Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

25596Re: Examples of Major Disjoints between PopperDeutsch and Science

Expand Messages
  • Brett Hall
    Sep 1 7:17 PM
      On 31/08/2013, at 18:19, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

      >
      > --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Brett Hall <brhalluk@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > You can change little of the substance of what you have typed below...and argue for the truth of solipsism. You can argue that you, and you alone, are a conscious thinking being and that everything else is a figment of your imagination:
      >
      > You mean what I say right at the start about MWI? Well sure, but then I go onto to make an argument for [another] objection to MWI. The first comment wasn't meant to be taken in isolation.
      >
      > But since you're on the line. You're an MWI guy, so would you answer me just one question. Why do you believe that QM strangeness and the 'big bang' event, are definitely NOT different faces of the same hidden explanation, such that neither one can be answered in isolation of the other, but can only be explained both together.
      >
      I can honestly say, I no longer find QM all that 'strange'. I know that word is used so often when it comes to quantum theory - it's a cliche. It's a hackneyed meme that there exists QM "strangeness". It's a catch-all term for stuff that's not classical. But QM is no more strange to me than the theory that there exist other planets orbiting other stars. It just happens to contain some rather exciting, interesting predictions, observations and conclusions when encountered for the first time. But one can get used to such things and they became not all that strange anymore.

      I am not "definite" that there is no deeper explanation than QM. Indeed the opposite. I am very confident there must be. But I do not think we will find that there are not other universes - as described by Everett and Deutsch - anymore than I think a discovery will be made that DNA is not involved in genetics. I think there is more to genetics than DNA...but I know DNA is essential. There is more to reality than other universes. But there are other universes.

      This is my best attempt to answer your question as I'm not sure I understood it.
      >
      > I'm playing a little, but it is reasonable enough to associate your acceptance of MWI with an implicit rejection of the QM-and-Big-Bang-together approach.
      >
      No. I don't understand why you think QM and big bang can't be reconciled. That seems very odd to me. QM is true. And the big bang happened. Why is this a problem?
      >
      > What's probably accurate is that you never considered that possibility in the first place.
      >
      What possibility?
      > The pond that MWI people having been swimming in, only ever considered 'Interpretations' as legitimate competing explanations.
      >
      > And the reason for that - I think - is because that was what all the great mid 20th century quantum geniuses were doing.l..back in the mid to late 20th century. A convention which the subsequent generations seem to have just carried on with, possibly as an implicit collective decision that never saw a forum of debate.
      >
      > But all of that - this whole interpretation approach - came about within a historical context in which the Big Bang was barely more than a vague conception. There were a lot fewer options for something to explain QM in terms of. In fact it's possible there weren't any at all yet sufficiently non-vague to be a viable candidate.
      >
      I don't understand. What is the "interpretation approach"?

      All science is interpretation. Indeed all knowledge. We believe stars are hot furnaces of hydrogen fusion and not cold, dim holes on a celestial sphere because we interpret scant data in the form of a few photons arriving at our instruments then other photons falling on our retinas. Interpretation is the stuff knowledge is made of. We never have direct access to reality. We interpret observations. Our observations are interpretations. The MWI is on a par with the dinosaur interpretation of fossils, the tectonic plate interpretation of continental drift, the evolution by natural selection interpretation of the origin of species, the nuclear fusion interpretation of stars, etc, etc.
      >
      > I don't know for sure...I'll have to check the historical record. But certainly, that scenario would be where my bet would go. For me the reason is that, were there other huge mysteries that seemed to defy all sense, besides QM - and there's a lot about the Big Bang that would qualify for that - it would be utterly inconceivable that that generation of scientists, so many great geniuses among them, would overlook that other baffling mystery as a possible candidate for explaining QM.
      >
      > It just wouldn't happen in my view, because that generation would have been extremely familiar with the idea that apparently separate problems in separate places, can turn out to be different faces of the same thing, and as such only explicable in terms of one to the other.
      >
      > This may sound odd to you Brett, but it wouldn't have to them, because that is pretty much how all the major breakthroughs of the 100 years or so before their day, had come about. So this would have been extremely familiar to them, and any possibility of explaining QM like that would have automatically become the priority, because an arrangement like that would be consistent with several other breakthroughs.
      >
      > So based on that, I reckon the interpretation thing came about because there were no such alternative means in place at that time.
      >
      > Now..of course the Big Bang started becoming clear before these guys popped their clogs, but by that time, most of them were well past their prime and or (as in the case of Feynman) had ceased showing much interest in the interpretation scene, and moved onto other questions.
      >
      As Deutsch explains in BoI - one reason many physicists don't promote the MWI is because of some bad turns in philosophy. I commend chapter 12 of "The Beginning of Infinity" to you (Physicists history of Bad Philosophy). In the 20th century some of philosophy became obsessed with with language - and how it might constrain what we can know. This followed Ludwig Wittgenstein. Physicists became infected with a weakness avoiding the tendancy to say what sci
      was "literally" true - perhaps it seemed to arrogant. They became afraid and relativism moved from the humanities into the hardest of all sciences. Some physicists retreated into wishy-washy things like "wave particle duality" (hippies?) and "shut up and calculate" (an incoherent cop-out). We are burdened with that heritage.

      It's as if the Catholic Church was successful in arguing that heliocentrism was a useful mathematical device for predicting the position of planets: but as a literal explanation of reality, was nonsense. That there was "something deeper" and so for that reason we should hold out for another, truer, theory and not admit the Earth actually did orbit the Sun (obviously it does not. Anyone who thinks it does lacks the imagination to believe that there must be more to the universe than this). So in the meantime we must remain committed to geocentrism - it is literally true. But at the same time be committed to the idea there is something deeper - only it's not heliocentrism.

      So MWI is not true some say. But something else is (what though?) We are not told. You have said there is a deeper theory. But you don't know what. We just have to wait for it to be fully formed. But what do we take seriously *now*?

      We aren't told.

      To borrow a quip from Sam Harris:

      This is how you play tennis without the net.

      >
      > Do you know what I think? I think that none of you have ever begun to think about these questions at all. And the reason why I think that's a problem is because.....and this bit will be falsifiable.....I predict that none of you will be able to provide a plausible explanation how the interpretation approach would have come about in 2013 within a context of 2013 evels of knowledge.
      >

      Again, what is the "interpretation approach"?

      Brett..




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic