US Space and Rocket Center (Part 1 of 3) (Sorry, I don't have a timestamp for this.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxeEaO ... bCRsMi_IM
The difference between the two theories becomes a comparison of the bottom-up versus the top-down model. By bottom-up I mean particles build up reality from the bottom-up. Things get more complex as you go up. In the top-down model there is a probability of how the reality works. The collapse of the probability wave generates the change in the data stream which produces our reality.
There are four main issues here that I’d like to mention. The first is that the bottom-up model starts with elementary particles called fundamental particles. The problem with elementary particles is they aren't composed of anything – they have no size and so can have no substructure. How then can you explain the properties of these particles and show how they can be used to explain the contents of the universe? If a particle is truly fundamental it doesn’t have any piece parts because it is at the bottom of the building block of matter. We used to think the atom was a fundamental particle. Then scientists found that atoms have protons, neutrons, and electrons. And we used to think that about the electron and now the electron has quarks and the nucleus has proton and neutrons. Then the protons and neutrons got broken apart, and everything that used to be elementary became a part of something else. So there’s always something else that becomes elementary.
Now in the physical model we have this set of particles that we call elementary, and they’re fundamental. The problem is if it’s elementary, and it has no piece parts, where does it come from? It’s not made from anything, it has no piece parts, and so there’s no way make one. If there is no way to make one, how do you get it? Well, they just exist. It exists because they exist. If you want to cheat this a little bit you’d say “They happened in the big bang somehow. They just got made.” But how do you make something with no piece parts. Where did they come from? If they came from the Big Bang, then where did the Big Bang come from? It’s the same problem. The Big Bang just pops out of nowhere. So, the explanation is that the elementary particles, this whole reality is built on, just popped out of nowhere. That doesn’t give you a real warm feeling about the results that you’re going to get from this calculation. These particles that aren't composed of anything, that have no size and no substructure, are elementary and fundamental.
The second problem is that none of these particles have ever been observed or measured. What has been observed, or measured, are the effects of these particles. We can see an effect. Like gravity is an effect. Things fall down. That’s an effect. Let’s explain that effect. Well, maybe it’s that masses attract. Maybe it’s curvature of space-time. Maybe it’s electromagnetic. So, the particle is just a hypothetical model of what somebody dreamed up to tell you how the effect works. One, they’re elementary which makes it difficult to know where they come from. Two, they’re fundamental which means they are just theories. Nobody’s ever seen one; nobody’s ever measured one. We make them up to solve the problem of why we get an effect. Like the theories about gravity that says masses attract or it's because of a bend in space-time. Scientists make those theories up to solve the gravity effect.
There’s often multiple ways that you can describe something. You get different ways of describing all kinds of things like describing things with particles.
The fact is that back in the early 1900’s, when quantum mechanics was just getting started, physicists had a big argument among themselves. Neils Bohr with his Copenhagen Interpretation  said that there was a good probabilistic model that could explain reality. And the other physicists said “Yeah, but probability is weird. We’re used to Newton and his particles where everything is mass. And we understand that. We don’t like a probability model. It’s too weird. We like particles.” So, at that point back in the early 1900’s most physicists went with the particles. That feels better to us because science has always been committed to materialism and particles.
Physicists have been down that rabbit hole ever since the early 1900’s. That’s why they’re having so many problems now trying to say, "How does the double slit experiment work?" And why scientists keep asking, "Why do particles act like that?” It’s because particles are the wrong way to model the problem. It’s not a good model to explain the effects, so it fails. Physicists say these fundamental particles are hypothetical particles, they’re elementary, and they pop out of nothing. We see materialism doesn’t exactly have a strong, logical foundation. Materialism starts to look pretty ratty at the roots.
The third problem is that consciousness exists. Of course, the materialists deny that consciousness exists, but I think most everybody knows that we are conscious. We make decisions and it could this decision, or that decision. Events change based on the decisions we make. That idea seems pretty obvious to most of us. Physicists want to show how that model would work with particles, but they can’t. Scientists can’t even come up with a good model of how that could possibly work. How do you put the Lego together to build this complex Lego thing and then it becomes conscious because of the Lego. That just doesn’t fly very well. It’s not rational. They call that the “hard problem.” If you Google "consciousness studies" you’ll find the hard problem. The hard problem is how do you take a bunch of inanimate chunks of particles and then end up with consciousness. Scientists don't have any idea. If they had an inkling, they would jump on it. But they haven't found a way to connect consciousness arising out of particles. So, the third problem is consciousness is unexplained in the materialistic theory.
The fourth problem is the complexity and the processing requirements to work a materialistic model. Every action has to be computed from the ground up each time because conditions are different. I raise my arm and I put it down. A whole bunch of molecules and atoms just went through a lot of motions that would take a super-computer days to compute. I do it again, and guess what? My arm didn’t go up and down in exactly the same place it did last time. So each movement has to be computed from the ground up again. I keep raising and lowering my arm which drives the super computer crazy because it can’t keep up. Why would reality go through all of those computation if it didn’t have to? It’s an inefficient way to compute reality. We have a thing in science called Occam’s razor . Occam's razor says if processes don’t make any sense, aren't efficient, and aren't pared down to the simplest way to solve the problem then they’re probably wrong. If you apply Occam’s razor to determinism it would toss that theory out in a second. Because to build a world out of particles is too complicated.
Those four things just don’t add up. And those particles are the foundation under which all of the rest of science is based. These elementary, fundamental particles aren’t logical and it’s a very good guess.