[HN Gopher] Metaphysical experiments probe our hidden assumption...
___________________________________________________________________
Metaphysical experiments probe our hidden assumptions about reality
Author : Gooblebrai
Score : 56 points
Date : 2024-07-30 22:56 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
| analog31 wrote:
| As I scrolled down, I was just waiting in anticipation for the
| picture of the giant optical breadboard, bristling with bits from
| Thor Labs.
|
| I wasn't disappointed.
| upwardbound wrote:
| Some of my favorite fun questions or speculations in the applied
| metaphysics realm, which I sincerely hope we or our descendants
| can someday test, are about whether one of the deepest axioms of
| modern astrophysics, the Cosmological Principle, is false.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
|
| It says basically that the laws of physics are the same
| everywhere. If it's false, this would allow moonshot bets to
| escape this universe's limiting ending, its heat death - because
| we might be able to do things that are impossible _here_ , but
| are possible in a different region of space, with different laws.
|
| Reposting some of my previous comments about this:
|
| For example, if we eventually have multiple star systems' worth
| of resources at our disposal, then I hope we put at least a
| trillion dollars per topic into long-shot research topics such as
| time travel, the multiverse, FTL travel, methods of creating new
| universes via an artificial Big Bang, applied theology (trying to
| find evidence of a God so that we can communicate with them),
| methods of achieving infinitely positive states of qualia such as
| something like nirvana, and so on.
|
| Each bet might be 1 in a million - but I'd much rather that we
| try every possible chance at escaping what we currently see as
| the inevitable, and not go gentle into that heat death night.
|
| This goal, to break through the wall at the end of the universe,
| was what Asimov called for in his inspiring short story _The Last
| Question_.
|
| https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
|
| Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological
| Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough
| to escape our local zone.
|
| For example, there might turn out to be particle types which
| don't exist at all in our zone, but which are force carriers for
| forces that enable time travel or other violations of causality.
| We might have evolved in a zone with zero of these particles
| simply because it's hard for life to evolve in a zone without
| causality. Our zone might be a life-friendly little bubble beyond
| which things get truly strange, but where with appropriately
| designed nanotechnology, we might achieve incredible things we've
| never before observed, including changing the past or even
| stepping entirely outside of the fabric of spacetime into
| someplace with more or fewer spatial dimensions.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
|
| So, 1 in a million is my approximate a priori estimate of the
| odds of the Cosmological Principle being false in a useful way.
|
| For a fun example of fiction that takes place in a setting where
| the Cosmological Principle is false, check out A Fire Upon the
| Deep by Vernor Vinge. The zone where Earth is situated, and where
| the laws of physics are the same as in our observed reality, is
| called the Slow Zone. There are three other types of zones with
| other laws, called the Beyond, the Transcend, and the Unthinking
| Depths.
|
| I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in
| the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who
| sought to understand their universe without yet having the
| instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is,
| without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the
| question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be
| informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of
| science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ),
| philosophy of knowledge (e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology
| (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds
| ).
|
| Originally I posted these here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38217412
| generalizations wrote:
| I'd bet that by the time we have multiple star systems' worth
| of resources at our disposal, we'll also have entire
| universities dedicated to that kind of research. At that scale,
| everything scales.
| basementcat wrote:
| We already have multiple star systems worth of resources at
| our disposal. Many of the elements of the periodic table
| require higher mass (than our Sun) stars or colliding neutron
| stars to make.
|
| https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/
| generalizations wrote:
| If it's not tantamount to a dyson sphere, then IMO it's not
| even equivalent to the star, much less the star system.
| srcreigh wrote:
| Is there any axiom for the principle that the laws of physics
| don't change with time? (not sure if that even makes sense-not
| a physicist)
| rolisz wrote:
| There's Noether's conservation theorem, which roughly states
| that symmetries of a force imply a corresponding conservation
| law.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
| slashdave wrote:
| No. It is an assumption.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| > Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological
| Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far
| enough to escape our local zone.
