4 ms·

I am not a theoretical physicist like Sean Caroll, but I understand from his exposition that there was nothing measured in the domain that is relevant. See http

I am not a theoretical physicist like Sean Caroll, but I understand from his exposition that there was nothing measured in the domain that is relevant. See https://youtu.be/X5Fel1VKEN8?t=640 https://youtu.be/X5Fel1VKEN8?t=640 where he states: "We know what the particles are, so we can look for new forces between them. There are none." I understand that the atoms of which our brain are made are well within the 'Rules Out' area. So, yes, there could be unknown fields, fields that we cannot yet measure, but the strength of these fields must just be so weak that they cannot have any 'measurable' effect. (otherwise we would have been able to measure them).

keepamovin 3y ago
I know that’s your argument, or the one you’re advancing, but i don’t think we can be so confident to upper bound the effect size, if we don’t even know what it is we are measuring nor if there’s aspects to what we are measuring that we don’t even understand! :) So maybe another way to say this is—because I do think it’s a subtle point, so it may be difficult to understand; I get that—so, say we have a consistent theory of reality that seems to account for all of our measurements, or most of them, and yet say they’re exist other effects that we don’t know how to explain, and other things we don’t know how to measure, but from the viewpoint of having a consistent theory of reality, we can say those other things basically have no effect because our theory is already self consistent. From a simple view plant that’s kind of like being blinded by your current theory or understanding. It’s simple I suppose, but it can be quite saddle and had words that can be a form of religious like dogmatism. So, from the larger viewpoint of a more accurate theory, that includes those currently unexplained factors, and unknown aspects which, those things could be having huge effects, we just don’t know how to consider them from our current theory. It’s an important and subtle point, so it bears repeating in a less technical form, the preceeding is another way of saying that I don’t think from our current position of ignorance we can presume to know nor impose upon the totality of reality our present ignorance. But it’s a subtle and shocking point, so I don’t expect you to see it right away or accept it immediately. It’s not the kind of thing that most people can just take in their stride and get on with their life, accepting that there may indeed be real factors out there really affecting things, that we don’t know or understand but if you’re willing to expand your view of current evidence and unexplained phenomena of all types, maybe one can start to see the outlines of that other larger world, into which we in our current ignorance are free to explore more. And there’s a positive take on this ontologically, shocking truth, that you know it’s the salvation of our ignorance, that we are free to discover the unknown in which we exist. It’s this great exciting thing I think that we can slowly and gradually to our human comfort level and ability, begin to order, structure, and understand that which now remains the great unknown.

keepamovin 3y ago

I know that’s your argument, or the one you’re advancing, but i don’t think we can be so confident to upper bound the effect size, if we don’t even know what it is we are measuring nor if there’s aspects to what we are measuring that we don’t even understand! :) So maybe another way to say this is—because I do think it’s a subtle point, so it may be difficult to understand; I get that—so, say we have a consistent theory of reality that seems to account for all of our measurements, or most of them, and yet say they’re exist other effects that we don’t know how to explain, and other things we don’t know how to measure, but from the viewpoint of having a consistent theory of reality, we can say those other things basically have no effect because our theory is already self consistent. From a simple view plant that’s kind of like being blinded by your current theory or understanding. It’s simple I suppose, but it can be quite saddle and had words that can be a form of religious like dogmatism. So, from the larger viewpoint of a more accurate theory, that includes those currently unexplained factors, and unknown aspects which, those things could be having huge effects, we just don’t know how to consider them from our current theory. It’s an important and subtle point, so it bears repeating in a less technical form, the preceeding is another way of saying that I don’t think from our current position of ignorance we can presume to know nor impose upon the totality of reality our present ignorance. But it’s a subtle and shocking point, so I don’t expect you to see it right away or accept it immediately. It’s not the kind of thing that most people can just take in their stride and get on with their life, accepting that there may indeed be real factors out there really affecting things, that we don’t know or understand but if you’re willing to expand your view of current evidence and unexplained phenomena of all types, maybe one can start to see the outlines of that other larger world, into which we in our current ignorance are free to explore more. And there’s a positive take on this ontologically, shocking truth, that you know it’s the salvation of our ignorance, that we are free to discover the unknown in which we exist. It’s this great exciting thing I think that we can slowly and gradually to our human comfort level and ability, begin to order, structure, and understand that which now remains the great unknown.