>New models will inevitably come up, but that doesn't mean they will be deterministic.

You asked for the confounding factors of the experiment and I provided them from the paper authors themselves. I don't see any point in discussing this further. See ya.

>It's just an explanation of the experiment

In my experience, Veritasium loses accuracy in his effort toward simplicity. I watched the video and learned nothing new and rolled my eyes on a few parts. That's why I prefer just reading the paper.

If you're genuinely interested in the paper, here it is with confounding factors included.

>Strictly speaking, no Bell experiment can exclude all conceivable local-realist theories, because it is fundamentally impossible to prove when and where free random input bits and output values came into existence13. Even so, our loophole-free Bell test opens the possibility to progressively bound such less-conventional theories: by increasing the distance between A and B (for example, to test theories with increased speed of physical influence); by using different random input bit generators (to test theories with specific free-will agents, for example, humans); or by repositioning the random input bit generators (to test theories where the inputs are already determined earlier, sometimes referred to as ‘freedom-of-choice’9). In fact, our experiment already enables tests of all models that predict that the random inputs are determined a maximum of 690 ns before we record them (Supplementary Information).

>Veritasium

lol. Okay.

>so far

Not really. We just don’t have enough data to conclusively make a claim like that. Especially since historically when claims of true randomness have been made, they’ve turned out to not be the case. It would be interesting if it turned out to actually be the case, though. Once we actually start relying on it functionally, we’ll know for certain if it’s really the case.

Hate it or not, that’s very likely the case. If QM events turn out to actually be random, it’ll be the first truly random event we’ve ever observed.

What do you mean by “responsible for their actions?” If a machine is faulty, we don’t absolve it of blame for creating sub-optimal output conditions. If a person murders someone else, the murder still happened and they still committed it. We would still react deterministically to this event, whether by demanding capital punish enemy, imprisonment, or rehabilitation. You then can look at the conditions this murderer emerged in and see if patterns emerge. If mitigating those environmental conditions reduces the occurrences of murder, then what other conclusion could you draw?

That doesn’t even go into the myriad of data that decision making processes occur prior to conscious recognition of the decision. That is, fMRI data highly indicates that the “sub-conscious” structures of our brain make decisions and then what we call our “consciousness” is informed about it.

Then you have the fact that chemical and physical alterations to our brain structure cause behavioral and psychological changes to a person. For instance, chemical hemisphere separation creates two personalities with two narratives. If a blinder is used, and the one hand gives the other hand something, when prompted the person will make up a story about how they received it. Without separation, the person says they handed it to themselves.

Once you look at things beyond individual decisions, it becomes pretty clear that there’s nothing special about the human brain that could possibly separate it from natural determinism. There’s no “soul” to override our physical brains.

Saying it is truly random has a higher burden of proof than saying it appears random. Sure, it may truly be random, but currently we just don’t know enough to say one way or another. If it really is random, it’ll be our first discovery of a truly random event.

Sure. Why not? This is like saying people choose who they’re attracted to or choose what they believe. Sure, one could speculate about them deciding to be attracted to things they aren’t or believe things they don’t. The reality is that we really don’t actually control either of these things.

When you get down to it, we don’t really control anything. We may soon discover that what we call consciousness is just the communication between our multiple brains. That is, our consciousness is an observer of the brain’s decisions, rather than the controller. In other words, what we consider “self” could just be along for the ride. Purely output from the brain.

We don’t understand QM well enough to know if they’re “truly” random. They appear random, but that doesn’t mean they are random.

I love the headspace you’re in right now. lol

It’s also incompatible with the observational data we’ve gathered so far. When we perform fMRI scans of the various structures of the brain and ask the subject to decide between binary options, the decision is made in the subconscious regions and then reported to the conscious regions. This means that when we’re deciding something, our “conscious mind” is told what’s being “thought about” and the eventual verdict, rather than being involved in it.

It appears that not only is free will non-existent, but consciousness may not actually be anything like we think it is. What we call consciousness may in fact just be the communication channels between the various brains that have been strapped on over the years.

Another example is when the connections between hemispheres are temporarily chemically “severed” the hemispheres begin behaving as two distinct minds. When isolating each hemispheres from the other’s field of vision from the other’s, you end up with extremely bizarre behaviors. One such behavior is the subject handing themselves an item from one hand to the next. They’re then asked how the item got into that hand. The response is universally that someone handed it to them.

My personal favorite rebuttal against free will though is “of course the brain would tell you it’s the master of the body.”

The rocketry equation includes cargo mass as well. If you increase the cargo of an LEO spacecraft by 100kgs, you're going to need more fuel to lift it.

The best method is to get a factory onto the Moon and then start manufacturing stuff there. All we'd need from that point is to ferry people and supplies for the journey back and forth. As you suspect, leaving the lunar surface requires a small fraction of the energy for leaving Earth. There's sufficient material, including water and oxygen, for lunar colonies to be self-sustainable and generate new craft for industrializing the solar system.

There's an old joke that basically goes: "Once you're in LEO, you're halfway to the rest of the solar system."

You probably won't have to break any tiles, but at most the first one might break. Just scrape under the tiles and give them a good soak in a tub outside. Pull them out one at a time and scrubs the backs with a brush and then rinse them off. While soaking and letting them dry, scrape off all the compound from the floor. The biggest hit here will be your own labor and time, so the loss is whatever you value that at.

What do you think ‘begs the question’ means?

>It only begs the question what truth is

Postulating that truth doesn't exist can't possibly beg the question of "what truth is?" It's addressing it head-on. Not only is Truth not some universal law, it doesn't exist independent of a human mind. It's a construct from which we derive comfort. Even if we decide to assume it exists, we'd have to also conclude it's unattainable.

TBH, I don't understand why people flash their money. Just attracts flies.

A lot of these resources are far more abundant in ocean water than lane. Desalinization is the future. With fusion having been unlocked, (a net return tokamak testing complete, with a newer more efficient design coming online in a few years) we’ll have more than enough electricity for electric cars, desalinization, recycling, and other needs we’ve been neglecting due to energy cost.