|
| This is... overly optimistic. To say the least, it depends on
| exactly which laws change with location, and how far. That is
| to say, we could conceivably know for a fact that the
| Cosmological Principle is false, but still know that there is
| nowhere in the universe that time travel is possible, or that
| it's impossible to prevent the end of the universe. The only
| way "everything is possible" is in the conditional sense that
| we don't know what's possible yet, but you don't need to invoke
| the CP for that at all.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Alternately, we might discover that our "normal rules" don't
| rule everywhere, but that they will always rule _us_ ,
| because the rule-set is spreading at-or-above the speed of
| light while simultaneously preventing us from being able to
| exceed it
|
| _P.S.:_ Even if we could... Don 't cross the seams. It would
| be bad. Try to imagine all life as you it stopping
| instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at
| the speed of light. Total protonic reversal.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Speaking of the dangers of going to other zones of physics,
| and related fiction: _Terminal World_ by Alastair Reynolds
| has this concept where the different zones are all on
| Earth. So that 's fun.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Also the the "Zones of Thought" from the eponymous Vernor
| Vinge series [0], where different regions permit (or
| hinder) levels of information theory and error-rates and
| intelligence. The "slow zone" of Earth permits biological
| intelligence, but curbs AI in a way that indirectly
| prevents FTL travel or communications.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep
| tEMporality7 wrote:
| > but that they will always rule us, because the rule-set
| is spreading at-or-above the speed of light while
| simultaneously preventing us from being able to exceed it
|
| The rule-set would essentially be a field, I guess?
| ericmcer wrote:
| If we get to that point we will probably have such deeper
| understanding of time and space that things like time travel
| and FTL travel don't even make sense as objectives anymore.
| slashdave wrote:
| > which I sincerely hope we or our descendants can someday test
|
| It is already being tested
| tEMporality7 wrote:
| I wonder what could happen at the edge of these zones where
| incompatible physical laws meet.
| inshard wrote:
| The experiment seems flawed if they cannot rely on classical
| observers and measuring tools. The whole point of reality is that
| it is classical, not quantum. You need to collapse the quantum
| wave function through entanglement with a classical super system
| (physical reality).
| goatlover wrote:
| That's called decoherence, and it doesn't actually collapse the
| wave function, it just spreads it out over everything. The
| measuring device, observer, labaratory, etc all become
| entangled.
|
| You need an additional assumption that collapse actually occurs
| to get rid of the world being in a massive superposition we
| can't observe, if you don't want Many Worlds Interpretation.
|
| Also, physical reality is made up of quantum systems, so there
| is a real question as to whether the classical is actually
| quantum. MWI and some other realist interpretations like
| Bohmian Mechanics would say yes. The Copenhagen Interpretation
| would say the math is just a predictive tool and we don't know
| what's actually going on when not making measurements.
| inshard wrote:
| I feel entanglement post measurement is the exchange of which
| way information with a classical system (all matter beyond a
| mass threshold when other forces override quantum
| uncertainty). Which way information integrity is critical and
| is non local (see delayed choice quantum eraser). But reality
| is mostly classical, a network of entanglements starting from
| the Big Bang, crystallized which way information.
| Vecr wrote:
| "Which way" as in the arrow of time? Can you explain more?
| inshard wrote:
| Which way as in one of the two paths of a double slit
| experiment or one of n paths of another setting
| Vecr wrote:
| Have you checked your idea against the no-go theorems,
| including the 2020 No-Go Theorem in the post?
| jfengel wrote:
| Just the opposite. Quantum mechanics is real. Classical
| mechanics is an approximation that holds for large scales.
|
| We're really attached to classical physics because we're
| macroscopic objects. Any observation we make will inherently be
| an aggregate that cannot support the delicate equilibria that
| characterize quantum superpositions.
|
| We actually do have a pretty good understanding of how that
| works. The implications of it are hard to stomach, but the
| mathematics of it is well understood and experimentally
| confirmed to a dozen decimal places. Where it contradicts our
| classical intuition, it is always quantum physics that wins
| out.
| swayvil wrote:
| We're also really attached to the highly-focused way of
| looking at things, and thinking... And there are probably
| some other massive biases lurking there too.
| Loughla wrote:
| >The implications of it are hard to stomach,
|
| What does that mean?
| jfengel wrote:
| One way or another, part of the wave function is
| inaccessible. It's really hard to fit that into our
| expectations about the world, where the truth can be known.
| The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. What does it
| even mean?
|
| Interpretations of quantum mechanics try to shove that
| inaccessible part of the wave function into a place where
| we can feel comfortable about it. But they are all a
| serious blow to what we think of as reality.
| airstrike wrote:
| This is too interesting for me not to comment asking for
| more. I'm not a physicist so where should I go to if I
| want to keep reading?
