Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atla]

And how do you know that? Maybe there really are forms of 'matter' in the universe we haven't been able to find yet (I would be very surprised if there wouldn't be any). Or maybe our current models simply contain errors, or are fundamentally wrong.

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply short for "we don't know what is causing these measured anomalies". How is that quackery?

It's only quackery if someone wants to tell us that we're almost at the end of physics and we just need to physically get our hands on dark matter, dark energy, etc. to prove its there. The good news - I doubt that's a common belief among scientists, just that unfortunately that's how they tend to convey it to the layperson.

Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.

[Papus79]

Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.

I find that interesting because I'm somewhat wondering if there might already be some things that punch a hole in that. For example Nima Arkani Hamed's research, particularly the amplitouhedron, makes me wonder if we have objects we could be studying, from what we have now, that could give us more 'bang for the buck' if we wrap our research around mapping those and then seeing how that maps back to fundamental particles.

Also have you listened to any of Eric Weinstein's talks on physics or his Geometric Unity idea or his sense of what the state of String Theory has been since the 80's? He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists, like having had both Sir Roger Penrose and Garrett Lisi on The Portal (largely debating with Lisi because he worries that he's wasting his time). He was on his brother Bret's Dark Horse podcast a week or two ago and took his best shot at actually explaining Geometric Unity to his brother, and one of the things he's brought up in the past has to do with accounting for the kinds of observations that would lead to Everett interpretations of collapse, in his model there's no need for it (I've had this thought before as well, 'Many Worlds' just fails to account for a constant dimension - which I think he's analogizing in his 'cardboard tube' analogy where one's slice of observation is like a hair-band on that tube). He also had a really interesting analogy for what's happening with quantum indeterminacy - he doesn't think it's happening but rather it's a problem of the quantum answering nonsense or poorly phrased questions when the classical world ignores them.

[Papus79]

He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists

I should clarify before my hand gets smacked on this one - he's close to the physics community, working on physics issues, there are a lot of qualified people who take him seriously so he's academia-adjacent but not in academia. By that he's technically not a 'physicist' but something more like an expert-level enthusiast who knows the math by heart.

[Atla]

Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.

I find that interesting because I'm somewhat wondering if there might already be some things that punch a hole in that. For example Nima Arkani Hamed's research, particularly the amplitouhedron, makes me wonder if we have objects we could be studying, from what we have now, that could give us more 'bang for the buck' if we wrap our research around mapping those and then seeing how that maps back to fundamental particles.

Also have you listened to any of Eric Weinstein's talks on physics or his Geometric Unity idea or his sense of what the state of String Theory has been since the 80's? He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists, like having had both Sir Roger Penrose and Garrett Lisi on The Portal (largely debating with Lisi because he worries that he's wasting his time). He was on his brother Bret's Dark Horse podcast a week or two ago and took his best shot at actually explaining Geometric Unity to his brother, and one of the things he's brought up in the past has to do with accounting for the kinds of observations that would lead to Everett interpretations of collapse, in his model there's no need for it (I've had this thought before as well, 'Many Worlds' just fails to account for a constant dimension - which I think he's analogizing in his 'cardboard tube' analogy where one's slice of observation is like a hair-band on that tube). He also had a really interesting analogy for what's happening with quantum indeterminacy - he doesn't think it's happening but rather it's a problem of the quantum answering nonsense or poorly phrased questions when the classical world ignores them.

I haven't listened to those podcasts, maybe I will if I have the time. Btw I'm someone who has been playing around with heavily modified versions of the MWI for a long time now (my unified theories include 1-2 constant extra dimensions I think). As to me, those kind of interpretations seem to be the case when we take QM literally. But I'm not sure if a bigger particle accelerator, or anything else for that matter, will be able to prove one QM interpretation correct.

[Papus79]

I haven't listened to those podcasts, maybe I will if I have the time. Btw I'm someone who has been playing around with heavily modified versions of the MWI for a long time now (my unified theories include 1-2 constant extra dimensions I think). As to me, those kind of interpretations seem to be the case when we take QM literally. But I'm not sure if a bigger particle accelerator, or anything else for that matter, will be able to prove one QM interpretation correct.

Part of the problem - every organization and bureaucracy wants more money and more people! It's about livelihood and power! They'd probably be asking for bigger accelerators even if they didn't believe it would solve anything and had to sell themselves a story on why the long odds are worth sinking tens of billions more into it.

[Atla]

I haven't listened to those podcasts, maybe I will if I have the time. Btw I'm someone who has been playing around with heavily modified versions of the MWI for a long time now (my unified theories include 1-2 constant extra dimensions I think). As to me, those kind of interpretations seem to be the case when we take QM literally. But I'm not sure if a bigger particle accelerator, or anything else for that matter, will be able to prove one QM interpretation correct.

