Saturday, September 09, 2006
taking the implications honestly
Island mentioned yesterday that scientists don't take the implications of their work honestly, which is a very interesting comment on the status of science. Looking at the opinions of physicists (and people who misunderstand physics), it appears that people are very defensive of their theories (or lack thereof), and thus cannot- due to their bias- notice all of the implications resulting from those theories.
Probably the clearest way to illustrate this idea is to talk about the interpretations of quantum mechanics. The Elegant Universe states, "Many find it fatuous and downright repugnant to claim that the wonders of life and the universe are mere reflections of microscopic particles engaged in a pointless dance fully choreographed by the laws of physics." (Chapter 1, page 16 of the 2003 edition) If one is to favor a reductionist approach to quantum mechanics, one must accept that everything we experience is nothing more than what happens on the quantum level. (More precisely, there are several different types of reductionism; this interpretation mostly resembles the ontological variety.)
How is one to interpret quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.? We don't know. Many people are put off by reductionism for obvious reasons, so they won't think that way. We need a unified interpretation of science, and we need one now. ¶ 1:33 PM
Probably the clearest way to illustrate this idea is to talk about the interpretations of quantum mechanics. The Elegant Universe states, "Many find it fatuous and downright repugnant to claim that the wonders of life and the universe are mere reflections of microscopic particles engaged in a pointless dance fully choreographed by the laws of physics." (Chapter 1, page 16 of the 2003 edition) If one is to favor a reductionist approach to quantum mechanics, one must accept that everything we experience is nothing more than what happens on the quantum level. (More precisely, there are several different types of reductionism; this interpretation mostly resembles the ontological variety.)
How is one to interpret quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.? We don't know. Many people are put off by reductionism for obvious reasons, so they won't think that way. We need a unified interpretation of science, and we need one now. ¶ 1:33 PM
Comments:
<< Home
pointless dance fully choreographed
Well now, this is indeed an interesting theory... ;)
I have some great examples of Lawrence Krauss and Lenny Susskind making similarly contradictive statements... except yours was honest... *sigh*
Well now, this is indeed an interesting theory... ;)
I have some great examples of Lawrence Krauss and Lenny Susskind making similarly contradictive statements... except yours was honest... *sigh*
FYI: Perpetually inherent thermodynamic structuring isn't pointless, but it isn't "designed", it's inherently "choreographed".
I wrote this for wikipedia:
Observational Evidence
Direct observational evidence in support of the Anthropic Principle includes the Cosmic microwave background radiation, whose anthropic relevance has only been partially "explained-away":
CERN Courier "Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?"
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4/1/CCEsky1_12-04
"On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky."
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/
"The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html
In this article, Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows:
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Or at least on a central "plane"... which is actually the correct application of the anthropic phyisics.
Anyway... Krauss went on to add that he 'hopes that our theories are wrong'.
Meaning that we can spend another twenty or thirty years proving that, while avoiding any scientific investigation into the first most apparent implication of the evidence.
Where's the equal time?
It's burried under dogmatic misguided distaste for what is wrongly perceived as "geocentric arrogance".
That couldn't be further from the truth...
Observational Evidence
Direct observational evidence in support of the Anthropic Principle includes the Cosmic microwave background radiation, whose anthropic relevance has only been partially "explained-away":
CERN Courier "Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?"
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4/1/CCEsky1_12-04
"On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky."
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/
"The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html
In this article, Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows:
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Or at least on a central "plane"... which is actually the correct application of the anthropic phyisics.
Anyway... Krauss went on to add that he 'hopes that our theories are wrong'.
Meaning that we can spend another twenty or thirty years proving that, while avoiding any scientific investigation into the first most apparent implication of the evidence.
Where's the equal time?
It's burried under dogmatic misguided distaste for what is wrongly perceived as "geocentric arrogance".
That couldn't be further from the truth...
Those were very interesting examples. I'm quite shocked that Dr. Krauss implied that being on the central plane was the same as being at the center of the universe. And that he hopes our theories are wrong. Why would anyone want the theories to be wrong?
I've often heard that nature doesn't care about whether scientists like it or not. Nature won't care that scientists don't like the patterns of the cosmic background radiation; the patterns are the way they are, regardless of taste.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Krauss- I thought his book "Beyond Star Trek" was an excellent commentary on how entertainment doesn't always take physical principles into account- but I definitely think he errs in his assessment of the anthropic principle.
I agree that Brian Greene's description of particle physics as a pointless, choreographed dance was very odd, but I don't think that's how he personally views it; that's just what many other people think.
I've often heard that nature doesn't care about whether scientists like it or not. Nature won't care that scientists don't like the patterns of the cosmic background radiation; the patterns are the way they are, regardless of taste.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Krauss- I thought his book "Beyond Star Trek" was an excellent commentary on how entertainment doesn't always take physical principles into account- but I definitely think he errs in his assessment of the anthropic principle.
I agree that Brian Greene's description of particle physics as a pointless, choreographed dance was very odd, but I don't think that's how he personally views it; that's just what many other people think.
I'm quite shocked that Dr. Krauss implied that being on the central plane was the same as being at the center of the universe.
There is a feature to the anthropic principle that might be known as the "goldilocks constraint", which arrises from the fact that all the the anthropic coincidences are balanced near exactly between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies. Not too hot, not too cold, not too big, not to small, not too old, not too young, etc...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/instability.gif
Had Krauss bothered to think about it for about two seconds, then he would realize that the anthropic physics applies to every single spiral galaxy that evolved on this same "plane" as we did, so the principle is actually biocentric in nature, and what he is looking at is proof! So much for geocentric arrogance, what's your next excuse?
I had a LOT of respect for Krauss, but this has recently been shaken and it has a lot to do with Krauss' involvement and ensuing reactionary tendencies in the ID "debate", i.e., he wrote a letter to the Pope appealing to his "higher-authority", pleading with him to put the heat on his priests not to support the ID movement.
Science appeals to the church... please!... where will it end?!?
There is a feature to the anthropic principle that might be known as the "goldilocks constraint", which arrises from the fact that all the the anthropic coincidences are balanced near exactly between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies. Not too hot, not too cold, not too big, not to small, not too old, not too young, etc...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/instability.gif
Had Krauss bothered to think about it for about two seconds, then he would realize that the anthropic physics applies to every single spiral galaxy that evolved on this same "plane" as we did, so the principle is actually biocentric in nature, and what he is looking at is proof! So much for geocentric arrogance, what's your next excuse?
I had a LOT of respect for Krauss, but this has recently been shaken and it has a lot to do with Krauss' involvement and ensuing reactionary tendencies in the ID "debate", i.e., he wrote a letter to the Pope appealing to his "higher-authority", pleading with him to put the heat on his priests not to support the ID movement.
Science appeals to the church... please!... where will it end?!?
I agree that Brian Greene's description of particle physics as a pointless, choreographed dance was very odd, but I don't think that's how he personally views it; that's just what many other people think.
Like Richard Dawkins?
The only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
-Richard Dawkins
Or Lenny Susskind?
The appearance of design is undeniable.
And then when he was pressed by Amanda Gefter of "New Scientist":
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
Leonard Susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.
Considering Lenny's intended audience, that amounts to blackmail.
Apparently Lenny doesn't know the difference between *naturally guided evolution*, and "intelligent design" either, but who will even honestly ask the obvious question about what good physical reason might exist for why the implied specialness might be true if you can't lose the implication for "fine-tuning" in an infinite sea of possible universes?
Lenny's answer is not a valid excuse...
I doubt that physicists will see it that way...
I KNOW they won't, and I'm not real impressed with them for it.
Like Richard Dawkins?
The only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
-Richard Dawkins
Or Lenny Susskind?
The appearance of design is undeniable.
And then when he was pressed by Amanda Gefter of "New Scientist":
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
Leonard Susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.
Considering Lenny's intended audience, that amounts to blackmail.
Apparently Lenny doesn't know the difference between *naturally guided evolution*, and "intelligent design" either, but who will even honestly ask the obvious question about what good physical reason might exist for why the implied specialness might be true if you can't lose the implication for "fine-tuning" in an infinite sea of possible universes?
Lenny's answer is not a valid excuse...
I doubt that physicists will see it that way...
I KNOW they won't, and I'm not real impressed with them for it.
By the way, a. quinn, this won't make you feel better, but you're the most unmotivated "even-keeled" person that I've talked to about this in like... forever.
...and am I ever sorry for you
The anthropic principle potentially represents everything that everyone on all sides fears the most.
I really believe that either side would be happy never to have a theory of everything as to willingly recognize that maybe intelligent life simply represents a universal conservation law.
...and am I ever sorry for you
The anthropic principle potentially represents everything that everyone on all sides fears the most.
I really believe that either side would be happy never to have a theory of everything as to willingly recognize that maybe intelligent life simply represents a universal conservation law.
Krauss made the same appeal to the courts to discourage the teaching of intelligent design. I think there was an article in Scientific American about that last year. He seemed very, very concerned about stopping ID.
You've certainly done a lot of research as to scientists' viewpoints on ID. I find it quite disturbing that so many scientists appear to be confident in their theories, yet they are so fearful of people who are pushing pseudoscience. It looks almost like a fear of the fearful.
I think you're right about everyone being afraid of the anthropic principle, since you've offered so many examples of eminent scientists who are fearful of just that. I'm definitely more motivated now to discuss implications than I was when I created this blog. I didn't know where this blog was going, or even who would discover it. I'd originally intended it to be an instructional blog to dissuade crackpots from attacking the big blogs, but now it's taken an entirely different direction.
