On Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:35:52 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:> > If it can't be verified by experiment, then it has no impact on anything > and is a pointless theory. >"pointless" is in the eyes of the beholder (or in the mind of the philosopher). but, for the most part, you're right. however consider string theory and M-theory. so far there is *no* hope of experimental falsification. without falsification, it is "physics" or "science"? or is it "philosophy". at present, there is a fuckuva lotta money spent in academics on strings and M-theory. lotsa publications. they might not see it (yet) as pointless, but there is controversy and folks like Lee Smolin or Peter Woit just **might** use the word "pointless", but i don't recall reading that word yet in their writings. there are some aesthetic appeal to certain theories and equations in physics that appear to be unfalsifiable. i think that's some of the attraction of strings with a lot of theoretical physicists. what i like about "digital physics" using the slightly modified (4*pi*G = 1) Planck units for some discrete quantities, is that these common continuous equations we use macroscopically have all of their scaling constants go away. *then* if you model these continuous-time and continuous-space equations as discrete, they **still** have no goofy scaling constants that Nature has to pull out of her ass to scale, say, flux density into field strength. and in the discrete mode, it's a lot like cellular automata at a very teensy scale. so teensy, that we cannot tell. but it's just idle speculation. r b-j
Online · Live + on demand
February 9-11, 2027
Price goes up Nov 1: register now to lock in today's rate
Register Now →
Stolen from another group
Started by ●October 15, 2014
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 5:20 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:35:52 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> >> If it can't be verified by experiment, then it has no impact on anything >> and is a pointless theory. >> > > "pointless" is in the eyes of the beholder (or in the mind of the philosopher). but, for the most part, you're right. however consider string theory and M-theory. so far there is *no* hope of experimental falsification. without falsification, it is "physics" or "science"? or is it "philosophy". at present, there is a fuckuva lotta money spent in academics on strings and M-theory. lotsa publications. they might not see it (yet) as pointless, but there is controversy and folks like Lee Smolin or Peter Woit just **might** use the word "pointless", but i don't recall reading that word yet in their writings.The difference is that I believe you said if the quantum of time is the Planck time, the quantum nature of time can not be shown by experiment by definition. There is nothing about String theory that inherently prevents it from being proven. But so far it has not predicted anything that is not predicted by other theories that we have had for some time now. Once String theory predicts something different we can try to test it. The "pointless" aspect applies when it can make no difference in any experiment, not because we haven't explored a theory enough to see the predictions that could be tested.> there are some aesthetic appeal to certain theories and equations in physics that appear to be unfalsifiable. i think that's some of the attraction of strings with a lot of theoretical physicists.Aesthetics is not science. Just ask Einstein when he said, "God does not play dice with the universe" about quantum theory. That didn't pan out so well did it?> what i like about "digital physics" using the slightly modified (4*pi*G = 1) Planck units for some discrete quantities, is that these common continuous equations we use macroscopically have all of their scaling constants go away. *then* if you model these continuous-time and continuous-space equations as discrete, they **still** have no goofy scaling constants that Nature has to pull out of her ass to scale, say, flux density into field strength. and in the discrete mode, it's a lot like cellular automata at a very teensy scale. so teensy, that we cannot tell.If we can't tell, what is the difference? -- Rick
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
makolber@yahoo.com wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:41:45 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:25:51 -0700, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only >> >>>>> true consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that >> >>>>> everyone else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has >> >>>>> no consciousness. >> >>> >> >>> Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. >> >>> >> >>>>> If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. >> >>>>> The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. >> >>>>> Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* >> >>>>> consciousness exists, I am feeling it. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just >> >>> automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. >> >> >> >> It's only sophism if someone else says it. If _I_ say it, it really is >> >> wise. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> www.wescottdesign.com > > its seems a lot of reality is quantized according to quantum physics. > so we can determine the number of bits used in the universe simulation and the sampling rate... > > Mark > >So the Universe would then have to be embedded in a much larger universe and it it's turtles at least one level down. "Rick & Morty" has fun with this in episode "M. Night Shaym-Aliens!" -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 6:51 PM, Les Cargill wrote:> makolber@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:41:45 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:25:51 -0700, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only >>> >>>>>> true consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that >>> >>>>>> everyone else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has >>> >>>>>> no consciousness. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. >>> >>>>>> The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. >>> >>>>>> Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* >>> >>>>>> consciousness exists, I am feeling it. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all >>>> just >>> >>>> automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's only sophism if someone else says it. If _I_ say it, it really is >>> >>> wise. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> www.wescottdesign.com >> >> its seems a lot of reality is quantized according to quantum physics. >> so we can determine the number of bits used in the universe simulation >> and the sampling rate... >> >> Mark >> >> > > > So the Universe would then have to be embedded in a much larger > universe and it it's turtles at least one level down. > > "Rick & Morty" has fun with this in episode "M. Night Shaym-Aliens!"I heard it was turtles all the way down.... So was that one part cesium and two parts plutonic quartz or one part plutonic quartz and two parts cesium? I don't want to make the same mistake... -- Rick
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
rickman wrote:> On 10/16/2014 6:51 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >> makolber@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:41:45 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:25:51 -0700, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only >>>> >>>>>>> true consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that >>>> >>>>>>> everyone else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has >>>> >>>>>>> no consciousness. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. >>>> >>>>>>> The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. >>>> >>>>>>> Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* >>>> >>>>>>> consciousness exists, I am feeling it. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all >>>>> just >>>> >>>>> automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's only sophism if someone else says it. If _I_ say it, it really is >>>> >>>> wise. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> www.wescottdesign.com >>> >>> its seems a lot of reality is quantized according to quantum physics. >>> so we can determine the number of bits used in the universe simulation >>> and the sampling rate... >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >> >> >> So the Universe would then have to be embedded in a much larger >> universe and it it's turtles at least one level down. >> >> "Rick & Morty" has fun with this in episode "M. Night Shaym-Aliens!" > > I heard it was turtles all the way down.... > > So was that one part cesium and two parts plutonic quartz or one part > plutonic quartz and two parts cesium? I don't want to make the same > mistake... >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSIw09oqsYo -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:> > The difference is that I believe you said if the quantum of time is the > Planck time, the quantum nature of time can not be shown by experiment > by definition.not by definition, just because it's soooo damn small. human beings will never ever measure anything that small.> There is nothing about String theory that inherently > prevents it from being proven. But so far it has not predicted anything > that is not predicted by other theories that we have had for some time > now.because it's designed to cover exactly the other theories (SM, GR) in the domains that they are shown valid.> Once String theory predicts something different we can try to test it.but i think that Woit and Smolin are saying that it won't because it's designed to default to the what the Standard Model and General Relativity (the two incompatible theories that are integrated into String theory) say.
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
On 10/16/2014 11:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> >> The difference is that I believe you said if the quantum of time is the >> Planck time, the quantum nature of time can not be shown by experiment >> by definition. > > not by definition, just because it's soooo damn small. human beings will never ever measure anything that small.Nonsense. We don't have to measure it, just see that it makes a difference. If it makes no difference then fugetaboutit.>> There is nothing about String theory that inherently >> prevents it from being proven. But so far it has not predicted anything >> that is not predicted by other theories that we have had for some time >> now. > > because it's designed to cover exactly the other theories (SM, GR) in the domains that they are shown valid. > > >> Once String theory predicts something different we can try to test it. > > but i think that Woit and Smolin are saying that it won't because it's designed to default to the what the Standard Model and General Relativity (the two incompatible theories that are integrated into String theory) say.The game is not over yet. There are many new discoveries to come. Sooner or later the roads will diverge. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:36:03 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:> On 10/16/2014 11:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > >> > > >> The difference is that I believe you said if the quantum of time is the > > >> Planck time, the quantum nature of time can not be shown by experiment > > >> by definition. > > > > > > not by definition, just because it's soooo damn small. human beings will never ever measure anything that small. > > > > Nonsense. We don't have to measure it, just see that it makes a > difference.can't tell. and humans will *never* know the difference if time is quantized to 10^(-43) second or a trillion times bigger.