Part of the problem - every organization and bureaucracy wants more money and more people! It's about livelihood and power! They'd probably be asking for bigger accelerators even if they didn't believe it would solve anything and had to sell themselves a story on why the long odds are worth sinking tens of billions more into it.

When we look at modern science in general, I don't think the picture is bleak at all. Science is advancing faster than ever (just not in fundamental physics). The truth gets out fast, nowadays often immediately, thanks to modern telecommunication etc. New findings are often so unexpected that not even money and power can prevent or hide their discovery, because those people just don't know what to prepare for. Even mass brainwashing attempts like "we are all holograms" or "we all live in a simulation" don't last long anymore.

[Papus79]

When we look at modern science in general, I don't think the picture is bleak at all. Science is advancing faster than ever (just not in fundamental physics). The truth gets out fast, nowadays often immediately, thanks to modern telecommunication etc. New findings are often so unexpected that not even money and power can prevent or hide their discovery, because those people just don't know what to prepare for. Even mass brainwashing attempts like "we are all holograms" or "we all live in a simulation" don't last long anymore.

It could be that we picked most of the low-hanging fruit with industrial application in the middle of the 20th century but I think we're getting close to needing a new framework in which to think about the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, etc.

One of the things I'm trying to do, and it's taking a while partly because I want to make sure I actually understand what I'm reading but also because I'm working right now almost any hour I'm not sleeping (posting things like this while I wait in builds), I'm going through Sir Roger Penrose 'Road to Reality' and I'm hoping to actually get intuitive touch stones with the math, with spinors, with the Einstein, Yang Mills, and Dirac equations, etc.. Partly because, as a concerned citizen, I want to understand both what this stuff does and doesn't tell us (I don't necessarily trust organizational priorities to tell us the story straight - particularly with funding on the line) and the other more personal part - i want to see what kinds of tool kits and everyday applicability might be available in this sort of mathematics, if there are any, that other people aren't using much yet.

[Atla]

When we look at modern science in general, I don't think the picture is bleak at all. Science is advancing faster than ever (just not in fundamental physics). The truth gets out fast, nowadays often immediately, thanks to modern telecommunication etc. New findings are often so unexpected that not even money and power can prevent or hide their discovery, because those people just don't know what to prepare for. Even mass brainwashing attempts like "we are all holograms" or "we all live in a simulation" don't last long anymore.

It could be that we picked most of the low-hanging fruit with industrial application in the middle of the 20th century but I think we're getting close to needing a new framework in which to think about the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, etc.

One of the things I'm trying to do, and it's taking a while partly because I want to make sure I actually understand what I'm reading but also because I'm working right now almost any hour I'm not sleeping (posting things like this while I wait in builds), I'm going through Sir Roger Penrose 'Road to Reality' and I'm hoping to actually get intuitive touch stones with the math, with spinors, with the Einstein, Yang Mills, and Dirac equations, etc.. Partly because, as a concerned citizen, I want to understand both what this stuff does and doesn't tell us (I don't necessarily trust organizational priorities to tell us the story straight - particularly with funding on the line) and the other more personal part - i want to see what kinds of tool kits and everyday applicability might be available in this sort of mathematics, if there are any, that other people aren't using much yet.

Well of course we need new frameworks, we don't have any working framework yet at all.

Well I started watching this vid where the Weinstein brothers talk, Eric starts with claiming that we don't know whether or not, at the base level of physics, our concepts are reality or our concepts model reality.
All human thinking is done in models so in that sense of course the latter is the correct one, so I'm not sure if I follow. But not knowing this is more like Western philosophy's failure I guess (the thousands of years old delusional belief in essence, thingness, substance etc.)

[Atla]

Weird, I can't say I have encountered this. What I see conveyed is more like the opposite, that we should build much bigger particle accelerators etc., because fundamental physics is kind of stuck since decades.

I find that interesting because I'm somewhat wondering if there might already be some things that punch a hole in that. For example Nima Arkani Hamed's research, particularly the amplitouhedron, makes me wonder if we have objects we could be studying, from what we have now, that could give us more 'bang for the buck' if we wrap our research around mapping those and then seeing how that maps back to fundamental particles.

Also have you listened to any of Eric Weinstein's talks on physics or his Geometric Unity idea or his sense of what the state of String Theory has been since the 80's? He's had some pretty good conversations with other mathematical physicists, like having had both Sir Roger Penrose and Garrett Lisi on The Portal (largely debating with Lisi because he worries that he's wasting his time). He was on his brother Bret's Dark Horse podcast a week or two ago and took his best shot at actually explaining Geometric Unity to his brother, and one of the things he's brought up in the past has to do with accounting for the kinds of observations that would lead to Everett interpretations of collapse, in his model there's no need for it (I've had this thought before as well, 'Many Worlds' just fails to account for a constant dimension - which I think he's analogizing in his 'cardboard tube' analogy where one's slice of observation is like a hair-band on that tube). He also had a really interesting analogy for what's happening with quantum indeterminacy - he doesn't think it's happening but rather it's a problem of the quantum answering nonsense or poorly phrased questions when the classical world ignores them.

Hey thanks a lot, you've given me something to listen to. Eric looks like a pretty smart guy, it'll be interesting to absorb his thought processes and views. These are the kind of things I'm looking for.

[Papus79]

Hey thanks a lot, you've given me something to listen to. Eric looks like a pretty smart guy, it'll be interesting to absorb his thought processes and views. These are the kind of things I'm looking for.

It's a bit hard to describe this perhaps the best way I can phrase it - I've come to see that it's often a sign of competence when people avoid easy 'razzle-dazzle' or the mystique/flash of the particular presentation media, try to reify and 'mundane' the things they're seeing (like the programming engine expert who does his or her presentation on a chalk board), and if they do find something that's really fascinating to them it's because they've reached deep into what would seem like otherwise boring details to most people and found it in the implications. Eric and Sir Roger Penrose both seem to have that embedded in their habits.

Something that Eric beats on often, which I'm really glad he does, is just how tired the double-slit is. It's one thing to wow children by pulling a coin out from behind their ear, it's insulting when they keep trying that trick when you're in your 30's or 40's already.

[Atla]

Hey thanks a lot, you've given me something to listen to. Eric looks like a pretty smart guy, it'll be interesting to absorb his thought processes and views. These are the kind of things I'm looking for.

It's a bit hard to describe this perhaps the best way I can phrase it - I've come to see that it's often a sign of competence when people avoid easy 'razzle-dazzle' or the mystique/flash of the particular presentation media, try to reify and 'mundane' the things they're seeing (like the programming engine expert who does his or her presentation on a chalk board), and if they do find something that's really fascinating to them it's because they've reached deep into what would seem like otherwise boring details to most people and found it in the implications. Eric and Sir Roger Penrose both seem to have that embedded in their habits.

Something that Eric beats on often, which I'm really glad he does, is just how tired the double-slit is. It's one thing to wow children by pulling a coin out from behind their ear, it's insulting when they keep trying that trick when you're in your 30's or 40's already.

Trick? I don't know what he means by that, guess I'll have to watch some of his vids.
The way I see it, not only is it not a trick, the implications are probably way beyond what most people realize (the "classical world" being an infinitesimally rare form of quantum behaviour). Anyway, no one can tell for sure, what it is.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, one would have to wonder why you would bring up such a view in the first place if no one seems to hold it.

Obviously I hold it.

No, a solution posits an explanation which tells us why there is a mismatch between models and reality.

I explained this already. The mismatch is that what's really going on is something instrumentalist, but it's talked about in the guise of realist ontological commitments.

I don't have a problem with instrumentalism. I have a problem with people talking about instrumentalist stuff as if it's not instrumentalist.

[Palumboism]

What is "nonsense" about dark matter, dark energy, or wormholes?

They are speculations treated as real things.

That's how science works. When you see something that doesn't make sense, you come up with a hypothesis for the reason why. In this case calculations for many galaxies show they should fly apart based on the amount of matter they have. The math indicates dark matter should be there.

[Steve3007]

That's how science works. When you see something that doesn't make sense, you come up with a hypothesis for the reason why. In this case calculations for many galaxies show they should fly apart based on the amount of matter they have. The math indicates dark matter should be there.

So, putting it more generally, we observe patterns in our observations. We use mathematics as the language to describe those patterns; like English but more precise and quantitative. That then helps us to extrapolate from those patterns and make predictions of future observations. In some cases, the predictions lead to the hypothesis that the best way to describe those future observations would be to propose the existence of some thing. In this case, that something is "dark matter", but in principle it could be anything.

The issue that some people seem to have with this process is that last part. There appears to be a view that jumping from patterns in observations to proposing the ontological existence of "things" whose proposed existence fits the patterns in the observations is going too far. It seems almost like a form of dualism - i.e. a fundamental separation into two parts - between ontology and utility; between what is and what is useful for predicting the results of experiments. In some ways ( but certainly not all ways) it reminds me of the disdain for experimentation that is often traced back to the likes of Pythagoras, and which led, for a thousand years or more (at least in Western Science/Natural Philosophy), to the view that if you want to understand the way that the world is, the one thing you don't do is look at it!

[Sculptor1]

They are speculations treated as real things.

That's how science works. When you see something that doesn't make sense, you come up with a hypothesis for the reason why. In this case calculations for many galaxies show they should fly apart based on the amount of matter they have. The math indicates dark matter should be there.

Indeed. It's called saving the appearances. They all did it Ptolemy, Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and Hoyle.
They all created systems that worked because they were faithful to the evidence.
Better hypothesises can replaces old one but they too are subject to revision - that is what is great about science.
The trick here is not to take it all as gospel.
I'd like to think that religious people would not take the Gospels as gospel - but you can't have everything can you!