Author Topic: Nature of Reality  (Read 206 times)

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
    • Spirituality & Science
Nature of Reality
« on: September 30, 2019, 04:51:02 PM »
Hi everyone,

Here is a very good video of a discussion about the Nature of reality....from the New York Academy of Sciences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MvGGjcTEpQ

Cheers.

Sriram

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4049
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Re: Nature of Reality
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2019, 03:19:46 PM »
Quite an interesting discussion - although quite long (about 1.5 hrs!)

Hoffman has some great ideas and has achieved good theoretical results although seems to speculate too far in this interview.
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Nature of Reality
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2019, 02:12:31 PM »

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4049
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Re: Nature of Reality
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2019, 03:33:32 PM »
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11331
Re: Nature of Reality
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2019, 04:02:55 PM »
From the precis:

1 - he's fundamentally misrepresenting what the concept of 'observation causes the collapse of a quantum waveform' means to presume that it must be a conscious observer and not, for instance, another atom which requires a definitive state in order to interact.

2 - he's making a leap from macroscopic effects (evolutionary trends in eyesight) to quantum level effects without really adequately bridging the gap.  What little we know of quantum effects is that, statistically, they even out by the time you get to the atomic level into consistent probabilities, so macroscopic observations aren't going to have significant effects on the probability of particular balances of quantum events; if he had evidence of that, this would be a Nobel prize paper in a major physics or general science journal, not a fringe psychology journal.

Frontiers, as an organisation, retains membership of several creditable organisations overseeing science journals, but it's poorly rated by Retraction Watch, it's attempted to cling to a neutral ground when publishing retractions of climate change denying papers in the past, it was dropped by its publisher for articles denying HIV was a thing and it reportedly has an editorial rejection rate of somewhere below 20% (Nature, for a contrast, has a rejection rate in excess of 90%) with a history of removing editors whose rejection rates are considered too high.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4049
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Re: Nature of Reality
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2019, 12:27:05 PM »
A quick reply as I have not fully read the article yet.

From the precis:

1 - he's fundamentally misrepresenting what the concept of 'observation causes the collapse of a quantum waveform' means to presume that it must be a conscious observer and not, for instance, another atom which requires a definitive state in order to interact.

He mentions this as an interpretation - it is not necessary for the construction of his model. Once he has a model, he will need to show why/how collapse occurs - of-course his theory must be falsifiable.

Quote
2 - he's making a leap from macroscopic effects (evolutionary trends in eyesight) to quantum level effects without really adequately bridging the gap.  What little we know of quantum effects is that, statistically, they even out by the time you get to the atomic level into consistent probabilities, so macroscopic observations aren't going to have significant effects on the probability of particular balances of quantum events; if he had evidence of that, this would be a Nobel prize paper in a major physics or general science journal, not a fringe psychology journal.

Again, he is working the other way - from his abstract model to show how space-time and physical objects can emerge from it. In some ways this is similar to how some physicists are working on the derivation of space-time from quantum field and information theories (Sean Carroll, Vlatco Vedral ...).

Quote
Frontiers, as an organisation, retains membership of several creditable organisations overseeing science journals, but it's poorly rated by Retraction Watch, it's attempted to cling to a neutral ground when publishing retractions of climate change denying papers in the past, it was dropped by its publisher for articles denying HIV was a thing and it reportedly has an editorial rejection rate of somewhere below 20% (Nature, for a contrast, has a rejection rate in excess of 90%) with a history of removing editors whose rejection rates are considered too high.

O.

There will always be some publishers that will publish work well outside and challenging the current scientific paradigms - science not only builds on what has already be found but sometimes must overturn the existing models - most of these challengers will prove to be wrong but that does not mean that we can't find them interesting or learn from them.
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now