
Leonard Susskind on Feynman, the Holographic Principle, and Unanswered Physics - 4ad
https://blog.ycombinator.com/leonard-susskind-on-richard-feynman-the-holographic-principle-and-unanswered-questions-in-physics/
======
jdblair
Nit: its "physics canon," not "cannon." Like "canonical."

------
acqq
For those who were attracted by "Feynman" in the title, here's Susskind's talk
about Feynman, also mentioned in the interview:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjwotips7E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjwotips7E)

------
gdogw1
Feynman reminds me of a more material/practical Alan Watts. Also, kudos to the
article for the index.

------
spiritcat
Not sure what it is, but his lectures are amazing to go to sleep to. Thinks
it's the voice.

Also really interesting stuff too.

------
psalminen
Listening to this, I realized how being a skeptic as led me away from my
physics background. Namely, how ER=EPR is a fact due to recent findings even
though our history of science is being "correct" until we find new information
to discredit past beliefs.

~~~
nabla9
The idea that old physical theory always becomes false or incorrect when a new
theory supersedes it is elementary mistake. For example "Classical physics is
wrong" or "all theories are proven wrong in time" fallacies.

~~~
roenxi
It isn't really a fallacy, just pedantic. We can't really assert a
philosophical concept of 'truth' in physics, because there is always
uncertainty. By extension, any statement that 'this is how the world is
working' has a good chance of being wrong in theory and practice.

For example, as I know we have random variables in the current models of
quantum physics. Based on our historic experience with the universe, they may
yet prove not to actually be random. Until quantum physics, random variables
were always a theoretical construct to fill in gaps in our knowledge - eg,
"experimental error" was expected to be limits in our ability to measure
rather than something fundamental.

Classical physics is really handy, but it doesn't accurately model how the
world works in a can-I-simulate-reality-according-to-our-best-knowledge sense.
That falsifies the theory.

~~~
tbabb
Nope. The randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be erased with more detailed
knowledge-- ascribing any number of "hidden" properties to particles to
explain their quantum behavior produces mathematical inconsistencies. See:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)

~~~
bradneuberg
Actually technically Bells Theorem says you can’t have hidden variables if you
want to retain _locality_. If you allow nonlocality Bells Theorem still allows
hidden variables.

