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

[Skakos]

Too true...

[Quotidian]

I was just reading a review of David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity. For those who don't know him, Deutsch is considered one of the Smartest Guys in the World, and invented the concept of the quantum computer.

What caught my attention was this:

According to [Deutsch] we live in one out of an unfathomable number of parallel universes, which interact at the quantum level. In this multiverse, the idea of individual photon and electron interactions are replaced by an infinite number of interacting instances which collectively can account for all possible forms of behaviour. What many will find very hard to accept is that this idea of an infinite number of alternatives for any given quantum event may provide the simplest explanation of quantum phenomena, and a first glimpse of a new vision of reality

So, many questions come to mind, but one certainly is: is this still 'naturalism'? You may notice that there is a strict taboo in scientific thought on explanations which are supposed to be 'supernatural', on the basis that these are thought to invoke you-know-who. But if, in fact, this model supposes infinite parallel universes to the one we're in, how is this any longer a 'naturalistic' explanation? I would have thought, by definition, that 'nature' consists of the realm that can be explored by scientific instruments. Parallel universes don't fall under that definition.

Because these proposals are entertained by people who are supposed to be 'scientific', we naively assume that they are therefore scientific explanations, as opposed to mystical or religious ones. But these kinds of notions leave the door wide open for 'other dimensions' or 'other realms'. What if someone says they have some kind of psychic connection to 'somebody in another dimension'? You can't say any more that 'scientific thinking rules that kind of thing out'. In fact in some multiverse ideas, not only is everything possible, but anything possible must be actual.

I am starting to form the opinion that naturalism, as such, has actually broken down, and that here is one manifestation of that breakdown. There are others, also, namely the dark matter-energy problem, which posits the notion that 95% of the Universe consists of something that we can't even conceive of.

[Christian29]

Many had great ideas on science... but I observed the discussion was on Modern Science. Science in general can be observed and judged as both open very hopeful. Modern Science in particular has its limit pertaining to procedures it employ and to the scientist. Pertaining to its object, there is no limit.

[Ktulu]

But what do you mean "forget Godel"? He has proved that we cannot prove anything and yet we continue to think that we can? And Quantum mechanics have also discovered limitations which we should also discuss. But before we go there I would really like your opinion on the Godel part.

If I may, I believe that what Gene was not trying to say that Godel was irrelative to the subject, but rather that QM better proves the fact that we can never have a full comprehension of reality. Though I don't agree with this because I believe they are completely different things, QM and Godel's theorem.

If I also may paraphrase Godel's incompleteness theorem, it says says that within a given axiomatic system, there will always be something that cannot be know to be true or false. You would have to incorporate that new statement into a new system that includes the previous system, plus the new "problematic" statement, and then you are back to square one. Repeat as needed. This is a more logically fundamental problem than QM in my opinion. This also applies to science not at all.

Science is not a self contained axiomatic system, it is a process of understanding the world, nothing is taken as axiomatic as was already explained.

-- Updated November 26th, 2012, 2:31 am to add the following --

Feyerabend would surely disagree with that. He thought (and I agree) that pure, genuine, innovative scientific work is basically unstructured. How can you be a genius and create new theories if you think inside the box?

I actually agree with this in its entirety. But that is not to say that you should disregard everything out of hand. I do think that you need to hypothetically forgo the rational temporarily, in order to get outside the current paradigm. Alas, it is very seldom that you would find an Einstein or a Newton, the overwhelming majority of times you just get the guy with the tinfoil hat.

[Teh]

But what do you mean "forget Godel"? He has proved that we cannot prove anything and yet we continue to think that we can? And Quantum mechanics have also discovered limitations which we should also discuss. But before we go there I would really like your opinion on the Godel part.

So Godel has _proved_ that we cannot _prove_ anything? I don't have to contradict that statement, as it contradicts itself.

What Godel proved is that there are TRUE statements that are unprovable within a formal theory, and that a sufficiently rich theory cannot prove its own consistency.

What this means is that there is no algorithm for mindlessly discovering mathematical truths. Progress in mathematics will depend on creativity, understanding and, as in the case of Godel, the discovery of new forms of mathematical proof.

I'd be fascinated to know what limitations quantum mechanics has discovered...

[Steve3007]

Quotidian:

You may notice that there is a strict taboo in scientific thought on explanations which are supposed to be 'supernatural', on the basis that these are thought to invoke you-know-who.

