Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

With clothes the new are best, with friends the old are best.


arts / rec.arts.sf.written / Sabine Hossenfelders Existential Physics

SubjectAuthor
o Sabine Hossenfelders Existential PhysicsSimon Laub

1
Sabine Hossenfelders Existential Physics

<8b42fb09-721a-4efc-8d7c-d1a1eb4e0441n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=80764&group=rec.arts.sf.written#80764

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5c56:0:b0:39c:f4dd:8c4a with SMTP id j22-20020ac85c56000000b0039cf4dd8c4amr8215263qtj.57.1666215332302;
Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:c58b:b0:131:9324:60fd with SMTP id
ba11-20020a056870c58b00b00131932460fdmr23918825oab.154.1666215332131; Wed, 19
Oct 2022 14:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2.106.85.206; posting-account=4ha5IQoAAABjumbodMF1l4o0UupE1_Oa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2.106.85.206
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8b42fb09-721a-4efc-8d7c-d1a1eb4e0441n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Sabine Hossenfelders Existential Physics
From: Simon.L...@mail.tele.dk (Simon Laub)
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:35:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 7185
 by: Simon Laub - Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:35 UTC

In Sabine Hossenfelders book ''Existential Physics'' things get started
with the observation that reality is a somewhat tricky thing...

E.g. in Special Relativity ''now'' is not the same thing for all observers.
For some observers a supernova explosion and your birth happen simultanously,
but for other observers the supernova explosion happens at the same time as your death.
Giving us, that your death exists at the time of your birth...
Indeed, in the ''Block Universe'', the future, the present and the past exist in the same way.
They are equally real.
We just don't experience them in the same way.
(In the ''Block Universe'') Time is a landscape.
And perhaps information is never destroyed anyhow.
Perhaps, information (about something) is something that just ''moves on'',
when time ''moves on''?
- I.e. (information) might just be spread out
- when time ''moves on'' - and difficult to see,
but it is still there?
Surely, enough craziness for one day, but, well,
that is just the start of the book...

How do we really know anything?
(Case in point) Lets assume:
That the planet Earth began its existence a mere 6.000 years ago,
with all fossil records in place and stones well weathered.
From there on, evolution proceeded as scientists say.
How could you prove this story wrong?

Well, and this is clearly somewhat problematic..
you couldn't...

Moving further back in time things only get worse.
In the early universe all current theories states that the initial conditions were ''simpler'' than later on.
I.e. if the initial conditions aren't simple, then the theories don't have much in terms of explanatory power
(Sure, a theory that explains all times without assuming certain initial conditions
is something else. But that is not where we are).
A hypothesis that states that the universe started out in a state of low entropy,
(a state that was very unlikely), can easily explain that entropy grow,
but it doesn't explain why the initial condition was a very unlikely state.
Just postulating it, without explaining it, sets limits to what has actually been explained...

And then there is the problem of induction...
The philosopher Bertrand Russell has compared it to
a chickens attempt at inferring the laws of living on a farm.
The chicken is fed reliably every morning at 9 AM.
Until one day the farmer chops of its head.

Same thing with the (hypothetical) ''vacuum collapse''...
One day everything is fine with the vacuum,
the next, without warning, the Universe is wiped out [1].
Knowledge ends somewhere, and as Hossenfelder reminds us,
there is a reason that if you follow links on Wikipedia
you are likely to end up on pages about philosophy.
In the end, the answer is often ''we don't know''...

When it comes to the human brain, one could argue that
it is just a matter of simulating all of the atoms, atom by atom,
in the brain, and then that would lead to conscious thoughts...
Hossenfelder seem to agree with that.
To her there is nothing like ''more is different''.
So, simulating the parts should be enough.
But, the problem is, of course, that there are just too many atoms
in a brain to make this something one can do on a computer anytime soon.
Still, the argument goes, with the right configuration,
with the right information, then you simulation would work...?!

Which leads to the ''simulation argument''.
Why not assume that we actually live in a simulated world?
But, well, that is not something Hossenfelder agrees with...
The Universe contains too much information,
so you would run out of disk-space...
Or you would have to care less about (some) details of your simulated universe,
and only fill out (these) details when needed.
Here Hossenfelder asks us ''what kind of computer code can do that?''.
Finding explanations that fit with all of your previous observations
to high precision is really difficult, she observes.
And so it seems that she has killed the simulation argument..?

But well, not so fast.
You could, of course, just pause a simulation when you need
to ''fill in blanks'' (make big updates)
- no one in the simulation would know...
And if you really ran into deep consistency problems,
you could again just pause the simulation, and alter the memories
of the 8 billion conscious beings you are simulating,
in order to make ''things right''. No problem.

Just saying that the ''real'' Universe is infinite,
(and therefore can't be simulated)
is (really) equally ''unscientific'' - how could we then ever know about
the details, how it really works,
about something that is ''infinite''...
Surely, infinity is problematic for all theories...

Things get worse when we get to the quagmire called ''free will'.
If you think that all higher order level properties
of system, say a human, derive from the lower levels, then
something like ''free will'' will derive from
the behaviour of particles - because everything does.
And then there is no ''free will''...

The obvious joke here is then the question:
So, how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Did you use your free will to come up with
the conclusion that you have no free will?

A joke that Hossenfelder has anticipated,
and then uses as an argument for her case
that her readers do not have ''free will''...
Well, well...

Indeed, in other areas of research we are cautioned not
to have opinions about things, where our knowledge
is incomplete.
But when it comes to brains and consciousness,
Well, then everyone seem to have opinion
- and are eager to go down into the rabbit holes...

Assuming that you could indeed know what brains will do
- If you could just simulate it all.
All of the atoms of the brain.
And assuming that that current laws of physics are
now correct and complete, not to be improved upon (in the coming centuries) in ways that would invalidate these atom by atom simulations.
.... then sure ...
But this is not where we are ...!?

Still, talking about things like ''free will'' is always fun.
And Hossenfelders book is certainly a great read!

Loads of thoughts to keep everyone entertained
for years to come!

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor