Not surprising since they both worked on the same stuff, quantum field theories.
But the take away from this talk is him speaking of how complex behaviors are emergent from the quantum behaviors, plus a huge number of accidents, which are not included in the theories because they are, at their base, random. The theories can predict the probabilities but not predict outcomes.
Here is the core of the differences between the reductionists, like most theoretical physicists and those who see, for instance, that macro things can effect things at the quantum level. Well, the equations seem to say, "no."
There are some kooks who try to shoehorn the reverse causality into the randomness, but a cursory examination blows that out of the water, because these random events are predictive, just only in the accumulation of a large number of them. Then, accuracy of QM is phenomenal. For example, you can't predict when a nucleus of carbon-14 will decay, but if you have a chunk of it, you can predict precisely how many nuclei have decayed.
All these behaviors are emergent, so it seems, based on processes which at their base are random, yet a cumulatively predictive.
Yes, there are experiments which show bizarrely reversed causes and effects, but these all concern quantum systems, which by all the theory predicts that these things can happen. Once you get above that level quantum effects average out.
Good discussion going here.
= new reply since forum marked as read