3 ms·

IANAP - why are these ideas so controversial? The article seems to suggest he has some (potentially) supporting evidence, and I don't have an intuition for how

IANAP - why are these ideas so controversial? The article seems to suggest he has some (potentially) supporting evidence, and I don't have an intuition for how damning the counter-argument is ("This would necessitate making all particles lose mass as the universe gets old." Again, IANAP and physics can get weird).

Ralfp 4y ago
Those are controversial because in science you show the proof of something occruring, an primary proof being shown here mostly anounts to „trust me bro, the guy saying this got a nobel award in physics”. But the fault here is on media reporting, not Penrose himself.
markhahn 4y ago
it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable
- pieter_mj 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure Penrose won't accept his own theory if it's only nonfalsifiable. At the moment, it's only an idea but if it is unprovable he'll abandon it or be very clear about its non-scientific status. He's not a second Josephson.
  - wafer_thin 4y ago
    I've watched enough interviews with Penrose to know you're correct. He likes all sorts of ideas, but he only really gets excited about the ones where he can see an experimental route to confirmation.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable That can't be true; those are two completely unrelated concepts. Compare "we're living in a simulation", which became mainstream despite the fact that (1) it is even more unfalsifiable than this is; and (2) it is identical in every way to the old, no-longer-interesting concept of "you are a brain in a jar".
  - freetime2 4y ago
    I would consider “we’re living in a simulation” to be fringe. And that anyone who claims with any certainty that we are living in a simulation is a crackpot. Speculating that we might be living in a simulation is of course all in good fun. An idea being popular does not mean it is not fringe. Otherwise any sci-fi trope from the Matrix or Interstellar could be called “mainstream”. A large number of people also need to believe it is true with a high degree of conviction.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Based on a previous talk [1] there was a claim that you should be able to see events from previous aeons in the background microwave radiation. In particular rings caused by the collision of black holes. And from his talk he had reached out to colleagues from around the world to see if they did exist. So it seems like he does care about it being provable. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftjwnjR0apY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftjwnjR0apY
wswope 4y ago
Since I haven’t seen anyone else mention this bit of context elsewhere in the thread: Penrose gets a bit of side-eye in the physics community because of his metaphysical beliefs on consciousness. (Specifically, that quantum effects in tubule proteins of the brain produce special nondeterministic effects that constitute our conscious essence, and true consciousness is impossible without this nondeterministic fount of spiritual essence.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness He’s clearly a smart guy… but also has some hot takes. (Zero judgement intended; only bringing this up as background context.)
- tanepiper 4y ago
  This is what I always find weird about some areas of modern science is the completly inability to hold new ideas without an ability to abstract away the need for the direct evidence; if this encourages someone to find something that can be wholy described (rather than be called "spirital essence" as so many things previously were we now give names too). Isn't this what most of science was built upon - Is he right or wrong? Sometimes a need for minds who can push ideas into scientific thinking. If that wasn't the case, then we might not even have Quantum Physics as it is today... Unlike medical cranks out there, Penrose has (far as I've seen) never said anything of this is definitive - only that there is the potential in his theory that Orch-OR is the likely seat of conciousness.
- brnaftr361 4y ago
  Oh this is super cool, thanks for sharing. I have strong (admittedly mostly irrational) inclinations against determinism, seeing something like this is exciting. Definitely going to have to give it a read. Sapolski's take on determinism was really a low blow for me, and I've since seen several other intellectuals I respect very highly espouse similar views, and there was a point where I would have agreed in my adolescence, but I've since then developed away from that course of thinking. I often wonder if it's a rationalization which is necessary for the framework of the theory of everything to be coherent.
  - XorNot 4y ago
gizmo686 4y ago
Mostly its controversial simply because the evidence for it is week. You need to perform a complicated analysis of the CMB, to find some statistical artifacts that are consistent with your theory, and not any other theory. This is incredibly difficult, because the CMB is very noisy, we don't have a full understanding of how the universe evolved post big bang, and even with our current understanding, a full simulation is computationally impossible. Penrose's analysis found the signature that shows CCC, however when others attempt to perform the analysis, they do not find it. As such, the accuracy of the only evidence remains controversial. In addition to the empirical lack of convincing evidence, there is also a theoretical problem. In order for CCC to work, you need to assume that all massive particles decay. The is not inconceivable, but involves things like proton decay, which is speculative at best, and electron decay, for which (as far as I am aware) we do not even have a serious speculative mechanism.

