jesus. We appreciate the soy references, folks. We love soy around here, tremendous stuff. And Keith X, thanks for your question. Statements that I think Vincent Price is still alive and well on modern day debates tonight. Who's Vincent Price? I don't know who that is. Tom, is that like your deal? He's a world movie star. Is it? He's a world movie star. Oh, nice. Is that? A world horror star. Is it? I think he said in the past that I look like him, I think, is what is the impression. Tom, your movie star aesthetic is it's kind of people are soaking it in and realizing it. I've been trying to tell people. Just don't forget the little people, Tom. That's right, Tom. We appreciate you hanging out with us. And Keith X, oh wait, read that one. Clay Corbin, thanks for your question says, Tom, heard you say once that nature is the enemy. Can you expound on that, please? Yeah, definitely for sure. I'd say that of all the things that kill the most people, nature is what kills the most. And so what we're, our goal is the human race should be to overcome nature in every capacity possible. Like the heat death of the universe is gonna kill everyone. So that's kind of the greatest enemy of all is nature. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from Kyle's lawyer. Well, he's still around after a year. He says, anyone sick of morons owning T-Jump yet? They're doing the Hovind syllable annunciation, the over annunciation. Mark Reed, thanks for your question says, if the cause of the waveform is collapsing, or I'm sorry, if the cause of the waveform collapsing is unknown, how are you claiming to know that it is vertical causation or God? You just said it was unknown. I think that's for you, Rick. Unknown from within quantum mechanics. Thank you very much. Gotcha. And stupid soy energy. Thanks so much for your question. She says, why not just allow for the fact that spontaneous things that happen in radio activity, for example, are causeless? Well, because they're not causeless. Gotcha. And Maya Asburn, thanks for your question, says question for Rick. What's the difference between the magic powers of fairies and leprechauns and the magic powers of your God? Well, my God is much more powerful than leprechauns or fairies. Gotcha. And let's see, Maya Asburn, thanks for your super sticker. Seeing more is more of those lately. Appreciate that support, thumbs up. Awesome, A1360, thanks for your question, says, using physics gives demonstrable proof of God. How do you like them apples, Tom? Look at the trees, trees prove God. Look at the physics, yeah. Gotcha, and Michael Dresden, old troll, says poor Tom, tried and lost. Next. Next, that's not particularly creative tonight. Awesome. Chloe Lindsay, thanks for your question statement, said, Rick is a broken record. Appreciate that you've got thick skin and you laugh it off. Let's see. Stay on target, stay on target. Next up, let's see what you've got. Stupid whore energy says, yeah, use theology to predict the specific direction the spin of an electron will point to when it's prepared in a state, quote, up, unquote. What? I'm confused. Okay, I'll read it one more time. It says, yeah, just gonna impersonate her. Yeah, use theology to predict the specific direction the spin of an electron will point to when it's prepared in a state up. I think maybe she meant up state. No, no, because up and down are types of. It's like asking us to predict what one plus one will equal. It's a ridiculous question. What'd you have, Tom? I know it wasn't. What were you gonna say, Tom? It's if you have an entangled particle, like an electron that has a spin up versus spin down and when they collapse, one of them has one spin, one of them has the opposite spin. If you have a theological perspective and you think your theory is right, you should be able to make a prediction to know which one's gonna be up and which one's gonna be down at a higher degree than random chance. If you can't, then you're no better The point is not what condition the spin is going to be in. The point is, why did it not have the same spin upon collapse that it did upon preparation? And what is the factors that determine what spin you're going to measure, especially when they're entangled? His question didn't mention entanglement. Just to get through as many questions as possible, we have to keep going. So thanks for your question. Coming in from two, Saxie, from my shirt, says, why does Rick de Soino keep laughing when, sorry, let's just start joke about Soi here, Rick. It says, why does he keep laughing when he's the intellectually dishonest one? T-Jumps, and then says, T-Jumps chair has better points than this condessoy ending know-it-all. Woo, boy, I'm so, I'm chasing, boy, I've got you. God, yeah. For some reason, this reminds me of Nathan Thompson, just because Nathan Thompson, the way he handles. We hope you're well, Nathan, no hard feelings. Next up, Timothy Foster, thanks for your question, says, what makes your, I don't have a better explanation, so therefore God, different than past people saying the same thing about lightning before science figured it out. I think that's for you, Rick. Is it? Yeah, he's asking how is- I thought of the strategic. Yeah, he's asking how is your theory any different, not a God of the gaps, just like lightning was a God of the gaps. Zeus did it. Well, because the measurement problem is a fact of experimental certainty, and it can't be resolved from within the prediction apparatus of quantum mechanics. Therefore, a form of causation has to be acknowledged to be accurate. That is not found within the assumptions of quantum mechanics in order to resolve that problem, because after all folks, we do somehow get from the world of the wave function to the world of classical physics. That happens, that's a fact. And that cannot be explained from within the equation to quantum mechanics itself. Next up, thanks for your question. This one comes in from Syed Ahmad. Thanks for your question, said serious question for T-Jump. Do you plop into your chair? It looks so comfortable. I came in late. What is the iPad talking about? I don't know if you know Rick's. Since your video is gone, it just says Rick's iPad. So people thought this entire time that Tom was debating an iPad, I'm sorry, but. So, let's see. Yes, but Tom, do you plop into your chair or do you kind of subtly, slowly sink down into it? Oh yeah, for the past week, I've definitely plopped into it because of my surgery. Are you doing okay? Are you like feeling all right? Yeah. You seem healthy as an ox, Tom. The other than the gigantic slash I have across my stomach, yeah. I had 30 staples. Whoa. Well, we're glad that you're okay. And we are with you in the recovery, Tom, as you're tough as nails. And thanks for your question. This comes from Josiah Hansen, who said, dude woulda told the Wright brothers, it'll never fly. I think they're talking about you, Rick. Yeah. Next, thanks for your question. This one comes in from Locan16, says, nice, stunning Kruger laugh, Rick. Ooh, a stunning Kruger laugh. That's great. I didn't even know there was a dubbing Kruger laugh. Next up, Carmel Crunk, thanks for your question. Says, T-Jump, how do particles go from a mathematical state of possibilities when we are not observing the one physical object? Let me, two one physical object when we observe. Let me just read this one more time because I might have butchered that. Said, how do particles go from a mathematical state of possibilities when we are not observing two one physical object when we observe? The collapse can occur in many different ways. There's many different theories. The many worlds, the De Broglie-Bohm-Piloway theory, which isn't very popular, but it's an interesting one. Any of those could be possibilities. String theory, they're all possibilities. God is not a possibility. Rick laughs at your response, Tom, okay. It's laughable, it's laughable, what can I say? I mean, the answer to the question is, it doesn't matter whether we're observing or not, all that has to happen is for a quantum system to make contact with a corporeal measuring device capable of registering an outcome. Doesn't matter whether we're looking or whether we're downstairs having coffee, that collapse will occur. Tom just said many things collapse the wave function. No, that's wrong. There's only one thing that collapses the wave function and that is a measurement. Gotcha, and well, I think just because that last super chat was for Tom, I'll give you the last word on that, Tom, if you'd like, otherwise I'll go to the next one. I said many things could cause, could be the cause of the collapse. Obviously there's only one collapse at a time, but the cause of the collapse, which is what the question was about, could be many different things. It could be the ontology of the many worlds. Hypothesis for the Brawl-Bowl-Mahalit-Wave theory or string theory and M theory. There's lots of ontologies that could cause the collapse. Gotcha, and Lily R.O., thanks for your question. Lily asks, Tom, your chair looks so comfy. Where did you get it? Lazy Boy, it's called the Lazy Boy Crandell Recliner. I feel like I've heard that answer many times. Many, many times. Yes, it's such a winsome cherry, Tom, just raw as people. I love the account that we have in the live chat, Tom's chair, that's my favorite account. And by the way, Michael X, I don't know if people saw Michael X here the other night, but people were wondering if it was your son, Tom, he's a young guy, a young debater and just had kind of the same comfortable Tom pose sitting back. But thanks, Tim Durand, for your question. Tim says, why would God need to be proved through such complex rhetoric? If it was real, wouldn't it be obvious? Why does wave function collapse need to be proved through such complex rhetoric? If it was simple, wouldn't it be obvious? Gotcha, and Michael Dresden, local trolls as MDD biased where Tom and cuts off Rick twice as much. Well, I think, yeah, so now I'm getting it. Well. I gotta say, I gotta say, look, man, I thought you were immensely there. I thought you were a terrific moderator. I just want to go on record and say. Thank you, Rick, I appreciate that. And I would, I was just thinking about this. It's funny, I was thinking about it earlier today. I got Chipotle. It was a tremendous lunch, first time since February. But I was thinking, I was like, it's good we keep, we always say, let's keep our critics around. Phil Bunny, we miss you already, but let's keep our critics around. It's good accountability, you know what I mean? Like, even if they're tough on us, it's good for us to be real that it's like, hey. You know? What happened to Phil Bunny? Phil Bunny is not happy with me, which is sad. But we hope he comes back. We've always got the open door. We love you, Phil. I know you're listening, Phil. I know you're out there, so. Next up, Justin Marr, who I like this name too. Justin Marr, PhD in Pine Creek Studies, says, Rick, be honest, how many portraits of yourself are on your walls? Zero. Well, Rick, given your movie star kind of aura, that's, you know, we wouldn't blame you if you had some portraits of yourself. And. I must, I cannot tell a lie, the answer is zero. Sorry, let's see, we've got another one from Bruce Wayne. Thanks for your super sticker, appreciate it. And thank you very much for your question from Tom's chair, who says, steel man time, please. Great opportunity. Maybe like, I know this is like, honestly, it's cruel of me to ask you to do it in like 30 seconds. So if you need 60, you can use that to summarize the other person's position. But if you'd like to represent it in the most charitable, charitable and strong way possible, let's do that, just to kind of see what we get. Sure, I'll start. So Rick's position is that there is a certain kind of causation that is demonstrable through the collapsed particle and it can only occur through a second kind of causation, not possible through quantum mechanics. And therefore that second kind of causation must be a God for some reason. I don't think he ever got to why it has to be a God. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Why is Tom summarizing my position? I mean, what's- A steel man is when, like a strong man is when you misrepresent someone's position to make it weaker to address it, a steel man is the opposite of that. Oh, like you just said, okay. Thanks, that explains it. A steel man is when you try to present the strongest position for the opponent's person case as you understand it. Oh, that's the best you could do? Oh, very funny. That's the first, all right. So, I suppose, well, if you wanna be tough on Tom, you can, this is your chance, Rick, to steel man Tom. Oh, no, I mean, look, I have no interest in summarizing my opponent's position. I will certainly correct Tom's missed summarization of mine. What we are faced with in quantum mechanics is a vicious and persistent paradox. Why does a quantum system perfectly described by the wave function collapse instantaneously upon coming into contact with a measuring device? This is a profound question, the resolution of which is one of the most important things that the pasta do to recover a coherent and defensible picture of the world. We're not going to recover that picture from within quantum mechanics. Gotcha, and thanks for your question. This one comes in from Carmel Crunk. Thanks for your second question, Carmel. Says, what solves the measurement problem and how does it solve it? What solves the measurement problem is the recognition that the world does not reduce to the equations and methodologies of physics. There's something more in the world than that which is recognized and treated by the equations and methodologies of physics. This is proven to us by the paradox of the measuring problem in quantum mechanics. If that measuring device was actually made up of quantum particles, as every physicist assumes it is, there would be no collapse of the wave function. Something is collapsing that wave function and it can't come down to quantum particles. Something more is required. So yeah, an explanation is when you say something does something, not something doesn't do something. So an explanation of the collapse would be like the mini-worlds hypothesis or the dobro-blomb-pilot-wave theory. Those things are ontologically explained the collapse as opposed to what Rick did where he just said, things can't explain it and they're forgotten. No, no, no, that's neither bone nor the mini-world problem explains the collapse. They explain it away by insisting that the collapse never occurs. Come on, you gotta know that. Many worlds doesn't claim to solve the measuring problem. Many worlds claims that the wave function never collapses, Tom. Do you want me to read it again where it says they solve the measurement problem like verbatim? They didn't solve the measuring problem, Tom. They said that there is no collapse of the wave function. That's what many worlds is. I just read it. Many worlds is the claim that the wave function never collapses, Tom. That's what it is. I just read it. They solve the measurement problem, verbatim and ready. When we get our physics from surveys, we tend to get ridiculous answers. Just so in case anybody's actually interested in looking into this. The many worlds theory is predicated upon the claim that there is no collapse of the wave function. That is what the many worlds theory is. If you know anything about the many worlds theory, you already know this. If you don't know this, like Tom doesn't know this, I want to make sure that he knows it from now on. I wanna do- Many worlds is the claim that the wave function never collapses. Just because the super chat was for Rick, I wanna give him the last word on that one. And then Pencil Jones, thanks for your question, says, T-Jump, Delano said no theory involving, quote, differential equations, unquote, can solve the measurement problem. You didn't, quote, trash, unquote, anything, but your credibility. Well, he said nothing with- He's right. He's absolutely right. Let's hear from Tom. He said nothing with matter, energy or space time, which are what differential equations measure or changes in matter, energy, and space time, which are literally what everything in physics is, is a differential equation, including the many worlds hypothesis. The many worlds hypothesis, the Brawlbone, pilot wave theory, the string theory, they're all differential equations, and so they can solve the problem. Yep, they do. That's exactly what you- That's complete nonsense. That is complete nonsense. Tom just tapped in his way. Tom just tapped in his way. There is no differential equation involved in the collapse of the measurement, of the wave function measurement. There is no such differential equation. That is so fundamental and basic that anybody who knows anything about quantum mechanics knows that, Tom doesn't know that, but now he does. We gotta give Tom the last word on that one, just because it was a challenge to Tom. So, Tom, is it true that your credibility has been trashed tonight, or if you wanna respond to anything else from that super challenge? Nope, how to solve the measurement problem, math solutions, just Google it right there. Differential equation, solve the measurement problem, found it in 30 seconds. Oh, damn, Google beats Rick again. My mind, Onion, thanks for your question says, as a physicist, my evaluation is Rick is not, let's see, less accurate than average of people on MDD, and based on his history, I'd call him, I mean, Rick, they're not pulling any punches. They say a professional con man, Rick, why are you, like, I'll give you a chance if you wanna respond, Rick. Well, I mean, what is to respond? I mean, this is some guy out there who doesn't intend to engage in lecture learning, instead he's engaged in character assassination. I think that's called an ad hominem. So, I mean, what the heck do we need to spend any time on that for? Next up, Bruce Wayne, I, let's see, I hope you don't mind, it's true. We read some, like, hard-hitting super chats, but it's cause we know, we can't just shield the debaters from these tough ones. And by tough, I mean, like, that last one. Bruce Wayne, thanks for your question, says, does God expect us to learn quantum mechanics in order to avoid going to hell? Certainly not. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. Bartos Diago says, riddle me this. Let's see, I'm just gonna put it in the chat. It's a math equation that is nobody could possibly get it. I don't, very few people could get it, just by me reading it out loud. So it's in the chat and now I'm going to pin it to the top of the chat because for some, this person just loves math. Appreciate it, Bartos, we love math as well. Zoom chat or the YouTube chat? In the YouTube chat. Tom's chair, thank you for your next question, says for James, will you stop doing debates if God shows up? Do you mean, like, a messianic, like, second coming? I mean, I don't know what, if I'd be able to keep going. I don't think I could. But, Carmel Krunk, thank you for your question, says, T-Jump, how does the many worlds theory solve the measurement problem? Thank you. You'd have to read the paper on it. You just go to Google measurement problem and just go down the list and I'll show you. The actual reference is, the, here it is. Here it is. Wow, I can't pronounce any of those names. It's a snapshot of foundational attitudes towards quantum mechanics, studies in history and philosophy of science, part B44. That's where it is. Gosh. Okay, so I can give you a real simple answer to that question. Many worlds does not solve the measuring problem. Many worlds attempts to claim that the wave function never in fact collapses. That every possible branch of the wave function is realized in some universe. That's the way many worlds addresses the function, the wave function collapse. That's a solution. They deny that it collapses. That's a solution. No, it actually isn't. It fails, you see, because if it were in fact true that a detector somehow possesses the magical ability to split one part of the wave function from all other parts of the wave function, then the information in the quantum system would include every single possible outcome. Every single world would have to be present in the information of the system when it contacts the detector. Somehow then this splits off one of those branches, erasing all the information of the other branches. This would result in a stupendous violation of the Boltzmann constant, which tells us that each quantum system must have very small amounts of information. Otherwise the heat capacity of molecules would drastically violate one of the most certain observations in physics, the Boltzmann constant. I'll just go with the consensus of physicists who say you're wrong on that one, because nope. There is no such consensus. I think less than 20% of physicists supported the many worlds theory. Most of them, in turn, are not aware of the thermal consequences. They are covered very well by the Harvard physicist Lubash Motel. He absolutely viscerates many worlds in his examination of it. He highly recommended the pieces called basic lethal flaws of revisionist interpretation for quantum mechanics. And it's on Lubash Motel's flaws. Beautiful argument. Next up, thanks for your question. This one comes in from April. Ruby Bell asks, for both presenters, is there any evidence in the Bible or other religious scriptures of God having something to do with quantum physics? If so, please cite verses. Well, you know, there are verses that could be adduced, but since the Bible was well understood for approximately two to 3,000 years before the discovery of quantum mechanics, I think it is very safe to say that there is nothing that the Bible considers absolutely necessary for our salvation that involves quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, instead, is a new discovery that gives us a profound ability to recover a view of the world where the world does not reduce to physics. If there's something above physics, something that is not reducible to quantity that is actually present in the world. Gotcha. And with that, we're over time. Wanna say thanks so much, folks, for all of your questions. Thanks so much. Most of all, we appreciate Tom and Rick. We really appreciate you guys just hanging out with us. It was a great conversation. Thanks very much. It was a lot of fun. I appreciate it. Thanks for having us on. Absolutely. Wanna remind you, folks, I put the links of both speakers down in the description so if you're like, oh man, modern day debate is over. What am I gonna do? Well, you can hear plenty more at their channels, which are linked below. Also, like I said, very excited for some upcoming debates. We have a double header tomorrow in the afternoon, whether or not Islam fits in Western society. That should be a juicy one. And then, at night, a tag team debate, specifically on whether or not Christianity is true. So that should be another juicy one. Friday alien abductions. And I think by the way, folks, okay, a couple of things really quick, housekeeping things. One, we are probably, we're finally, after like almost two years, finally kind of converging on a regular time, a regular schedule. We are probably going to do, and we're still kind of like piecing it together, probably 9 p.m. Eastern standard Monday through Friday, regularly, that would just be the kind of the default. And we might do like a bonus debate Thursday or Friday afternoon. So Monday through Friday though, 9 p.m. is kind of like the standard. We probably aren't gonna do as many on weekends. And I think, though, that this will help because it'll kind of give us more time to kind of keep getting quality debates like this one. And so we're gonna try to kind of do a little bit more vetting of debaters. We're going to start kind of requiring things like maybe prior debate experience or like link, things like that. And then also wanna let you know, wanna say huge thanks everybody, as I don't know if you guys had seen it on our channel community tab. It was almost a month ago. I said, hey, folks, we want your hand on the steering wheel of this channel. So we wanna know what topics you would enjoy. And so I was really glad we, I've got just some of them and I'm gonna read them off the most popular ones that people responded with. These are the debates we're trying to set up. Some of these we've already done. So for example, the alien abduction one coming up this Friday. But here are some other ones. Free speech, right to offend versus codified hate speech policing. That should be