> If it makes no difference then fugetaboutit. > > > > > > >> There is nothing about String theory that inherently > >> prevents it from being proven.Smolin and Woit and some other physicists disagree with you. they say that String theory and M-theory are fundamentally unfalsifiable.> >> But so far it has not predicted anything > >> that is not predicted by other theories that we have had for some time > >> now. > > > > > > because it's designed to cover exactly the other theories (SM, GR) in the domains that they are shown valid. > > > > > > > > >> Once String theory predicts something different we can try to test it. > > > > > > but i think that Woit and Smolin are saying that it won't because it's designed to default to the what the Standard Model and General Relativity (the two incompatible theories that are integrated into String theory) say. > > > > The game is not over yet. There are many new discoveries to come. > > Sooner or later the roads will diverge. >i don't think you get it, Rick. it's like string theory is a 12th-order polynomial with 13 coefficients designed so that it hits 13 observed/measured points exactly. so then they say that this polynomial explains the data when it could be some other function with 13 degrees of freedom. string theory will *never* diverge from the existing theories in the domains where those theories are valid. this is why Peter Woit says that string theory is "Not even wrong". it is fundamentally not falsifiable. at least that's how its critics characterize it. if it's not falsifiable, ultimately it moves from being "science" to being "philosophy". r b-j
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
On 10/17/2014 12:03 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:36:03 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> On 10/16/2014 11:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:51:21 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> The difference is that I believe you said if the quantum of time is the >> >>>> Planck time, the quantum nature of time can not be shown by experiment >> >>>> by definition. >> >>> >> >>> not by definition, just because it's soooo damn small. human beings will never ever measure anything that small. >> >> >> >> Nonsense. We don't have to measure it, just see that it makes a >> difference. > > can't tell. and humans will *never* know the difference if time is quantized to 10^(-43) second or a trillion times bigger. > >> If it makes no difference then fugetaboutit. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> There is nothing about String theory that inherently >>>> prevents it from being proven. > > Smolin and Woit and some other physicists disagree with you. they say that String theory and M-theory are fundamentally unfalsifiable.Then there is no point to the theory. I think they are referring to some specific version of the theory or something in particular beyond just "string theory" in general. Occam's razor is a useful device in all science. If it can't be proven true or false it is of no value.>>>> But so far it has not predicted anything >>>> that is not predicted by other theories that we have had for some time >>>> now. >> >>> >> >>> because it's designed to cover exactly the other theories (SM, GR) in the domains that they are shown valid. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> Once String theory predicts something different we can try to test it. >> >>> >> >>> but i think that Woit and Smolin are saying that it won't because it's designed to default to the what the Standard Model and General Relativity (the two incompatible theories that are integrated into String theory) say. >> >> >> >> The game is not over yet. There are many new discoveries to come. >> >> Sooner or later the roads will diverge. >> > > i don't think you get it, Rick. it's like string theory is a 12th-order polynomial with 13 coefficients designed so that it hits 13 observed/measured points exactly. so then they say that this polynomial explains the data when it could be some other function with 13 degrees of freedom. string theory will *never* diverge from the existing theories in the domains where those theories are valid. this is why Peter Woit says that string theory is "Not even wrong". it is fundamentally not falsifiable. at least that's how its critics characterize it. if it's not falsifiable, ultimately it moves from being "science" to being "philosophy"."where those theories are valid"... we have not explored all of existing theories. That is my point. At some point we will cover new ground and one of the two competing theories will diverge from measurements. We will take a 14th measurement and see which one fits the curve best. I understand completely what you are saying. But your thinking is constraining you to things like, "where those theories are valid". Science moves on and totally new things are discovered. Theories held for decades or even centuries are found to be incompatible with new discoveries. If string theory is literally equivalent to the standard model, etc. then it is of no real value. But it is silly to think that we will never open the lid of the box any wider to find things are not what we thought and that different models will diverge. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: <snip>>Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are.I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' and similar mush.) And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a construct we create to inflate ouselves above "mere animals", who are always presumed to lack it. It seems consciousness is like pornography and art: Nobody can define it, but everyone seems to think they "know it when they see it". Best regards, Bob Masta DAQARTA v7.60 Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator Science with your sound card!