Since I'm going to a cosmology colloquium next month, I'll be able to ask Dr. Smolin and Dr. Greene (and probably many of the others who will be lecturing or just attending) what they really think about the implications of their theories. I wonder if their answers will be surprising.
You've certainly done a lot of research as to scientists' viewpoints on ID. I find it quite disturbing that so many scientists appear to be confident in their theories, yet they are so fearful of people who are pushing pseudoscience. It looks almost like a fear of the fearful.
I think you're right about everyone being afraid of the anthropic principle, since you've offered so many examples of eminent scientists who are fearful of just that. I'm definitely more motivated now to discuss implications than I was when I created this blog. I didn't know where this blog was going, or even who would discover it. I'd originally intended it to be an instructional blog to dissuade crackpots from attacking the big blogs, but now it's taken an entirely different direction.
Since I'm going to a cosmology colloquium next month, I'll be able to ask Dr. Smolin and Dr. Greene (and probably many of the others who will be lecturing or just attending) what they really think about the implications of their theories. I wonder if their answers will be surprising.
Good for you.
Look for them to push ideas that fail to maintain the kind of integrity and responsibility to the scientific method that Relativity provides.
Look for ad hoc assumptions that have been taken for granted as reality, that are not, (in their minds), subject to suspect review until the ToE or at least quantum gravity have been finalized. i.e., infinity, uncertainty, multiverses, etc... One thing that they don't particularly care to recognize is the fact that incomplete ad hoc assumptions become outright telling absurdities at an exponentially accelerating rate as time passes without resolution. Like the fact that QFT predicts a vacuum energy density that is some 120 orders of magnitude out of whack with the observed reality. Instead of backing up to see what's wrong, they assumed that this would be resolved by furthering the theory... WRONG!... yet, they won't give it up to see what might have been missed because they figure that they are justified by aspects of quantum theory that they can't even explain, that have nevertheless been verified by experiment.
Look for violations of the scientific method, like the ones that I pointed out... e.g., the first most apparent indication doesn't automatically demand that you "explain away" the apparent significance.
Lee Smolin is extremely Passive/Agressive he pretends to be hurt by any accusations that he is attacking string theory. He has also tried every angle, so he always uses whatever solution-in-context that he may have come up with to defend his claim that he's not attacking any side. Yet he's also pushing the background independent approach to LQG, which is really just more of the same kind of dead-end stuff that got them in second place in the first place.
In my opinion, they're all sides grasping at straws because they willfully refuse to pursue the same kind of writing on the wall evidence that Darwin used to qualify his theory.
Our universe is near perfectly "flat" because the direction of evolution is *toward* absolute symmetry, via periodic "leaps/bangs" to higher orders of entropic efficiency, as proven by our leap from apes to harness fire, and beyond...
The next universe will be a little more flat than this one for exactly that reason.
And yes, I absolutely can produce valid physics for this that no PhD has ever even attempted to shoot down.
Post a Comment
Look for them to push ideas that fail to maintain the kind of integrity and responsibility to the scientific method that Relativity provides.
Look for ad hoc assumptions that have been taken for granted as reality, that are not, (in their minds), subject to suspect review until the ToE or at least quantum gravity have been finalized. i.e., infinity, uncertainty, multiverses, etc... One thing that they don't particularly care to recognize is the fact that incomplete ad hoc assumptions become outright telling absurdities at an exponentially accelerating rate as time passes without resolution. Like the fact that QFT predicts a vacuum energy density that is some 120 orders of magnitude out of whack with the observed reality. Instead of backing up to see what's wrong, they assumed that this would be resolved by furthering the theory... WRONG!... yet, they won't give it up to see what might have been missed because they figure that they are justified by aspects of quantum theory that they can't even explain, that have nevertheless been verified by experiment.
Look for violations of the scientific method, like the ones that I pointed out... e.g., the first most apparent indication doesn't automatically demand that you "explain away" the apparent significance.
Lee Smolin is extremely Passive/Agressive he pretends to be hurt by any accusations that he is attacking string theory. He has also tried every angle, so he always uses whatever solution-in-context that he may have come up with to defend his claim that he's not attacking any side. Yet he's also pushing the background independent approach to LQG, which is really just more of the same kind of dead-end stuff that got them in second place in the first place.
In my opinion, they're all sides grasping at straws because they willfully refuse to pursue the same kind of writing on the wall evidence that Darwin used to qualify his theory.
Our universe is near perfectly "flat" because the direction of evolution is *toward* absolute symmetry, via periodic "leaps/bangs" to higher orders of entropic efficiency, as proven by our leap from apes to harness fire, and beyond...
The next universe will be a little more flat than this one for exactly that reason.
And yes, I absolutely can produce valid physics for this that no PhD has ever even attempted to shoot down.
<< Home
