4 ms·

By analogy, it's like saying we know conceptually what a Turing machine is and how it works, but not everything about computer science and software engineering.

By analogy, it's like saying we know conceptually what a Turing machine is and how it works, but not everything about computer science and software engineering. That's reverse of what he is saying. As you say, we understand the Turing machine (the most basic elements), but we don't understand everything it implies. Whereas in physics, we don't understand the most basic elements, but we do understand what those elements imply (at least, the article asserts that we do).

macspoofing 10y ago
>Whereas in physics, we don't understand the most basic elements I think he's saying we fully understand 'the most basic elements' in so far how they underpin the 'domain of everyday life'. It's a little like saying that the underlying physics behind the motion of bilard balls are completely understood with just Newtonian mechanics, even though Newtonian mechanics themselves are incomplete if applied to other domains - like explaining the motion of the planet Mercury.
Steuard 10y ago
I think you're both right. Carroll is claiming that in physics, there is one essentially complete layer of description that we fully understand: the layer consisting of the standard model (based on quantum field theory) plus general relativity. We don't understand the smaller, more fundamental layers (string theory is one attempt at that, and there are others), and we don't understand every last detail of how that layer gives rise to the larger, more familiar layers (we've only very recently even been able to deduce the mass difference between protons and neutrons based on standard model computational physics). But the point is that our understanding of this one particular layer is broad and solid enough to essentially guarantee that every other observable feature of real life can be traced back to a set of principles that we understand.

macspoofing 10y ago

>Whereas in physics, we don't understand the most basic elements I think he's saying we fully understand 'the most basic elements' in so far how they underpin the 'domain of everyday life'. It's a little like saying that the underlying physics behind the motion of bilard balls are completely understood with just Newtonian mechanics, even though Newtonian mechanics themselves are incomplete if applied to other domains - like explaining the motion of the planet Mercury.

Steuard 10y ago

I think you're both right. Carroll is claiming that in physics, there is one essentially complete layer of description that we fully understand: the layer consisting of the standard model (based on quantum field theory) plus general relativity. We don't understand the smaller, more fundamental layers (string theory is one attempt at that, and there are others), and we don't understand every last detail of how that layer gives rise to the larger, more familiar layers (we've only very recently even been able to deduce the mass difference between protons and neutrons based on standard model computational physics). But the point is that our understanding of this one particular layer is broad and solid enough to essentially guarantee that every other observable feature of real life can be traced back to a set of principles that we understand.