According to cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffmann,
you are not something in Spacetime.
Because, well, SpaceTime isn't really there...

Hoffmann is inspired by work of physicist
Nima Arkani-Hamed and others.
Interpreting Nima Arkani-Hamed's work, Hoffmann argue, that we can start by saying that Spacetime has no operational meaning below the
''Planck scale'', roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.

''For instance, to measure the position of a subatomic particle with higher resolution, we must use radiation of smaller wavelength.
Quantum theory tells us that as wavelengths shrink their energy grows.
But, as we increase resolution we pack more energy, and therefore more mass, into less space.
When the resolution approaches the Planck scale,
the density of mass grows so large that gravity spoils the party, creates a black hole, and destroys our measurement''.

''Indeed, quantum field theory and gravity together warn us that spacetime is not fundamental.
But they cannot tell us what is fundamental, what lies beyond spacetime.
We must take a creative leap. We must propose a new theory,
with new structures and processes beyond spacetime. This is fun,
exciting and speculative. But there is a rule. Any theory we propose
must project onto spacetime. The physics of spacetime must arise,
precisely, as a special case of our new theory. Quantum field theory
can’t say what objects lie beyond spacetime, but it can veto bad hunches''.

''Yes, our senses guide adaptive behavior. No, they are not a window on reality.
....And that’s what evolution did for us. Spacetime and physical objects are just our VR headset.
They let us play the game of life, blissfully ignorant of the nitty-gritty of a reality beyond''.

''The BCFW recursion relations hinted that there may be structures beyond spacetime.
This hint was pursued by a colleague of Witten at Princeton, Nima Arkani-Hamed, who with his graduate student Jaroslav Trnka discovered in 2013 a remarkable geometric object, the amplituhedron....''

''Particles are in spacetime. Yet things like an amplituhedron is postulated to be beyond spacetime.
In what sense is it ''an object'' if it is beyond spacetime? How is it
''projecting down'' onto spacetime and ''encoding'' properties of spacetime?''

''But the amplituhedron is a geometric object that can have trillions of dimensions and more, and these dimensions are not about space and time, but about something else, where it is anyones guess what this ''something'' is''..

''Giving a new answer to an old question: Who am I?
Not an object in spacetime''.

https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamental-auid-2281

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:45:51 PM UTC-4, Simon Laub wrote:
> According to cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffmann,
> you are not something in Spacetime.
> Because, well, SpaceTime isn't really there...
>
> Hoffmann is inspired by work of physicist
> Nima Arkani-Hamed and others.
> Interpreting Nima Arkani-Hamed's work, Hoffmann argue, that we can start by saying that Spacetime has no operational meaning below the
> ''Planck scale'', roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.
>
> ''For instance, to measure the position of a subatomic particle with higher resolution, we must use radiation of smaller wavelength.
> Quantum theory tells us that as wavelengths shrink their energy grows.
> But, as we increase resolution we pack more energy, and therefore more mass, into less space.
> When the resolution approaches the Planck scale,
> the density of mass grows so large that gravity spoils the party, creates a black hole, and destroys our measurement''.
>
> ''Indeed, quantum field theory and gravity together warn us that spacetime is not fundamental.
> But they cannot tell us what is fundamental, what lies beyond spacetime.
> We must take a creative leap. We must propose a new theory,
> with new structures and processes beyond spacetime. This is fun,
> exciting and speculative. But there is a rule. Any theory we propose
> must project onto spacetime. The physics of spacetime must arise,
> precisely, as a special case of our new theory. Quantum field theory
> can’t say what objects lie beyond spacetime, but it can veto bad hunches''.
>
> ''Yes, our senses guide adaptive behavior. No, they are not a window on reality.
> ...And that’s what evolution did for us. Spacetime and physical objects are just our VR headset.
> They let us play the game of life, blissfully ignorant of the nitty-gritty of a reality beyond''.
>
> ''The BCFW recursion relations hinted that there may be structures beyond spacetime.
> This hint was pursued by a colleague of Witten at Princeton, Nima Arkani-Hamed, who with his graduate student Jaroslav Trnka discovered in 2013 a remarkable geometric object, the amplituhedron....''
>
> ''Particles are in spacetime. Yet things like an amplituhedron is postulated to be beyond spacetime.
> In what sense is it ''an object'' if it is beyond spacetime? How is it
> ''projecting down'' onto spacetime and ''encoding'' properties of spacetime?''
>
> ''But the amplituhedron is a geometric object that can have trillions of dimensions and more, and these dimensions are not about space and time, but about something else, where it is anyones guess what this ''something'' is''.
>
> ''Giving a new answer to an old question: Who am I?
> Not an object in spacetime''.
>
> https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamental-auid-2281

As an sub atomic physicist, he seems to be a pretty good cognitive psychologist.

How is he regarded by physicists?

Pt

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:45:51 PM UTC-4, Simon Laub wrote:
> > According to cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffmann,
> > you are not something in Spacetime.
> > Because, well, SpaceTime isn't really there...
> >
> > Hoffmann is inspired by work of physicist
> > Nima Arkani-Hamed and others.
> > Interpreting Nima Arkani-Hamed's work, Hoffmann argue, that we can start by saying that Spacetime has no operational meaning below the
> > ''Planck scale'', roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.
> >
> > ''For instance, to measure the position of a subatomic particle with higher resolution, we must use radiation of smaller wavelength.
> > Quantum theory tells us that as wavelengths shrink their energy grows.
> > But, as we increase resolution we pack more energy, and therefore more mass, into less space.
> > When the resolution approaches the Planck scale,
> > the density of mass grows so large that gravity spoils the party, creates a black hole, and destroys our measurement''.
> >
> > ''Indeed, quantum field theory and gravity together warn us that spacetime is not fundamental.
> > But they cannot tell us what is fundamental, what lies beyond spacetime..
> > We must take a creative leap. We must propose a new theory,
> > with new structures and processes beyond spacetime. This is fun,
> > exciting and speculative. But there is a rule. Any theory we propose
> > must project onto spacetime. The physics of spacetime must arise,
> > precisely, as a special case of our new theory. Quantum field theory
> > can’t say what objects lie beyond spacetime, but it can veto bad hunches''.
> >
> > ''Yes, our senses guide adaptive behavior. No, they are not a window on reality.
> > ...And that’s what evolution did for us. Spacetime and physical objects are just our VR headset.
> > They let us play the game of life, blissfully ignorant of the nitty-gritty of a reality beyond''.
> >
> > ''The BCFW recursion relations hinted that there may be structures beyond spacetime.
> > This hint was pursued by a colleague of Witten at Princeton, Nima Arkani-Hamed, who with his graduate student Jaroslav Trnka discovered in 2013 a remarkable geometric object, the amplituhedron....''
> >
> > ''Particles are in spacetime. Yet things like an amplituhedron is postulated to be beyond spacetime.
> > In what sense is it ''an object'' if it is beyond spacetime? How is it
> > ''projecting down'' onto spacetime and ''encoding'' properties of spacetime?''
> >
> > ''But the amplituhedron is a geometric object that can have trillions of dimensions and more, and these dimensions are not about space and time, but about something else, where it is anyones guess what this ''something'' is''.
> >
> > ''Giving a new answer to an old question: Who am I?
> > Not an object in spacetime''.
> >
> > https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamental-auid-2281
> As an sub atomic physicist, he seems to be a pretty good cognitive psychologist.
>
> How is he regarded by physicists?

A. E. Van Vogt's 1944 retro-Hugo nominated short story _Far Centaurus_ is set partly
in a human civilization 500 years in the future. The science of that time includes what
they call "electron psychology". This is not explained in any way and is used as an
example of how knowledge has advanced in surprising ways.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

In article <a7b4203a-668c-4b88-a1c1-2c59bb207860n@googlegroups.com>,
peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:45:44 PM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:45:51 PM UTC-4, Simon Laub wrote:
>> > According to cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffmann,
>> > you are not something in Spacetime.
>> > Because, well, SpaceTime isn't really there...
>> >
>> > Hoffmann is inspired by work of physicist
>> > Nima Arkani-Hamed and others.
>> > Interpreting Nima Arkani-Hamed's work, Hoffmann argue, that we can
>start by saying that Spacetime has no operational meaning below the
>> > ''Planck scale'', roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.
>> >
>> > ''For instance, to measure the position of a subatomic particle with
>higher resolution, we must use radiation of smaller wavelength.
>> > Quantum theory tells us that as wavelengths shrink their energy grows.
>> > But, as we increase resolution we pack more energy, and therefore
>more mass, into less space.
>> > When the resolution approaches the Planck scale,
>> > the density of mass grows so large that gravity spoils the party,
>creates a black hole, and destroys our measurement''.
>> >
>> > ''Indeed, quantum field theory and gravity together warn us that
>spacetime is not fundamental.
>> > But they cannot tell us what is fundamental, what lies beyond spacetime.
>> > We must take a creative leap. We must propose a new theory,
>> > with new structures and processes beyond spacetime. This is fun,
>> > exciting and speculative. But there is a rule. Any theory we propose
>> > must project onto spacetime. The physics of spacetime must arise,
>> > precisely, as a special case of our new theory. Quantum field theory
>> > can’t say what objects lie beyond spacetime, but it can veto bad
>hunches''.
>> >
>> > ''Yes, our senses guide adaptive behavior. No, they are not a window
>on reality.
>> > ...And that’s what evolution did for us. Spacetime and physical
>objects are just our VR headset.
>> > They let us play the game of life, blissfully ignorant of the
>nitty-gritty of a reality beyond''.
>> >
>> > ''The BCFW recursion relations hinted that there may be structures
>beyond spacetime.
>> > This hint was pursued by a colleague of Witten at Princeton, Nima
>Arkani-Hamed, who with his graduate student Jaroslav Trnka discovered in
>2013 a remarkable geometric object, the amplituhedron....''
>> >
>> > ''Particles are in spacetime. Yet things like an amplituhedron is
>postulated to be beyond spacetime.
>> > In what sense is it ''an object'' if it is beyond spacetime? How is it
>> > ''projecting down'' onto spacetime and ''encoding'' properties of
>spacetime?''
>> >
>> > ''But the amplituhedron is a geometric object that can have
>trillions of dimensions and more, and these dimensions are not about
>space and time, but about something else, where it is anyones guess what
>this ''something'' is''.
>> >
>> > ''Giving a new answer to an old question: Who am I?
>> > Not an object in spacetime''.
>> >
>> >
>https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamental-auid-2281
>> As an sub atomic physicist, he seems to be a pretty good cognitive
>psychologist.
>>
>> How is he regarded by physicists?
>
>A. E. Van Vogt's 1944 retro-Hugo nominated short story _Far Centaurus_
>is set partly
>in a human civilization 500 years in the future. The science of that
>time includes what
>they call "electron psychology". This is not explained in any way and is
>used as an
>example of how knowledge has advanced in surprising ways.
>

Luckily, they also had Bachelor Suns!
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4ec60152-873b-4173-8dc1-8b9da2e5ff71n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:45:51 PM UTC-4, Simon Laub
> wrote:
>> According to cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffmann,
>> you are not something in Spacetime.
>> Because, well, SpaceTime isn't really there...
>>
>> Hoffmann is inspired by work of physicist
>> Nima Arkani-Hamed and others.
>> Interpreting Nima Arkani-Hamed's work, Hoffmann argue, that we
>> can start
> by saying that Spacetime has no operational meaning below the
>> ''Planck scale'', roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.
>>
>> ''For instance, to measure the position of a subatomic particle
>> with high
> er resolution, we must use radiation of smaller wavelength.
>> Quantum theory tells us that as wavelengths shrink their energy
>> grows. But, as we increase resolution we pack more energy, and
>> therefore more ma
> ss, into less space.
>> When the resolution approaches the Planck scale,
>> the density of mass grows so large that gravity spoils the
>> party, creates
> a black hole, and destroys our measurement''.
>>
>> ''Indeed, quantum field theory and gravity together warn us
>> that spacetim
> e is not fundamental.
>> But they cannot tell us what is fundamental, what lies beyond
>> spacetime.
>
>> We must take a creative leap. We must propose a new theory,
>> with new structures and processes beyond spacetime. This is
>> fun, exciting and speculative. But there is a rule. Any theory
>> we propose must project onto spacetime. The physics of
>> spacetime must arise, precisely, as a special case of our new
>> theory. Quantum field theory can’t say what objects lie
>> beyond spacetime, but it can veto bad
> hunches''.
>>
>> ''Yes, our senses guide adaptive behavior. No, they are not a
>> window on r
> eality.
>> ...And that’s what evolution did for us. Spacetime and
>> physical o
> bjects are just our VR headset.
>> They let us play the game of life, blissfully ignorant of the
>> nitty-gritt
> y of a reality beyond''.
>>
>> ''The BCFW recursion relations hinted that there may be
>> structures beyond
> spacetime.
>> This hint was pursued by a colleague of Witten at Princeton,
>> Nima Arkani-
> Hamed, who with his graduate student Jaroslav Trnka discovered
> in 2013 a remarkable geometric object, the amplituhedron....''
>>
>> ''Particles are in spacetime. Yet things like an amplituhedron
>> is postula
> ted to be beyond spacetime.
>> In what sense is it ''an object'' if it is beyond spacetime?
>> How is it ''projecting down'' onto spacetime and ''encoding''
>> properties of spaceti
> me?''
>>
>> ''But the amplituhedron is a geometric object that can have
>> trillions of
> dimensions and more, and these dimensions are not about space
> and time, but about something else, where it is anyones guess
> what this ''something'' is''.
>>
>> ''Giving a new answer to an old question: Who am I?
>> Not an object in spacetime''.
>>
>> https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamen
>> tal-auid-
> 2281
>
> As an sub atomic physicist, he seems to be a pretty good
> cognitive psychologist.
>
> How is he regarded by physicists?
>
I suspect he has read some "news" media story about some weird new
theory (untested and unproven, but mathematically plausbile) that
he didn't understand, and say down with a bottle of his favorte
whiskey to decide what it all meant. It's very common among
practitioners of soft (or psuedo) sciences.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 7:45:44 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> As an sub atomic physicist, he seems to be a pretty good cognitive psychologist.
>
> How is he regarded by physicists?

