3 ms·

Completely agree. I think this could also explain the fundamental randomness we perceive at the quantum level. We're simply not seeing/unable to see the full pi

Completely agree. I think this could also explain the fundamental randomness we perceive at the quantum level. We're simply not seeing/unable to see the full picture.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
Yep, most every serious Physicist today agrees, it's more likely we're not "seeing" everything. Slit experiment, Entanglement, etc. prove we're missing lots of the picture. All the particles popping in and out of existence...seems like really they're just 'passing thru' and we only see them a fraction of the time, because most of the time they're in some 'realm' we've only thus far managed to label as "Wave Probability"
- anthk 6y ago
  What if our brains ommited that extra information to survive? Or just a relevant amount?
  - f430 6y ago
    or the even more interesting question is: what if the human consciousness is hyperdimensional (the spiritual theory that the universe itself is conscious and capable of perception) but that through quantum trickery we simply perceive "others" and "me, us, them"? If entanglement or Einstein's "spooky magic" is possible at the building layers of reality then why do we balk at the idea of this not being possible in other levels of dimension? Are we like the many "Random Novelty Generators" that is needed for the whole thing to work where each layer of complexity created (in our case our collective human experience consisting of many individual ones) a platform for which additional novelty is generated? Very interesting ideas to "toy" with. Samsara, karma, reincarnation, Einstein's theory that "God doesn't play dice" all seem strangely possible as our understanding of reality advances. It is weirdly mechanical in its raw form but borderline "pure **ing magic". (I would also point out how the Western thought rejects all forms of non-objective, impossible-to-prove-therefore-nil ideas in pursuit of its theory that all we see is all we get. We attack all ideas that remotely challenge the religion that has become Science. Seems to be built upon shaky grounds as we seem to slowly approach a convergence of religion, spiritualism, quantum theory especially at a very high elite academic level. Ironically the only people in the scientific community I can have these conversations is also quantum physicists, and some molecular biologists.) Very nice discussions today I am very satisfied with HN as normally this kind of talk gets the boot and hostile reactions from co-workers.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      I agree with what you said. Even the concept of "God" seems like it's been 're-framed' by science lately (in a good way) with many scientists having to admit that a simulation theory is as good as any other theory for our origins, and if we're being simulated then by definition the thing doing the simulating is a "god", by most definitions despite whether it is concerned with human feelings or what we call morality. HN is definitely a great place to find others who are intellectually curious about these topics. It's a shame that most people (in society at large) would rather discuss sports or entertainment, than the actual interesting scientific or philosophical things that matter more.
    - anthk 6y ago
      That's simple. Science says "probe it, or GFTO". Thus, religion and pseudoscience is out today, and for good. We are not children believing on monsters under the bed anymore.
gus_massa 6y ago
No, the information in the additional variables would be like a hidden variable theory, but the hidden variables make predictions that disagree with the experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory There are a few physics theories that use additional dimensions, but they are use quantum mechanics.
- namero999 6y ago
  Interesting. Can you confirm my ELI5 understanding of it? Is it that we could potentially claim that QM is not really random, we simply do not have all the data (like predicting a dice roll without accounting for the roughness of the surface). But then, experimental evidence contradicts this claim. Correct?
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    Yes. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

Completely agree. I think this could also explain the fundamental randomness we perceive at the quantum level. We're simply not seeing/unable to see the full picture.

WClayFerguson 6y ago

Yep, most every serious Physicist today agrees, it's more likely we're not "seeing" everything. Slit experiment, Entanglement, etc. prove we're missing lots of the picture. All the particles popping in and out of existence...seems like really they're just 'passing thru' and we only see them a fraction of the time, because most of the time they're in some 'realm' we've only thus far managed to label as "Wave Probability"

anthk 6y ago
What if our brains ommited that extra information to survive? Or just a relevant amount?
- f430 6y ago
  or the even more interesting question is: what if the human consciousness is hyperdimensional (the spiritual theory that the universe itself is conscious and capable of perception) but that through quantum trickery we simply perceive "others" and "me, us, them"? If entanglement or Einstein's "spooky magic" is possible at the building layers of reality then why do we balk at the idea of this not being possible in other levels of dimension? Are we like the many "Random Novelty Generators" that is needed for the whole thing to work where each layer of complexity created (in our case our collective human experience consisting of many individual ones) a platform for which additional novelty is generated? Very interesting ideas to "toy" with. Samsara, karma, reincarnation, Einstein's theory that "God doesn't play dice" all seem strangely possible as our understanding of reality advances. It is weirdly mechanical in its raw form but borderline "pure **ing magic". (I would also point out how the Western thought rejects all forms of non-objective, impossible-to-prove-therefore-nil ideas in pursuit of its theory that all we see is all we get. We attack all ideas that remotely challenge the religion that has become Science. Seems to be built upon shaky grounds as we seem to slowly approach a convergence of religion, spiritualism, quantum theory especially at a very high elite academic level. Ironically the only people in the scientific community I can have these conversations is also quantum physicists, and some molecular biologists.) Very nice discussions today I am very satisfied with HN as normally this kind of talk gets the boot and hostile reactions from co-workers.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    I agree with what you said. Even the concept of "God" seems like it's been 're-framed' by science lately (in a good way) with many scientists having to admit that a simulation theory is as good as any other theory for our origins, and if we're being simulated then by definition the thing doing the simulating is a "god", by most definitions despite whether it is concerned with human feelings or what we call morality. HN is definitely a great place to find others who are intellectually curious about these topics. It's a shame that most people (in society at large) would rather discuss sports or entertainment, than the actual interesting scientific or philosophical things that matter more.
  - anthk 6y ago
    That's simple. Science says "probe it, or GFTO". Thus, religion and pseudoscience is out today, and for good. We are not children believing on monsters under the bed anymore.

gus_massa 6y ago

No, the information in the additional variables would be like a hidden variable theory, but the hidden variables make predictions that disagree with the experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory There are a few physics theories that use additional dimensions, but they are use quantum mechanics.

namero999 6y ago
Interesting. Can you confirm my ELI5 understanding of it? Is it that we could potentially claim that QM is not really random, we simply do not have all the data (like predicting a dice roll without accounting for the roughness of the surface). But then, experimental evidence contradicts this claim. Correct?
- gus_massa 6y ago
  Yes. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]