a juicy one. Next is racism, a moral evil or a natural phenomena that people should accept. That's another juicy one. Then can statistics be racist? And if so, what do we replace them with? So, Rick, did we lose you? Rick, no, it's like we weren't done yet, man. Well, okay, I think we lost Rick. That's sad, but you know, we're gonna finish. It's the way he would have wanted it. Let me finish really quick. So, reading some of those other subjects. Oh, Rick, I'm like, so let me hear, let me switch over so you can see the rest of Tom's face. There it is, you see him? You see my hand too? So, give me one second. Okay, DC versus Marvel, fight the flat earth. We're going to try to get, fight the flat earth to defend DC comics as being better than Marvel. If we have a huge Marvel fan, we're gonna try to set that one up. Whether or not the death penalty is justified, that should be fun. Tom, do you have an opinion on the death penalty? Yeah, I think that it's in a world to kill anybody for any reason ever, so I think it's immoral. I think that death should be an option for any inmate who has a life in prison, a life sentence. They should just be able to choose and say I would prefer the death penalty and it should be an option in that way, but I don't think it should ever be enforced, especially not in the way we do it. Gotcha, really interesting. And thanks so much for your, or I should say, this other suggestion. This is race realism, so that would be an interesting one. They said I would love to see Jared Taylor debate someone like Brenton or Destiny. That would be interesting. Next, number of people have requested James White. We will try to get James White. I've seen a lot of James White debates. Tough debater, that would be really fun. And are women suppressed in Islam? A lot of triggering when we host that one, as well as people want to see Isaac Butterfield versus Vosh. I don't know if we're gonna get Isaac for that. I think Vosh would be up to it, but I don't know if we'll get Isaac. We'll give it a shot. Dilahunty, people had wanted to see him with vegan gains. I've got to tell you folks, I don't think, I don't know. I mean, I don't want to speak for Matt, but so I'll ask him. I don't know if he would go for it, if it's in his interest range, but it's worth a shot. So running some new ideas past Matt, and so Matt Dilahunty in particular. So with that, we will do this, I would say probably like once a month, so we'll probably put another poll out. If you check our community tab, and sometimes it'll just show up on your YouTube homepage, it'll show basically, I think what we'll do is, we'll say what topics would you like to see, maybe the next one we'll do like what debaters on YouTube would you like to see us reach out to? And that would be a really big one. And what I think we'll do is we'll maybe ask people to just, if you, to look through the names, and to try to, if you already, if you see the name of the person you want on, just hit like on somebody else who's already posted that name. And if you haven't seen it already, then just type it in yourself. That's how you type, I'm guessing. So with that, I want to say, let's see, Flat Earth Aussie Roscoe, thanks for your question, wants to debate Tom on the existence of space. Tom, are you up for this? The existence of space? Yes, Flat Earth Aussie Roscoe wants to take, he wants to take you out to the woodshed. Flat Earth Aussie, yeah, definitely space for sure. I don't know if you, folks, I don't know if you saw this the other night, Flat Earth Aussie let us in on a secret. In particular, he sleeps in the nude, and I'm serious, I mean, you know, it's important you know these things. So do you, so I mean, it's not really. No, actually I don't. And the fact that you make it sound as if you know it, like it's a fact, don't get the wrong idea, folks. We travel together, but not like that closely. And someone said William Link Craig versus Matt Dillahunty, I did actually ask already. So I reached out to William Link Craig, I haven't heard back. I think that William Link Craig, I don't know if he's gonna go for that, but we can try it. Sam Cedar versus Dave Rubin, that one would be huge. We can see what we can do. I think it would be epic. I don't know for sure if we would get it, but we'll give it a shot. And then James White versus Dillahunty, that is one that we are trying to set up. And let's see. Ben Shapiro. I would love to have Ben Shapiro on, I think it would be a huge debate. I don't know what he would be looking for price-wise. Tom, the rumor is, from you, that is it true that the word on the streets is that Ben Shapiro to speak in person, it's like $50,000. Something like that's including with all the security and stuff. So yeah, it's expensive. It was expensive when we brought him to the university in Minnesota. Oh, okay, with security and all that. Okay, gotcha. It wouldn't be the same for like online. Gotcha. Tim