Nicolas Gisin on intuitionism, indeterminacy, quantum gravity | Thing in itself w/ Ashar Khan

Nicolas Gisin is a physicist at the University of Geneva working on the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum information and communication.
1:32 intuitionist mathematics
7:41 the choice of mathematical language determines the ontology
9:40 real numbers in classical and intuitionist mathematics
13:59 how mathematicians intuitively think
10:21 the continuum
20:52 thick time
23:51 the importance of telling stories
27:15 indeterminacy in classical mathematics
32:48 quantum gravity theories
37:22 time and quantum gravity
40:04 interpretations of quantum mechanics
45:18 Bohmian mechanics
46:43 the open past in an indeterministic physics (recent paper)
Book: Quantum Chance: Nonlocality, Teleportation and Other Quantum Marvels (2014)
Social
Twitter: / thinginitself__
Instagram: / thinginitself.pod
Facebook: / 100088163125850
Podcast
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0dUBLTl...
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Amazon: music.amazon.ca/podcasts/9c6c...

[@tomsuniverse42]

It reminds me a bit to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis applied to Mathematics and Physics. The kind of language you use determines your thinking or what you are able to think.

[@quintalfer]

Very interesting and informative interview, from start to finish.

[@Thinginitselfpodcast]

Thank you.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Interview Professor Basil J. Hiley

[@Robinson8491]

Great channel

[@Thinginitselfpodcast]

Thank you!

[@Robinson8491]

I agree with him; if the future to be open (and not deterministic) the past should/could also be open/ not deterministic. Anyways it is impossible to predict it (the past) with thermodynamics logic like we would the future. So it makes no sense to say the past is something that exists like a determined fixed thing as well, just because it's the past. Considering we cannot predict it, the past, no matter how much of a Sherlock Holmes we are. Does past equate with linear determinism? That is the question. You would likely say that it does, because it's the Newtonian R reality of quantum mechanics compared to the open wavefunction U reality (Penrose- Road to Reality). So in the end I'm not sure about the statement

[@4pharaoh]

I wonder if the professor is aware how many different definitions of _Time_ he used in this interview.
We are all so comfortable with the concept of time that we usually segue between the multiple understandings without effort.
Nevertheless this is a cause of much confusion even between the scientifically minded, let alone between the scientist/ mathematician and the general population.