This may be the way that many people, including many scientists, would put it, but I disagree. I think that science cannot use explanations or models that cannot ever, in principle or practice, be used to predict future observations. (But it has nothing to say about the disciplines that can use such explanations). People on both "sides" of the debate often tend to use that as a basis for the argument:

Altogether: "Science doesn't use concepts that don't correspond to observations. God doesn't correspond to an observation. Science doesn't use God, therefore..."

Pro-science camp: "...God does not exist. People who insist that he does are guilty of arrogance and certainty."

Anti-science camp: "...Science thinks nobody should use God. Science hates God. Science thinks it is God. Scientists are guilty of arrogance and certainty."

But if, in fact, this model supposes infinite parallel universes to the one we're in, how is this any longer a 'naturalistic' explanation? I would have thought, by definition, that 'nature' consists of the realm that can be explored by scientific instruments. Parallel universes don't fall under that definition.

Observations of nature do. Predictive theories of those observations don't. Nobody ever measured or observed the law of gravity. They only ever observed things falling towards each other. But the law of gravity exists because it is useful for predicting things that can be observed.

If this "parallel universe" model turns out to be useful for predicting future observations of quantum events, I can see how it would be deemed useful.

There's perhaps also an "Occam's Razor" issue here. Many people misunderstand Occam's razor. They think it is a way to determine which of two competing theories is correct. It isn't. It deals with theories that are already both as correct as each other, but one is simpler. Occam's razor says: "Save yourself some time and go with the simple one. Life's too short."

The parallel universes theory is a model which attempts to allow us to do what physicists are always trying to do: find a way of understanding mysterious behaviours using analogies with mechanisms that we do understand. I think what people like David Deutsch are trying to do is to simply think of a conceptually simpler model of known observations. I presume he thinks the parallel universe idea is relatively conceptualy simple.

Because these proposals are entertained by people who are supposed to be 'scientific', we naively assume that they are therefore scientific explanations, as opposed to mystical or religious ones.

I think the two are not completely different, but the differences are important. Scientific models and mystical beliefs are both products of the human mind that do not exist in the sensible world. You can't observe them. But scientific models are attempts to predict things that do exist in the sensible world. A parallel universe, like anything else that cannot be directly sensed (e.g. an electron) is such a model. Whether it's going to turn out to be useful is another matter.

But these kinds of notions leave the door wide open for 'other dimensions' or 'other realms'. What if someone says they have some kind of psychic connection to 'somebody in another dimension'? You can't say any more that 'scientific thinking rules that kind of thing out'.

The door of science is, or should be, always open to absolutely anything whatever that corresponds to repeatable experiences. Scientific thinking does not rule out psychic connections to people in other dimensions. Lack of accurate repeatability does. And that only rules it out of scientific investigation. It doesn't say anything about anything else.

In fact in some multiverse ideas, not only is everything possible, but anything possible must be actual.

Sounds great. I guess you could say that in any infinite space filled with an infinite amount of "stuff" then every logically possible thing is happening an infinite number of times. There are an infinite number of planets made entirely out of Lego, for example.

All good fun. But only useful to Science if it predicts something measurable.

---

Ktulu:

Science is not a self contained axiomatic system, it is a process of understanding the world, nothing is taken as axiomatic as was already explained.

Yes. Or perhaps there is just one axiom: The self-referential belief, based on induction, that since induction has been useful up to now it will continue to be useful in the future.

Alas, it is very seldom that you would find an Einstein or a Newton, the overwhelming majority of times you just get the guy with the tinfoil hat.

Or Bill Gaede! (If you don't know who I mean, google him. He's .... a character.)

[A Poster He or I]

A slight tangent to the discussion, regarding the position of theoretical physicist David Deutch, and this exerpted quote of his, presented earlier by Quotidian.

According to [Deutsch] we live in one out of an unfathomable number of parallel universes, which interact at the quantum level.

I read David Deutch's earlier work The Fabric of Reality wherein he presents his "evidence" for quantum interaction between parallel universes. Deutch's presentation is very disingenuous, in my opinion. He knows very well that all of his so-called evidence can be explained away by existing interpretations of quantum mechanics. Yet he presents his evidence as proof of multiverse theory. I'm not making any point that any of these other interpretations are truer than Deutch's multiverse interpretation. I'm making the point that none of the evidence Deutch cites is even close to being sufficient to prove multiverse theory. There is no scientific evidence of quantum interaction between parallel universes, even if one buys into multiverse theory.

[Steve3007]

I think this illustrates something about the nature of science.

It's easy to think that Science, as an activity, is one big monolithic organisation when, of course, it is composed of many many people proposing a very large variety of ideas and theories. Most are probably flawed.

[Quotidian]

That is not the point. I made that observation about Deutsch in the context of 'the breakdown of naturalism'. What I said was

these kinds of notions leave the door wide open for 'other dimensions' or 'other realms'. What if someone says they have some kind of psychic connection to 'somebody in another dimension'? You can't say any more that 'scientific thinking rules that kind of thing out'. In fact in some multiverse ideas, not only is everything possible, but anything possible must be actual.

We already have a booming business in Quantum Consciousness. Laugh you may, but enter that exact term into Amazon's search box, and look at what comes back (around 2,409 hits, some pop-sci, but some written by eminent scientists.)

I stumbled upon a neo-Islamic site recently which was wondering whether the 95% of the Universe that we supposedly can't see might in fact be Heaven.

You see the point? The most old-fashioned materialistic thinkers are currently so-called philosophers (mostly operating out of biology) like Daniel Dennett and the Churchlands. But physics is entertaining completely mind-blowing ideas of multiple universes, parallel dimensions, and the like. Physics has actually demolished the conceptual basis of materialism, as such. So these neat divisions between 'nature' and 'supernatural' are going to be impossible to maintain.

Here is a review from last year, from the Guardian (no, not from Fortean Times):

When Moses asks to see who or what he has been conversing with on Mount Sinai, he is placed in a crevice and told to look out once the radiance has passed (no peeking now!). Anything more than a glimpse of God's receding back, the story implies, would blow his mortal fuses. The equivalent passage in Hindu scripture occurs in the Bhagavad Gita – and, as befitting that most frank of all religions, is more explicit about the nature of the fatal vision. Krishna responds to the warrior Arjuna's request by telling him that no man can bear his naked splendour, then goes right ahead and gives him the necessary upgrade: "divine sight". What follows is one of the wildest, most truly psychedelic episodes in world literature.

No longer veiled by a human semblance, Krishna appears in his universal aspect: a boundless, roaring, all-containing cosmos with a billion eyes and mouths, bristling with "heavenly weapons" and ablaze with the light of a thousand suns. The sight is fearsome not only in its manifold strangeness but because its fire is a consuming one. "The flames of thy mouths," a horrified Arjuna cries, "devour all the worlds … how terrible thy splendours burn!"

Until recently, a physicist would have regarded this scene as the picturesque delirium of a pre-scientific age. Most still would. And yet the contemplation of the unspeakable flowering of an infinity of worlds is no longer the province of "mystics, charlatans and cranks", as the leading string theorist Michio Kaku has written, but instead occupies "the finest minds on the planet". Welcome to the multiverse.

Review of The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

[Teh]

Deutch's presentation is very disingenuous, in my opinion. He knows very well that all of his so-called evidence can be explained away by existing interpretations of quantum mechanics. Yet he presents his evidence as proof of multiverse theory. I'm not making any point that any of these other interpretations are truer than Deutch's multiverse interpretation. I'm making the point that none of the evidence Deutch cites is even close to being sufficient to prove multiverse theory. There is no scientific evidence of quantum interaction between parallel universes, even if one buys into multiverse theory.

So what is the explanation of the double-slit experiment, or the Mach-Zehnder interferometer?

-- Updated November 26th, 2012, 6:15 pm to add the following --

That is not the point. I made that observation about Deutsch in the context of 'the breakdown of naturalism'. What I said was (Nested quote removed.)


We already have a booming business in Quantum Consciousness. Laugh you may, but enter that exact term into Amazon's search box, and look at what comes back (around 2,409 hits, some pop-sci, but some written by eminent scientists.)

I stumbled upon a neo-Islamic site recently which was wondering whether the 95% of the Universe that we supposedly can't see might in fact be Heaven.

You see the point? The most old-fashioned materialistic thinkers are currently so-called philosophers (mostly operating out of biology) like Daniel Dennett and the Churchlands. But physics is entertaining completely mind-blowing ideas of multiple universes, parallel dimensions, and the like. Physics has actually demolished the conceptual basis of materialism, as such. So these neat divisions between 'nature' and 'supernatural' are going to be impossible to maintain.

Here is a review from last year, from the Guardian (no, not from Fortean Times):


(Nested quote removed.)


Review of The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

If someone says they have a "they have some kind of psychic connection to 'somebody in another dimension'" then they are deluded or certifiably insane. Psychic connections are a delusion, and connections to "somebody" in another dimension are hilariously crackpot.

[Quotidian]

The point is, if science is proposing that infinite parallel universes exist, how do you know what is possible and what isn't? You are entitled to your opinion, but you can't look to physics in support.

[Steve3007]

We already have a booming business in Quantum Consciousness. Laugh you may, but enter that exact term into Amazon's search box, and look at what comes back (around 2,409 hits, some pop-sci, but some written by eminent scientists.)

There are also books by eminent scientists about string theory. (I'm currently reading one by Brian Greene). And that hasn't been experimentally verified either. I agree that Physics entertains all kinds of strange sounding ideas. That doesn't mean they have been established as an accurate description of nature and I still think that accurate descriptions of observations is the goal. And the ideas that are worth serious consideration all have solid roots in established ideas that have already been confirmed by observation, because one of the basic requirements of any new idea for a theory is that it should not contradict any observations, and the theories that describe those observations, from the past.

The point is, if science is proposing that infinite parallel universes exist, how do you know what is possible and what isn't?

The same as ever. By seeing if those propositions, whatever they are, are supported by observations. Remember: Science proposes lots and lots of things. They are filtered, sooner or later, but always eventually, by observation.

Teh:

If someone says they have a "they have some kind of psychic connection to 'somebody in another dimension'" then they are deluded or certifiably insane. Psychic connections are a delusion, and connections to "somebody" in another dimension are hilariously crackpot.

Whether or not that is true is not the point. If the idea of a psychic connection to somebody in another dimension is not scientific, it is not because it sounds "hilariously crackpot". Lots of things sound like that. It's because it is not a reliably repeatable observation.

[Teh]

The point is, if science is proposing that infinite parallel universes exist, how do you know what is possible and what isn't? You are entitled to your opinion, but you can't look to physics in support.

You have got to be joking! The minority of physicists who prefer the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics know precisely what is possible or impossible within that interpretation. One thing that would destroy their perspective would be any implication, theoretical or experimental, that was in conflict with quantum mechanics. None exists!

The whole point of parallel universes is that they cannot communicate! Obviously!

It is impossible at the present time to experimentally or theoretically distinguish between "parallel universe" interpretations of quantum mechanics and "local non-realist" interpretations such as "Consistent Histories". You cannot talk to your doppelgänger in a parallel universes in either of them, unless you are insane.

[A Poster He or I]

Teh asks,

So what is the explanation of the double-slit experiment, or the Mach-Zehnder interferometer?

The explanation of the double-slit experiment completely depends on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you buy into. Deutsch knows that as well as I do, so he should present that to his reader. Instead he presents his view (namely, the quantum is interfering with its own shadow-selves in different universes) in The Fabric of Reality as if it is accepted scientific fact. That is disingenuity unworthy of a scientist or science educator. I don't know much about the Mach-Zehnder interferometer so I'll abstain from an opinion on that device.

[Quotidian]

They (theories) are filtered, sooner or later, but always eventually, by observation.

But some things will forever be unobservable. Or, to put it another way, observation does not go all the way down. So here you actually run into the limit of, if not science, then certainly empiricism.

I suggest this has already happened. That is why we have these contradictory scientific models which are completely at odds with each other.

Now there's nothing wrong with that, in a methodological sense. I am not suggesting that all of these various ideas should form one harmonious whole, or that the presence of wildly conflicting models is a bad thing.

But just stand back and look at it all from the viewpoint of 'history of ideas'.

Remember that naturalism was put forward as the de facto 'domain of acceptable explanations'.

Science rejected religious 'explanations' specifically because they were not observable in naturalistic terms.

But now, as I am pointing out, science seems to have gone beyond the 'bounds of nature'. In all kinds of ways, science is positing forces, or fields, or worlds, or strings - and many other things - which are also not observable and may never be observable.

So in effect, metaphysics has forced itself upon us again. Many of the ideas about multiple worlds, the observer effect, holographic universes, and the like, are metaphysical ideas, even though those who advocate them would not like that said. But they are 'meta-' beyond or underlying 'physica' - the way things appear to be. This is why at least some of them will never be testable. They are literally beyond empirical verification. What they do do, is influence the kinds of things that are investigated, and the kinds of ideas we entertain.

So it's 'OK' if science thinks like that. But if 'religious people' do it - then woe betide unto them. They are being superstitious.

Now I know this doesn't apply to "Steve3007". But there are plenty of posters to whom it will.

Nobody ever measured or observed the law of gravity.

Isn't it that 'Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.'

The law is plainly established. What is not known is why gravity works. Wasn't it about that the Newton uttered his famous 'hypothesis non fingo' - 'I frame no hypothesis'?