It sounds like you've already answered that question, so what we need
to find out is how he is regarded by psychologists. (Referencing a
remark by Isaac Asimov about Velikovsky...)

John Savard

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:45:51 AM UTC-6, Simon Laub wrote:

> Interpreting Nima Arkani-Hamed's work, Hoffmann argue, that we can start by saying that Spacetime has no operational meaning below the
> ''Planck scale'', roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.

Let us accept that this is true. Does that mean that space-time is
not a useful approximation most of the time? Of course not.

So to say that we have ceased to be objects in space-time... that may
be true in one sense, but it is not true in a way that requires us to
make fundamental adjustments in our view of the world in order to
relate to it properly... as ordinary people.

What happens at the Planck scale is the concern of whatever scientists
and engineers who deal with phenomena at that scale.

So, in my opinion, his mistake is not a mistake that results from
him not being a physicist specializing in quantum mechanics.
Instead, the mistake is a fundamental philosophical one at the
level of layperson-level thinking.

I mean, really. What is the semantic content of his pronouncement?

That because of what we "really" are at the sub-Planck level, this
proves that God does/doesn't exist? Absent something like that,
how it is supposed to matter if matter is an illusion or whatever
escapes me, at least.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:59:11 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:45:51 AM UTC-6, Simon Laub wrote:
>
> > Interpreting Nima Arkani-Hamed's work, Hoffmann argue, that we can start by saying that Spacetime has no operational meaning below the
> > ''Planck scale'', roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.
> Let us accept that this is true. Does that mean that space-time is
> not a useful approximation most of the time? Of course not.
>
> So to say that we have ceased to be objects in space-time... that may
> be true in one sense, but it is not true in a way that requires us to
> make fundamental adjustments in our view of the world in order to
> relate to it properly... as ordinary people.
>
> What happens at the Planck scale is the concern of whatever scientists
> and engineers who deal with phenomena at that scale.
>
> So, in my opinion, his mistake is not a mistake that results from
> him not being a physicist specializing in quantum mechanics.
> Instead, the mistake is a fundamental philosophical one at the
> level of layperson-level thinking.
>
> I mean, really. What is the semantic content of his pronouncement?
>
> That because of what we "really" are at the sub-Planck level, this
> proves that God does/doesn't exist? Absent something like that,
> how it is supposed to matter if matter is an illusion or whatever
> escapes me, at least.

As an example of what is wrong, it's like when someone says that
because we now know that the Earth turns, and orbits the Sun,
we need to completely re-arrange our thinking, and how we relate
to the sky, and stop using obsolete phrases like "the Sun is
rising".

While one should avoid being a flat Earther, so as not to be thought
ignorant... for the most part, that is nonsense, and Sherlock
Holmes' approach, while also extreme, is still more sensible than
that.

John Savard