Ralfp 4y ago

Those are controversial because in science you show the proof of something occruring, an primary proof being shown here mostly anounts to „trust me bro, the guy saying this got a nobel award in physics”. But the fault here is on media reporting, not Penrose himself.

markhahn 4y ago

it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable

pieter_mj 4y ago
I'm pretty sure Penrose won't accept his own theory if it's only nonfalsifiable. At the moment, it's only an idea but if it is unprovable he'll abandon it or be very clear about its non-scientific status. He's not a second Josephson.
- wafer_thin 4y ago
  I've watched enough interviews with Penrose to know you're correct. He likes all sorts of ideas, but he only really gets excited about the ones where he can see an experimental route to confirmation.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable That can't be true; those are two completely unrelated concepts. Compare "we're living in a simulation", which became mainstream despite the fact that (1) it is even more unfalsifiable than this is; and (2) it is identical in every way to the old, no-longer-interesting concept of "you are a brain in a jar".
- freetime2 4y ago
  I would consider “we’re living in a simulation” to be fringe. And that anyone who claims with any certainty that we are living in a simulation is a crackpot. Speculating that we might be living in a simulation is of course all in good fun. An idea being popular does not mean it is not fringe. Otherwise any sci-fi trope from the Matrix or Interstellar could be called “mainstream”. A large number of people also need to believe it is true with a high degree of conviction.
threeseed 4y ago
Based on a previous talk [1] there was a claim that you should be able to see events from previous aeons in the background microwave radiation. In particular rings caused by the collision of black holes. And from his talk he had reached out to colleagues from around the world to see if they did exist. So it seems like he does care about it being provable. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftjwnjR0apY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftjwnjR0apY

wswope 4y ago

Since I haven’t seen anyone else mention this bit of context elsewhere in the thread: Penrose gets a bit of side-eye in the physics community because of his metaphysical beliefs on consciousness. (Specifically, that quantum effects in tubule proteins of the brain produce special nondeterministic effects that constitute our conscious essence, and true consciousness is impossible without this nondeterministic fount of spiritual essence.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness He’s clearly a smart guy… but also has some hot takes. (Zero judgement intended; only bringing this up as background context.)

tanepiper 4y ago
This is what I always find weird about some areas of modern science is the completly inability to hold new ideas without an ability to abstract away the need for the direct evidence; if this encourages someone to find something that can be wholy described (rather than be called "spirital essence" as so many things previously were we now give names too). Isn't this what most of science was built upon - Is he right or wrong? Sometimes a need for minds who can push ideas into scientific thinking. If that wasn't the case, then we might not even have Quantum Physics as it is today... Unlike medical cranks out there, Penrose has (far as I've seen) never said anything of this is definitive - only that there is the potential in his theory that Orch-OR is the likely seat of conciousness.
brnaftr361 4y ago
Oh this is super cool, thanks for sharing. I have strong (admittedly mostly irrational) inclinations against determinism, seeing something like this is exciting. Definitely going to have to give it a read. Sapolski's take on determinism was really a low blow for me, and I've since seen several other intellectuals I respect very highly espouse similar views, and there was a point where I would have agreed in my adolescence, but I've since then developed away from that course of thinking. I often wonder if it's a rationalization which is necessary for the framework of the theory of everything to be coherent.
- XorNot 4y ago

gizmo686 4y ago

Mostly its controversial simply because the evidence for it is week. You need to perform a complicated analysis of the CMB, to find some statistical artifacts that are consistent with your theory, and not any other theory. This is incredibly difficult, because the CMB is very noisy, we don't have a full understanding of how the universe evolved post big bang, and even with our current understanding, a full simulation is computationally impossible. Penrose's analysis found the signature that shows CCC, however when others attempt to perform the analysis, they do not find it. As such, the accuracy of the only evidence remains controversial. In addition to the empirical lack of convincing evidence, there is also a theoretical problem. In order for CCC to work, you need to assume that all massive particles decay. The is not inconceivable, but involves things like proton decay, which is speculative at best, and electron decay, for which (as far as I am aware) we do not even have a serious speculative mechanism.