gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality

Structure of Epistemology (was: Joining post: 20 Years of a Science of Consciousness)

Rami Rustom — 2012-05-26T16:19:33

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 logi

Turing/AI issues

hibbsa — 2012-05-24T08:11:32

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
com

Joining post: 20 Years of a Science of Consciousness

Colin Geoffrey Hales — 2012-05-21T01:26:53

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]

A cultural history of physics

hibbsa — 2012-05-20T17:48:36

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

Royal Society - people & the planet

hibbsa — 2012-05-12T07:52:08

  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
<http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/proj\
ects/people-planet/2012-04-25-PeoplePlanet.pdf>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Zubrin replies regarding fact checking

Elliot Temple — 2012-05-09T15:52:21

http://curi.us/1564-zubrin-replies

A boost for quantum reality

hibbsa — 2012-05-09T15:21:19

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 th

More Bad Malthus Scholarship

Elliot Temple — 2012-05-08T23:11:50

http://curi.us/1562-bad-scholarship-population-control-by-steven-w

http://curi.us/1563-bad-scholarship-fatal-misconception-by-matthew

synesthesia

hibbsa — 2012-05-08T00:30:31

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 sen

Welfare (was: Robert Zubrin's Bad Scholarship)

Rami Rustom — 2012-05-07T22:39:48

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?

more context on that creativity/theory question

hibbsa — 2012-05-07T21:58:58

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.....w

creativity/theory question

hibbsa — 2012-05-07T21:43:06



  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

Robert Zubrin's Bad Scholarship

Elliot Temple — 2012-05-07T04:48:17

_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 on

Matrix Math, QM and Heisenberg

coupdecog — 2012-05-06T06:52:52

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 e

scale of the universe

hibbsa — 2012-05-03T18:41:28

amazing

http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Merchants of Despair

Elliot Temple — 2012-05-03T07:25:52

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

Third explanation for EPR

Kermit Rose — 2012-04-30T17:56:26

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,

Scientists predict paradoxical laser effect

hibbsa — 2012-04-30T07:56:35

[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
<http://phys.org/news/2012-04-scientists-paradoxical-laser-effect.html>

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?

Possible developments at the frontier

hibbsa — 2012-04-24T01:17:03

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 d

Science and MWI

hibbsa — 2012-04-11T17:28:08

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 accepta

BoI/FoR

hibbsa — 2012-03-22T17:42:24

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.