Durand, thanks for your idea, said get cosmic skeptic. We would love to have Alex on again. And I am actually, I do have an idea in mind for getting, requesting Alex to come back and believe me folks. It's going to be so good. It's going to be tremendous. You won't even believe it. That's how good it's going to be. So we'll see if he goes for it, but I got an idea that I think would be really fun. And Ben Shapiro versus Kyle Kalinsky, that would be epic. Ben Shapiro versus Tom Jump on Does God Exist. That would be pretty neat. Braxton Hunter, that's actually good. We haven't really had Braxton. So yeah. And by the way, folks, it helps us a ton. Somebody the other day, they set us up with Mr. Reagan. So like I'm connected to Mr. Reagan. We're talking, he's a big time, like political debater. And we're trying to find him an opponent, but if you know, like a YouTube debaters out there, people who are like regular debaters and you know, they're buzz saws, they're tough. Let us know if you can help connect us with them. That is a huge help to the channel if you're willing to do that for us. And so we do appreciate, I'm trying to remember the name of the friend who got us connected to Mr. Reagan. But yes, Flat Earth Ossie Roscoe does also shower naked. So I think I've embarrassed them. I'm really sorry about that. I hope you don't feel embarrassed that I told everybody. You said it in chat. Everyone does, that's what? No, that, it was just a joke. He was being like sarcastic. Alex Jones, maybe. Tom, do you think we could get your dad, Alex Jones, on here? Uh, do you have a way to contact him? Any band from every social media? Maybe, I think he's on his own website, but I think he's getting arrested and sued for something. Are you serious? Yeah, he's been in like 10 lawsuits. Then someone said, let's see. Kanye West versus Joe Biden. We can work on that. That might happen. Uh-huh, let's see. Oh, I didn't know it. Did someone said that? Oh, okay, you're talking about Alex, William and Craig. We should try to see, I don't know if Alex would go for it, but we'll ask Alex. Cosmic, skeptic versus who was it they said? Oh, yeah, yeah, okay, yeah. Yeah, let's see. Joe Rogan, that would be pretty rad. Stefan Malinu, we would love to have Stefan. Kyle Kalinsky versus Vosh. I actually agree. That actually is a great idea too. Tucker Carlson versus Anderson Cooper. Anderson Cooper. Oh, yeah, yeah, the gentleman from CNN. Silver Fox, yeah. He's like me. Silver Fox. Do you guys ever see my silver? Okay, Gabriel Kay says new age. Oh, yeah, I'm kind of curious. So, yeah, anyway, we really do appreciate your feedback, folks, and we really do listen to it. So these are debates that we are going to try to think, maybe I'll put it on Twitter and I'll see if people reach out for these topics. So we really do, your feedback is so helpful in terms of knowing what we can do that you'll enjoy. So it's always a party, folks. We enjoy it, thanks so much. We hope you keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Somebody wants Steve McCray versus Snake was right. Part four, that could be a good one. But yeah, so thanks so much. Let's see. Really appreciate that. Rationality rules, I've asked him before. I haven't gotten a response, but Brenton is trying to right now, trying to reach out to him. And that might actually, we might actually get to have Steven on. So that would be really cool. And so thanks so much. Vash versus Peter Coffin on class reductionism. Probably heard about that today's space jockey. I don't know if Peter's gonna be up for it, but I- Trump versus Kanye. Trump versus Kanye, that would be an interesting one. British versus American office, I like that. That's cool. Modern day debates glasses versus tea jumps chair. Oh my gosh, that would be epic, Tom. Those are fake glasses. Thomas, these help protect my eyes from the blue light from the screen, but whoa, it's already 9.15. So we will let you go folks. Really appreciate it. Well, G-Man versus Godless Girl. The internet would implode. What else is there? Sorry, these are so fun to read. Wotan versus G-Man on, is the earth flat? G-Man versus drag, that would be cool. If G-Man and drag would be up to it, we'd be happy to host it. Man, these are like great ideas. So thanks so much. Let's see. Carnivorous Ape wants cosmic skeptic on veganism. That might happen. Stupid Hort Energy says she wants a debate on who's hotter, Steve McCrae or Flat Earth Aussie Roscoe. I don't know, stupid Hort Energy. I'm not sure if we're gonna get that. Flat Earth Aussie taking a shot at your dad, Tom, says Steve McCrae versus a wet paper bag. Oh, come on. Ooh, burn, burn. Steve. I like Flat Earth Aussie. We love you, Steve. We hope you're doing well. Okay, so anyway, thanks so much, folks. We honestly, it's always fun. We hope you have a great night. Keeps up to go. The reasonable, from the unreasonable, it's always fun. Thank you, Tom, again for being with us. Yep.