| Vecr wrote:
| In QBism the wave function is "just" a tool,
| superdeterminism shoves everything to the initial state,
| Multiple Worlds puts most of it into the other "multiple
| worlds", various pilot wave theories put it into
| "guides", and there's probably stuff I'm missing.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > It's really hard to fit that into our expectations
| about the world, where the truth can be known.
|
| This is the sort of statement I expect from philosophers
| and not scientists.
|
| That may be _your_ expectation, but it 's not mine. I
| believe (with a high degree of confidence) that the best
| we ever have is a Bayesian confidence in any hypothesis.
|
| > The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting.
|
| I think there's a big leap between "We can't test it" and
| "It's untestable".
|
| I am not confident that humans 1000 years from now will
| still be bound by quantum indeterminacy. What we now
| model as probability fields may be in fact the result of
| a deterministic process which we do not yet understand.
| svieira wrote:
| > The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting.
|
| May I ask why? If it is true, why do _you_ need to test
| it? Is your problem _unknowable_ truths? Or something
| else?
| Vecr wrote:
| Essentially MWI, but you can say the other worlds are "not
| real" if you like. Decoherence is continuous, so either you
| come up with a (somewhat arbitrary) threshold or say
| reality is continuous as well.
| worstspotgain wrote:
| If you were looking for a rabbit hole and were disappointed, go
| here instead:
|
| https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
| datavirtue wrote:
| Very interesting. I started to toy with the thought some years
| ago that all humans collectively are some type of consciousness
| and that our ability to develop new technologies and advance is
| tied somehow to our collective understanding allowing it, when
| ideas or possibilities are accepted or embraced more than not.
|
| I guess my idea is just a rehash of the 100th monkey effect.
| neom wrote:
| https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heart-Sutra
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
|
| Emptiness refers to the absence of inherent, independent
| existence in all phenomena. Everything is empty of an
| intrinsic nature because everything exists in dependence on
| causes and conditions. No object, thought, or being exists
| independently or permanently. Emptiness is the foundation
| that allows for the interconnection and impermanence of all
| things. :)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
| TSP00N3 wrote:
| You may enjoy the short story "God's Debris" by Scott Adams
| (who did the Dilbert cartoons). Free pdf below, although I
| went the Audible route.
|
| Free pdf: http://www.nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| summaries of God's Debris and the sequel The Religion War
| -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris --
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Religion_War
| datavirtue wrote:
| Reading this, I realized I love science because it helps me
| adjust my metaphysics. That's definitely my top priority when
| consuming arguments and advancements from the scientific
| community.
| Xcelerate wrote:
| The idea mentioned in the article of using an advanced AI that's
| as smart as a human in a giant superposition experiment is a bit
| funny to me.
|
| Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it to
| solve the open problems involving quantum gravity, measurement,
| consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a clear and
| simple way. I would think that's a much more likely outcome.
|
| I'm not even sure we need AGI for that--advanced ML combined with
| automated theorem proving applied to the space of physically
| relevant no-go theorems might lead to substantial progress on a
| lot of these metaphysical mysteries.
| bubblyworld wrote:
| If you believe that's a plausible way of going about this, you
| should figure out a way to test it! I think that's the spirit
| of the article.
| alexey-salmin wrote:
| > Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it
| to solve the open problems involving quantum gravity,
| measurement, consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a
| clear and simple way. I would think that's a much more likely
| outcome.
|
| You assume quite a lot here. Even if AGI is possible (I think
| it is) it's not clear how far above human intelligence it will
| actually go. Then it's not clear that problems you outline are
| even solvable with intelligence, not all problems are. Some are
| just computationally hard (and we're heavily limited by mass
| and energy available in the solar system) others can be
| unsolvable at all -- e.g. you can build a universe in a way
| that makes it impossible to fully study from within, and maybe
| ours is of that kind.
| eru wrote:
| You could probably do both?
|
| If there was no harm to me, I would probably volunteer to put
| myself into superposition.
| pdonis wrote:
| For those who can't get past the paywall on the actual paper by
| Cavalcanti et al., the arxiv preprint is here:
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607
| m3kw9 wrote:
| The only reality so far proven to exist is your own
| prometheus76 wrote:
| How do you account for someone else's unproven reality punching
| you in the face?
| mistermann wrote:
| Reality and the universe coexist, and intersect.
| dangirsh wrote:
| For more details on the motivation and logic behind this
| experiment, see: https://www.wignersfriends.com/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-31 23:02 UTC)