http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16253 <pre> In Physics and Math, people tend to memorize formulas; I guess cause they think its easier. And this requires that they memorize which formulas apply to which problems. But this means that if they are presented with a new kind of problem, they won't know which formula to use. And this happens a lot on physics tests. So they end up using the wrong formulas and/or inputting the numbers in them incorrectly. So how can someone know which formulas apply to which problems, and what the formulas mean in order to use them correctly? He must know the principles. They explain the meaning behind which the formulas were created and which problems the formulas apply to; even for problems you've never seen before. Note that the number of problems [in physics or any other field] are infinite. So how could someone *memorize* which formulas apply to which problems if you can't possibly know all the problems? This applies to all knowledge. So in physics we have principles, formulas, and problems. I've renamed these to logics, rules, and situations. Consider a business environment. There are situations that employees are presented with and they need to apply the rules that their employers created. But without the logic, employees can not know which rules apply to which situations. They end up applying their own logic, which may contradict their employers logic, and that causes them to apply the wrong rule. Or they apply the appropriate rule but they do so incorrectly. To solve this problem, employers should explain the logic behind the rules, so that employees can figure out which situations to apply them and how to apply them in said situations. All knowledge exists in one network structure. The situations can be represented as points in an N-dimensional space. The situations' properties define the position of the points in that space. The rules are vectors. So the points [situations] that lie along a vector [rule], are the situations that that rule apply to. The logics are superstructures of vectors. Well most people's knowledge of physics is just rules and situations. Its like a data table with 2 columns, one for rules and one for situations. So they memorize which rules apply to which situations. The issue with this is that the number of situations is infinite. So its a futile attempt because no one can learn *all* the possible relationships between rules and situations since the number of situations is infinite thus making the number of relationships infinite. But in the network structure, the vectors [rules] apply to an infinite number of situations because a line has an infinite number of points [situations] along its trajectory. Note that the structure doesn't require that the situations are known. All somebody has to do is determine the properties of a newly-found situation [thereby determining its position in the space], thereby determining which rule(s) apply to it. Every time a student or teacher thinks about a problem, they should discuss the principles before discussing which formulas apply to said problem. So before solving a problem, first ask these questions: - What principle should we be thinking about? - How does that principle explain which formula we should use in this type of problem? - How does that principle explain how to apply that formula in this type of problem? Once the student has answered these questions correctly, then they should continue with solving the specific problem. Its important to relate each situation with a rule, and each rule with a logic. But we can't be aware of all situations all the time. So we can prioritize by paying attention to situations that we see problems with. So say I notice a problem with a situation, I should ask: - What rule am I following? - What logic explains that this is the correct rule to apply in this situation? If I can't immediately answer these questions, then there is work to do. I can consider other similar situations or rules and try to create an abstraction from them, thus creating a new logic. Then I can apply that tentative logic in other known situations and rules with the aim of finding contradictions. If I [or others] find contradictions, then either my new logic is wrong, or it is right, which means that the contradicting logic [the older one] is wrong. Note that the creation of the abstraction is a guess and that looking for contradictions is criticism. If I do immediately answer those questions, there is still work to do. The fact that I noticed a problem in a situation suggests that a logic is incorrect. I can try to find the error in my logic, i.e. a contradiction in the network structure. Once that is found, then I can make guesses and criticisms similar to above until I've fixed the logic thus resolving the contradiction, i.e. solving the problem. </pre> Rami Rustom 2012-05-26T16:19:33 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16237 <pre>There are two issues facing both A.I. and the Turing Principle: Firstly...forget consciousness for a moment and rewrite his principle more simply "if a computer program accurately emulates another computer program then any meaningful characteristic that program has, the emulation also has". No particular problem with that. But now substitue "a cup of coffee" for the other program. If a computer program accurately emulates a cup of coffee...does it become a cup of coffee? The answer could be yes or no. It could be yes,but with different hardware and much more complex software. Or it could be no because Turing's principle is only computational not physical. Turning back to consciousness, what this shows is that embedded into the Turing Principle is the assumption that consciousness is analogous to a computer program, and not at all physical/structural like a cup of coffee. That may be true...but it's a big assumption, and for that reason, all this talk about "if the Turing Principle is wrong universal computation is falsified" is totally flawed, for the simple reason the Universal Computation law is not falsified by the problems created by that cup of coffee, and the Turing Principle - if it fails on consciousness - may fail for the same sort of reason. The second problem relates to the assumptions about what is accurate emulation of consciousness and what sort of interface through which should this be ascertained. But come to the problem from a different direction. Let's say a computer program suddenly becomes conscious and says to itself "Wow...I'm here". That thought/experience, even if it is pure 'software' still has to be facilitated by the computer hardware. This means that processing time needs to be allocated to it. It means registry and disk space needs to be allocated and pointers and references lined up. All of these processes are hardwired at lower levels of the computer architecture. In order that software can access those levels it must be put through a process of compilation, first into - usually - an intermediate language and then into machine code. From there the hardware processes can be accessed. But this is a problem for the A.I. concept. If that thought "Wow, I'm here" happens, then....does it get written, and compiled first, in which case...does a new thread get created? In which case what causes that to happen? And when does the thought "Wow, I'm here" really happen...before the compilation, or after? Alternatively, if the consciousness somehow controls the hardwire in a new way...that is very complex and technical...and would probably have to happen at lower levels before higher levels. So how would that happen..how would low level machine code become sentient. It is incredible inflexible and hardwired stuff. In humans and animals, lower level controls evolved way back when the hardware was also lower level. As the hardware evolved...this triggered and was symbiotic with further evolution of control/software processes, resulting in new layers, essentially performing new higher level functions while receiving some other services from pre-existing lower level functioins, which continued to do a lot of the lower level work. There is nothing like this happening in computers as they currently stand. There is nothing instrinsically like this in the very conceptualization of a hardware/software divide. There is no evolutionary engine available from a purely software conception of consciousness. </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-24T08:11:32 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16216 <pre>Hi FoR folk, I thought you might be interested in the first signs of the impact, on science itself, of 20 years of a 'science of consciousness'. The ignition point for the change is obviously in the neurosciences. However, it will track down through the physical sciences towards physics in time. Have a read and let me know what you think: http://theconversation.edu.au/learning-experience-lets-take-consciousness-in-from-the-cold-6739 cheers Colin Hales, PhD Researcher Centre for Neural Engineering (http://www.cfne.eng.unimelb.edu.au/) University of Melbourne, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] </pre> Colin Geoffrey Hales 2012-05-21T01:26:53 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16215 <pre>freeman dyson says: A Cultural History of Physics is a grand monument to the life of its author. Karoly Simonyi was teacher first, scholar second, and scientist third. His book likewise has three components. First a text, describing the history of science over the last four thousand years in a rich context of philosophy, art and literature. Second, a collection of illustrations, many of them taken from Hungarian archives and museums unknown to Western readers, giving concrete reality to historical events.Third an anthology of quotations from writers in many languages, beginning with Aeschylus in "Prometheus Bound", describing how his hero brought knowledge and technical skills to mankind, and ending with Blaise Pascal in "Pensées", describing how our awareness of our bodies and minds remains an eternal mystery. Different readers will have different preferences. For me, the quotations are the most precious part of the book. Dip anywhere among these pages, and you will find a quotation that is surprising and illuminating. I have a vivid memory of my one meeting with the author. I came with his son Charles Simonyi to visit him in his home in Budapest. He had an amazing collection of books that had survived centuries of turbulent history. Several of them had bullet holes from the various battles that were fought in the neighboring streets. Many of them were historically important relics from the early days of printing. He proudly showed me these treasures, and even more proudly showed me the German edition of A Cultural History of Physics, which he had recently translated from the Hungarian original. I had only a few minutes to explore the beauties of this work, but I recognized it at once as a unique and magnificent achievement. Now it is finally available in English, and we can enjoy it at our leisure. Thank you, Charles, for making this happen. 60 page excerpt of cultural history of physics available here: http://edge.org/3rd_culture/simonyi12/CulturalHistoryOfPhysics_Excerpt.pdf </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-20T17:48:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16211 <pre> From Deutsch's presumably a document advocating scientism at best and immorality/evil at worst. Will he be registering his protest with, or resigning from, the Royal Society? http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/proje\ cts/people-planet/2012-04-25-PeoplePlanet.pdf &lt;http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/proj\ ects/people-planet/2012-04-25-PeoplePlanet.pdf&gt; [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-12T07:52:08 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16207 <pre>http://curi.us/1564-zubrin-replies </pre> Elliot Temple 2012-05-09T15:52:21 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16205 <pre>http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-boost-for-quantum-reality A boost for quantum reality May 9, 2012 The authors show that wavefunctions are real physical states with a joint measurement on n qubits, with the property that each outcome has probability zero on one of the input states. Such a measurement can be performed by implementing the quantum circuit shown above. (Credit: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph) In a controversial paper in Nature Physics, theorists claim they can prove that wavefunctions — the entity that determines the probability of different outcomes of measurements on quantum-mechanical particles — are real states. The paper is thought by some to be one of the most important in quantum foundations in decades. The authors say that the mathematics leaves no doubt that the wavefunction is not just a statistical tool, but rather, a real, objective state of a quantum system. Matt Leifer, a physicist at University College London who works on quantum information, says that the theorem tackles a big question in a simple and clean way. He also says that it could end up being as useful as Bell's theorem, which turned out to have applications in quantum information theory and cryptography. But it's incompatible with quantum mechanics, so the theorem also raises a deeper question: could quantum mechanics be wrong? Ref.: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state, Nature Physics, 2012, DOI: 10.1038/nphys2309 &lt;http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2309&gt; Ref.: Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state, 2011, arXiv:1111.3328v2 &lt;http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v2&gt; </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-09T15:21:19 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16203 <pre>http://curi.us/1562-bad-scholarship-population-control-by-steven-w http://curi.us/1563-bad-scholarship-fatal-misconception-by-matthew </pre> Elliot Temple 2012-05-08T23:11:50 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16201 <pre> I would be interested to know more of how synesthesia is regarded from the perspective of this philosophy. Are there ways that it could be a real phenomenon that would be consistent with already firmed-up philosophical positions on the brain. There is no dispute here that I know of that the perceptive senses involve their own dedicated wiring. Synesthesia is a theory explaining subjective experiences reported by some people, that they experience, say, smells when looking at colors, or colors when hearing sounds, and so on. If it happens at that level of the mental wiring - the level of sensory inputs - it seems possible that such cross-wirings could occur, without contradicting any of the consequences of universal explainer. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Not necessarily hard and fast positions in the philosophy. Personal opinion/judgement would be welcome. The reason I am interested in this matter is because I believe I have a life-long synesthesia-like effect, however not involving input senses. Since young, I experience some abstract concepts....really strongly...as kind of highly symbolic visual/network forms. For example, I strongly experience this philosphy in such terms. From the popper/deutsch perspective I should try to explain this inner-phenomenon in terms of ideas. I have tried to do this, but I come up against some some difficulties. Which, in principle, I would be willing to explain. However, that would be messy...inherently about personal testimony.... so possibly not very interesting to others. However, something that would help me would be to know whether other, BoI-consistent, explanations are possible for synesthesia-like effects, or not? At least then I can know where I stand philosophically. As an aside, does anyone see possible ways that this philosphy could be abstractly represented as a network structure, such that it would also be a productive/useful/revealing thing to do? </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-08T00:30:31 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16198 <pre> Why do we subsidize marriage/kids? Why do we have a system that allows people intentionally have kids and not work? I'll cause these people the welfare-abusers. The rest of us pay for them to live this way. The rest of us don't want to have 5 kids because we know the investment required [financial and otherwise]. The welfare-abusers want to have more kids because then they get more money. So the welfare-abusers are dependent on the welfare system. They aren't learning responsibility and they aren't learning wealth-generating skills. And their kids tend to learn the same lifestyle. Now consider the population growth rates of each group. Now move forward a decade and compare the populations. Move forward another decade and again compare. This is going to collapse. How long before the rest of us can't afford to support the welfare-abusers? What do you think? </pre> Rami Rustom 2012-05-07T22:39:48 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16194 <pre> that question I just asked about creativity/theory..the point is this... Although the various philosophical efforts by people in science, to explain what is going on with science...have been wrong. And the Popper/deutsch philosphy has been right in the corrections made (e.g. inductivism, foundationalism, positivism, justificationalism etc) In fact, at the methodological level science doesn't enforce any of those bad approaches. Science doesn't constrain the creative process in any way at all. What matters is the theory that comes out the other end. So far as that goes, the philosophy and science are fairly much on the same page. But popper/deutsch philosophy goes further, and does somethign science doesn't do. It actually creates a methological process that constrains the process of how a theory is come up with. It asks that explanations precede study of data, for an example. So really.....the philosophy is making assumptions about human psychology, in a way that science doesn't. The question is.....why is this not a weakness? Given science does not constrain, or make assumptions about how our brains are working (in the methodological, not philosophical sense), because of fallibilism surely science is stronger (because the popper/deutsch theorising about human psychology is fallible and will contain some misconceptions). </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-07T21:58:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16193 <pre> Let's say a scientist (or anyone) comes up with his theory (explanation) like this: He has been studying and thinking about some cluster of related problems in some scientific field; some intuitive insights develop which he comes to believe solve the problem; he then spends a lot of time trying to convert the intuition into a verbal/explanatory form structured in such way it will be treated seriously by his peers; he then publishes it. Philosophically speaking is there anything wrong with the way he has gone about doing this? The popperian position is that it doesn't matter where the conjecture comes from, so the point at which this process becomes relevant at all is presumably the publishing of the theory? Assuming you agre that what this scientist did was fine. What now...if say....the scientist himself hasn't thought much about the philosophical side of things, and his personal opinion about what his mind was doing during the period overwhich he built up his intuitions, was 'induction'. Given that his published theory doesn't contain appeals to the authority of induction or any reliance on inductive steps....what does it matter? Assuming you agree that, although it matters philosophically, because there is no induction in the published theory it doesn't matter to the science. But then, what if the guy had learned popperian philosophy before coming up with his theory. He wouldn't have followed that same mental process of discovery, because on the face of it it contains bad philosopy. But then, what if, because he didn't follow that sequence, he didn't think of the theory ? </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-07T21:43:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16187 <pre>_Merchants of Despair_ is badly researched. Do not trust it on any specific details. http://curi.us/1561-bad-scholarship-merchants-of-despair-by-robert-zubrin You may still want to read it. It's relatively easy and short reading while covering a lot of important topics. The topics are things you absolutely ought to know about. If you don't know about them, read Merchants and then read other books for more details and research. Inform and educate yourself. For comparison, another book covering "population control" is _Fatal Misconceptions_ by Matthew Connelly. I haven't read much of it yet but it looks better researched. On the other hand, it also looks drier and longer, while covering less stuff than Merchants of Despair does and integrating less philosophy. It looks better researched but less exciting and narrower. So take your pick... I don't know any ideal book to recommend, and I do think topics like population control *and all the others in Merchants of Despair* are very worthwhile. It's not the only book I've found is badly researched. Sadly, I fear such problems are common (which doesn't make them OK). Here's another I just found today: http://curi.us/1560-bad-scholarship-the-coming-population-crash-and And an older one: http://www.curi.us/1358-thomas-sowells-poor-scholarship </pre> Elliot Temple 2012-05-07T04:48:17 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16186 <pre>Prior to the invention of Quantum Mechanics it was believed that by knowing the initial velocity and position of a particle it was possible to predict its position and velocity at some future time; in other words, the future can be determined. This is not true for QM; however, QM does predict probability values for a particle at a certain location at some time in the future, as well as probability values for its velocity (momentum). But precise values for these variables are restricted by natural law (the Uncertainty Principle). Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not a statement about the observational success in determining the position and the momentum (velocity) of a particle. The error produced by measuring the position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, by means of "photon observation" is not the basis for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The oft quoted analogy for the indeterminacy in simultaneously "measuring" the position and velocity of a particle originated as a "thought experiment" by Heisenberg in order to illustrate in concrete terms the mathematical implications of the Uncertainty Principle. This "thought experiment" has been popularly misunderstood as the reason for the profound mathematical insights underlying Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It's interesting that the original expression for the Uncertainty Principle arose from the early treatment of "Matrix Mechanics", which was a branch of mathematics newly invented by Heisenberg and others. It was the "non-commutative" matrix properties between "position" and "momentum" and the mathematical implications of this relationship that led Heisenberg to the profound insight of this relationship as a fundamental law of nature. Note: non-commutativity: (3 times 2) does not equal (2 time 3) in matrix math…RobtO </pre> coupdecog 2012-05-06T06:52:52 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16185 <pre>amazing http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] </pre> hibbsa 2012-05-03T18:41:28 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16184 <pre>I'm telling everyone I know. If you care about humanitarian issues at all, you should read this book immediately: http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Despair-Environmentalists-Pseudo-Scientists-ebook/dp/B007PTM3MW/?tag=curi04-20 </pre> Elliot Temple 2012-05-03T07:25:52 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16179 <pre>I propose a third potential explanation for EPR, and the Heisenberguncertainty principle. When the position is exactly known, then the momentum is completely unknown. This is not because of a disturbance caused by the measurement. This is because the quantity of action = distance * momentum changes in every interaction. Consider this analogy. The action that has a precise value is represented by a rectangle. When we measure precisely the distance, then we are looking straight at one side of the rectangle. When we look perpendicularly at the distance side of the rectangle, we cannot measure to any degree the momentum side of the rectangle. Entangled particles are not entangled because of their previous reaction. They are entangled because we know precisely one of the complementary properties of both particles. Under this view, if we entangle particles A and B, and measure precisely the spin of particle A about the z-axis,, then we would automatically know the spin particle B about the z-axis, and therefore could not know the spin of particle B about the x-axis. It is not that measuring the spin of particle A about the z-axis forced the uncertainty of spin of Particle B about the x-axis. The metaphor is this: We entangle particle A and B. We measure spin of particle A about the z-axis. We look at the spin about the z-axis side of the rectangle for particle A. We infer the z-axis side of the rectangle for particle B. So now, we can infer what the spin of particle B would be if we measured it about the z-axis. We cannot see any length along the x-axis side of the rectangle for particle A. We cannot see any length along the x-axis side of the rectangle for particle B. Since we can determine, even without measurement, what the spin of particle B would be if we measured it about the z-axis, it will be impossible to measure what the spin of particle B is around the x-axis. If particle A and B have interactions with other particles which change their spin, then they are no longer entangled. Kermit </pre> Kermit Rose 2012-04-30T17:56:26 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16176 <pre> [they seem to couple two lazers together, put their wave functions them 180 degrees out of phase (also something with amplitude), and the light vanishes...presumably canceling out as in troughs. ] http://phys.org/news/2012-04-scientists-paradoxical-laser-effect.html &lt;http://phys.org/news/2012-04-scientists-paradoxical-laser-effect.html&gt; What is the Multiverse explanation for an effect like this? Something I noticed about the comments from all the different teams responsible for those results I mentioned last week, is that they all say that tools/technologies/procedures have effectively gone through a revolution in just the last 5 or 10 years. They are now able to measure at new levels of resolution and do previously impossible tests. I was surprised at the disinterest in those developements as all pose dramatic problems for MWI if borne out. Was it because I didn't link to the paper or does popperianism tend to blunt curiousity, or are such developments a dime-a-dozen and typically fizzle out, or what? I mean, let's go back to that EPR experiment again, because as I described it, it seems to completely contradict Deutsch's 'decoherent causal pathways' explanation. Or doesn't it, in which case how so? 1. The entangle the state of two particles (by applying a voltage) 2. Then they separate the two particles by 5 miles. The particles are now in different places separated by walls and doors and what have you. 3. Now they use a small electric current to alter the state of just one of the particles. 4. The second particle is measured and found to reflect the state change caused by the small current 5. The measurement of the second particle takes place before the light from a laser crosses the 5 mile stretch Forgeting the 'beat the speed of light' part, for a moment, Can MWI/deutsch explain how the second particle is measured to have exactly reflected the state change of the first? Assuming the experiment was properly done and so on? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] </pre> hibbsa 2012-04-30T07:56:35 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16169 <pre>I would like to ask about some experiments featured in an episode of "Through the Wormhole" on discovery science. What I thought I'd initially try to do is, instread of asserting that and a couple of other developments as science-fact, just describe them as they were described in the episode, with the philosophical questions, would developments like this be interesting, would there be implications for any major explanations currently accepted, such as MWI? etc etc. This way, hopefully Alan will be cool about posting this, and .... if I get any dramatic or intrigued responses.. that'll maybe motivate me to track down the work for yous, which may involve having to email the chaps that were interviewed. Here they are. I think they are interesting in that each of them could, if correct, cause major established laws of nature to be overturned. As I say...I'm not asserting them as of now...just asking....would this be interesting to you if it was the result of good science? 1. Two researchers think they have discovered that the rate of atomic decay - currently I think considered immutable - actually slow down during solar flares, and also periodically depending on how close the Earth is to the Sun. I think when earth is nearer in its orbit the rate slows down, and when the earth is farther away the rate speeds up. 2. A research team think they have demonstrated entanglement beats the speed of light. Their experiment involves first entangling two particles, then separating them by 5 miles. Then they use some sort of linked process whereby the state of one entangled particle is changed, and the other one is then measured at the same time as a lazer is fired across the five miles. Apparently the particle is measured as reflecting the change, before the beam of light arrives. 3. A researcher involved in studying light recieved on earth to analyse the properties of stars, thinks that by studying light that has passed through clouds of dust he is able to measure the strength of the electromagnetic force. What he then did was compare such light coming to earth from the northern direction of the universe with light coming from the southern direction of the universe (relative to earth's poles). What he thinks he's found is that from the north direction the electromagnetic force weakens the further away from earth it gets, and from the south direction the electromagnetic force strengthens the further away it gets. Weird....as if like a spectrum of changing strength across the universe. Has anyone here heard of these developments? Are they interesting.....do they potentially have implications for major explanations accepted here? Does MWI perhaps predict any of this? Does any of it contradict MWI in a serious way. All...if....it is good science that stands up to scrutiny. All hypothetically at this stage. </pre> hibbsa 2012-04-24T01:17:03 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16092 <pre> Deutsch has mentioned that Science has failed to accept MWI where it should have done so, and this has naturally caused me to 'watch out' for glimpses of what the attidude is toward MWI. The perception I have gleaned from this seem to be that actually MWI is given a lot of respect. It is regarded very much within the fold of science. It is mentioned pretty much whenever QM is discussed if the context is 'what does it mean?'. It is also given respectful attention in popularizations of science. Also documentary series...for example the current series of "Through the Wormhole" on Discovery Science channel, dedicates a large fraction of a whole episode to MWI and treats it as if it is a major mainstream theory. No talk of interpretations. No time given to scientists complaining that the theory is too counter intuitive. Significant time given to criticisms of scientists not being willing to believe their own equations. And so on. So my question to Deutsch, if he's around, would firstly be: what sort of acceptance do you have in mind? What would it look like that would be different to the way things are at the moment? My next question sort of assumes that part of Deutsch's answer to this will be in terms of actual scientific time/resources dedicated to MWI focused research, and my question about this would be: in your view what sort of research isn't being done, that could or should be getting done, and how productive would this research promise to be in terms of unlocking substantial new testable scientific knowledge about the nature of the world? </pre> hibbsa 2012-04-11T17:28:08 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16089 <pre> just popping my head through the door as currently rather busy. Looking at BoI it appears unclear to me what is happening in some discussions involving Steve Push. Has he made significant criticisms or not? It looks like he has to me. Yet the response appears to involve a strategy of creating new threads that do something like 'attack from the side' (as in 'some scholars can be silly' or mock (as in cute dog fighting). You see...that is the sort of strategy that undermines the idea that science could proceed by rational argument alone, relying on individual people to give up the theories they are most invested into. In fact, Science doesn't rely on anyone accepting their theories are wrong. In the end....it only relies on the idea that truth will eventually out, and I suppose that where all else fails to budge a wrong view, old age and death will sort it. </pre> hibbsa 2012-03-22T17:42:24 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality