A thread about "Nothing"

[sjastro]

I am a fan of Karl Popper. So yes, I am aware of this.

It’s ironic you bring Karl Popper into the thread given your faith based argument is untestable as I have been trying to impress on you and is therefore not science.

 

[Halbhh]

@sjastro
Existence is the most amazing thing, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

@sjastro
Existence is the most amazing thing, right?

It's a miracle!

 

[sjastro]

Huh? I asked you if you agreed with these postulates. The first postulate was, "That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen."

It goes without saying that postulate 1 is true. It is trivially true. Yet you appear to be so set on arguing, you won't even agree with me when I make an obvious statement--"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen."

You tell me you "make no assumptions one way or the other" on this postulate--"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen." Huh? Are you even reading what I write? Are you making a serious attempt to understand me?

Though you may disagree with most of what I say, if you see something you agree with, it would be OK for you to say, "I agree on that point."


I agree on that point.

Excuse me where did you ask if I agreed with your postulates?
I suggest you go back and read carefully your post I was responding to as it has zero relevance to the subject of postulates.
Maybe your version of events has occurred in another universe but not in this one.
It was in response to this;

So you just assume that quantum mechanics always exists everywhere and always? What can possibly be wrong with stating that we don't know if every realm of reality has our quantum mechanics?

Note that I am not saying that I know that quantum mechanics is not the same everywhere. I say I don't know. But I strongly suspect it may be different in different realms outside of our spacetime.

You however, appear to refuse to acknowledge it could be different in other universes. I don't see how you can claim to have that knowledge.

This is meaningless to a scientist since the search for where quantum mechanics is non existent or different such as in other universes is unfalsifiable.
I have no idea how scientists in other universes operate but in this one scientists look for where quantum mechanics is incomplete which is testable.
The Lamb shift of the energy levels in a hydrogen atom is one such example where quantum mechanics cannot explain the observation which led to the development of quantum field theory.

This is how science works not according to the philosophical postulates in your link.
In more general terms it is the scientific method at work.

Note how your argument falls immediately at step (1) for observation making the scientific method impossible to employ.

Word salad.

It serves to illustrate the illogical nature presented in your posts.
Claiming quantum mechanics can be non existent or different in fictional universes or at the very least universes causally disconnected from ours is a fairytale.
You have painted yourself into a corner; since you cannot support this assertion, you are engaging in yet another logical fallacy by shifting the burden of proof and expecting me to disprove your assertion!!!
It’s not done that way.

 

[sjastro]

@sjastro
Existence is the most amazing thing, right?

Existence or reality (some philosophers state there is a distinction between the two) is actually a difficult concept for mathematicians and theoretical physicists to grapple with.
The idea for vacuum energy was modeled around the mathematical idea of each point in space-time being like a spring which led to the development of quantum electrodynamics.
The question is whether this mathematical model is an attempt to model reality or is reality itself.

The physicist Murray Gell-Mann who won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on quantum chromodynamics and introduced quarks into physics was adamant quarks were a mathematical concept and not real despite their discovery in particle physics experiments.

I suppose this gets down to a deeper discussion which the philosophers in this forum can sink their teeth into whether mathematics is invented or discovered.

 

[SelfSim]

The question is whether this mathematical model is an attempt to model reality or is reality itself.

As Hawking was on about in the concept of model dependent reality, the concept of 'reality itself' there, can also be argued as being a model.
Its sort of models all the way down because that's just what our minds observably do .. (ie: create models). Its ok to think of them as referring to something outside of the mind .. but that's really just something we like to believe, as it makes conversations a lot simpler.
The thing is though, in science, we can't rely on a 'going-in' belief like that, otherwise it fails Step #1 in the methodology.

 

[Halbhh]

As Hawking was on about in the concept of model dependent reality, the concept of 'reality itself' there, can also be argued as being a model.
Its sort of models all the way down because that's just what our minds observably do .. (ie: create models). Its ok to think of them as referring to something outside of the mind .. but that's really just something we like to believe, as it makes conversations a lot simpler.
The thing is though, in science, we can't rely on a 'going-in' belief like that, otherwise it fails Step #1 in the methodology.

Inevitably, from the start, we physically could not precisely to complete precision represent the fullness of external reality in a sufficiently large system where the system in question has more components than our brain (just a very simple way of looking at it).

But it's even worse -- even just to model mathematically with complete precision a small simpler system with a relatively small number of particles like 100 for a limited time span -- even that is overwhelming for modern supercomputers turns out:

The situation becomes particularly tricky when studying the behaviour of multiple, interacting objects rather than just a single object. The quantum mechanical equations used to describe these many-particle systems are much more complex than those of single-particle systems, as the complexity increases exponentially with each additional particle. Today's best supercomputers can solve the wave equation for systems with a maximum of 50 particles. And not many more will be possible in the future, since even a supercomputer the size of our planet would not be able to solve Schrödinger's equation accurately for systems much larger than 100 particles.
Taming complexity: Quantum systems, many particles: an elegant way to simplify

But this doesn't mean the wave equation is a mere arbitrary model that isn't glued to reality like a tight glove on a hand....

Rather, our brains and our computers are limited, finite and the limit is relative to their computing power.

When I tried to elucidate my views before I didn't necessarily explain it clearly or well. Basically, we just can't model a such a complex thing as actual reality very precisely, but we can model it crudely and approximately in many situations to fantastic success.

Such as for instance, we can calculate a simple thing like a flight path for a spacecraft and figure out when to burn the rocket for how long to slingshot around a planet to pick up more speed, etc.

To fantastic precision that works. To even flyby a small planet like Pluto which is vastly distant, with superb functional outcome == precise enough to work out well.

 

[SelfSim]

Inevitably, from the start, we physically could not precisely to complete precision represent the fullness of external reality in a sufficiently large system where the system in question has more components than our brain (just a very simple way of looking at it).

'A sufficiently large system' is a model. So is 'our brain' and for the same reasons, so is 'the fullness of external reality' (whatever that last one means?).
...

But this doesn't mean the wave equation is a mere arbitrary model that isn't glued to reality like a tight glove on a hand....

That statement is only acceptable in science, if the 'reality' you're referring to there, is part of science's operationally testable objective reality. You'd need to qualify that's what you mean there, before I could verify what you say there, by way of putting to the test.

If I were to ask you to describe what you mean by 'reality' there, I would also ask you to cite the objective test for it, particularly if I can see its not testable. If its not testable, then its just another belief. If you mean your 'external reality' there, (meaning a truly mind independent reality), then your claim would go on the pile of other beliefs over in there .. in the corner, and I am justified in discarding it from objective discourse.

Rather, our brains and our computers are limited, finite and the limit is relative to their computing power.

Yes .. there's abundant evidence for that all being relative to our minds' perceptions ... and *zip* for: it all being relative to 'a something which actually exists' beyond those perceptions.

When I tried to elucidate my views before I didn't necessarily explain it clearly or well. Basically, we just can't model a such a complex thing as actual reality very precisely, but we can model it crudely and approximately in many situations to fantastic success.

What you're attempting to compare 'our models' with there, when arguing their precision (or 'fit'), can be demonstrated objectively as being a belief, however (ie: it never gets tested). This is ok in scientific thinking as long as you distinguish it as being only a belief .. and not being objectively real. I don't get the impression from just about everything you post, that you accept that however. It seems undistinguished for you.

Such as for instance, we can calculate a simple thing like a flight path for a spacecraft and figure out when to burn the rocket for how long to slingshot around a planet to pick up more speed, etc.

If I were to ask you to describe the parameters for 'a flight path', you'd be easily able to describe it using science's oprational definitions (which are all objectively testable). This is not the case however for beliefs such as some reality which you just say exists 'externally', (ie: independently), from the human mind.

To fantastic precision that works. To even flyby a small planet like Pluto which is vastly distant, with superb functional outcome == precise enough to work out well.

That argument is perfectly acceptable, so long as you don't rely in any way on your belief that those testable models (like Pluto, a small planet and flyby), exist externally from the mind's (science's) objective models, which happen to be defined in testable by ways, courtesy of prior applications of the scientific method.

 

[Bradskii]

...or because they want to belittle Christians...

Whut? I thought this was a scientific exercise. What has Christianity got to do with it?

 

[renniks]

Well then He wouldn't actually be creating it from nothing. Now I'm not personally opposed to such a possibility, but most theists are. As it comes far too close to suggesting pantheism et al.

I don't see why it should.
He obviously used his energy to create. The question is whether matter is composed of his energy... and since scripture says God is above all and through all and in all I think that's a reasonable assumption.
I guess the question is: what does it mean when it says all things are made through him?

 

[sjastro]

As Hawking was on about in the concept of model dependent reality, the concept of 'reality itself' there, can also be argued as being a model.
Its sort of models all the way down because that's just what our minds observably do .. (ie: create models). Its ok to think of them as referring to something outside of the mind .. but that's really just something we like to believe, as it makes conversations a lot simpler.
The thing is though, in science, we can't rely on a 'going-in' belief like that, otherwise it fails Step #1 in the methodology.

There are contrasting views.

The spectrum of the hydrogen atom is simple enough to be accurately modeled using quantum mechanics.
In the late 19th century the formula for the Balmer series for the emission lines of the hydrogen atom was devised in an ad hoc manner and was essentially a curve fitting exercise to derive the formula empirically using the existing data.
As to why the formula worked was largely a mystery as it predated quantum mechanics.
With the advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century it was found a much deeper level of mathematics involving Laguerre polynomials led to the derivation of Balmer series.
In this case the mathematics was a discovery and not an invention as used in the empirical formula worked out in the 19th century.

The led the Nobel prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner to conclude;

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia

This opinion has been extended by the cosmologist Max Tegmark to conclude the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics.
Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)".
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world"
Mathematical universe hypothesis - Wikipedia
Frankly I think it's a wacky far out idea.

 

[SelfSim]

There are contrasting views.

The spectrum of the hydrogen atom is simple enough to be accurately modeled using quantum mechanics.
In the late 19th century the formula for the Balmer series for the emission lines of the hydrogen atom was devised in an ad hoc manner and was essentially a curve fitting exercise to derive the formula empirically using the existing data.
As to why the formula worked was largely a mystery as it predated quantum mechanics.
With the advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century it was found a much deeper level of mathematics involving Laguerre polynomials led to the derivation of Balmer series.
In this case the mathematics was a discovery and not an invention as used in the empirical formula worked out in the 19th century.

The led the Nobel prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner to conclude;

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia

This opinion has been extended by the cosmologist Max Tegmark to conclude the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics.
Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)".
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world"
Mathematical universe hypothesis - Wikipedia
Frankly I think to a wacky far out idea.

Thanks for that well considered post.
I don't see too much at odds there with the idea of model dependent reality, with math just being the chosen language of description (namely because it works so well when compared with other more ambiguous languages). Looks to me as though Tegmark is just creating his own philiosophy, mathematicism. (Yet another an '-ism' on top of the pile of all the rest 'em).
Also, along similar lines as your thoughts there, I doubt the average person about to be hit by a bus would be shrieking out, say, a Laguerre polynomial to alert others to the horror they're experiencing in that moment.

 

[partinobodycular]

Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)".
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world"
Mathematical universe hypothesis - Wikipedia
Frankly I think it's a wacky far out idea.

But isn't that 'wackiness' simply the byproduct of observer bias?

Would any conscious observer, even a computer generated one, be prone to the exact same bias, believing that the mathematical framework that it exists within is physically real? And if a computer generated consciousness could be fooled then why not you?

 

[SelfSim]

But isn't that 'wackiness' simply the byproduct of observer bias?

Would any conscious observer, even a computer generated one, be prone to the exact same bias, believing that the mathematical framework that it exists within is physically real? And if a computer generated consciousness could be fooled then why not you?

Well, I knew Max Headroom was computer generated, but are you now saying Max Tegmark is?

 

[sjastro]

But isn't that 'wackiness' simply the byproduct of observer bias?

Would any conscious observer, even a computer generated one, be prone to the exact same bias, believing that the mathematical framework that it exists within is physically real? And if a computer generated consciousness could be fooled then why not you?

Whether machine consciousness can be equated with human consciousness is a subject in itself.
Sure AI can teach itself, make independent decisions or play chess better than any human, but whether they exhibit characteristics such as self awareness seems to be more in the realm of popsci than peer reviewed science.

As for my own opinion when it comes to complex systems, mathematical modelling is only an approximation for reality not reality itself.
For example Einstein's field equations are non linear partial differential equations which are generally unsolvable.
The mathematics behind the generation of gravitational waves through merging black holes was done by linearizing the field equations and using supercomputers to find convergent solutions to produce an approximate waveform for a theoretical gravitational wave.
The waveform was accurate enough to be used as a prediction for real gravitational waves but clearly the waveform itself is not real which contradicts Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.

 

[sjastro]

Well, I knew Max Headroom was computer generated, but are you now saying Max Tegmark is?

Given we humans have a propensity of making connections I propose Max Headroom and Max Tegmark are one in the same person.

(1) They share the same first name.
(2) Note the similar physical appearance.

Max Headroom

Max Tegmark​

 

[Hans Blaster]

I suppose this gets down to a deeper discussion which the philosophers in this forum can sink their teeth into whether mathematics is invented or discovered.

Since I once (re-)invented hypermatrices, I'll have to go with invented. (The alternative is "mathism".)

 

[SelfSim]

Given we humans have a propensity of making connections I propose Max Headroom and Max Tegmark are one in the same person.

(1) They share the same first name.
(2) Note the similar physical appearance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether machine consciousness can be equated with human consciousness is a subject in itself.

Some have the same IQ, in my opinion.

 

[Halbhh]

Thanks for that well considered post.
I don't see too much at odds there with the idea of model dependent reality, with math just being the chosen language of description (namely because it works so well when compared with other more ambiguous languages). Looks to me as though Tegmark is just creating his own philiosophy, mathematicism. (Yet another an '-ism' on top of the pile of all the rest 'em).
Also, along similar lines as your thoughts there, I doubt the average person about to be hit by a bus would be shrieking out, say, a Laguerre polynomial to alert others to the horror they're experiencing in that moment.

In physics, we occasionally predict never before seen things in nature.

Accurately.

With breath taking accuracy.

That's how we realize the theories are not arbitrary.

Instead, the theories are finding pieces of reality itself, amazingly.

We find, as @sjastro pointed out, Nature really is accurately mathematical.

It's not a fooling ourselves with a 'model'. It's the opposite. Finding what is actually real.

That's how physics (and all applied sub sciences) isn't like other ideas we have like about people or ourselves or any of a million models we also come up with.

Physics is a separate category from mere modeling, and unlike modeling.