3 ms·
> many phenomena that can’t be inferred from the goings-on at the microscopic level, it is nonetheless a real, emergent feature of the macroscopic world. He off
by nico 3y ago
> many phenomena that can’t be inferred from the goings-on at the microscopic level, it is nonetheless a real, emergent feature of the macroscopic world. He offered the physics of gases as a parallel example. At the micro level, one talks of atoms, molecules and forces; at the macro level, one speaks of pressure, volume and temperature. These are two kinds of explanations, depending on the “level” being studied
Putting aside the issue of consciousness for a moment, this is actually a great insight
I wonder if something like this should be applied in physics/astronomy to solve the whole dark matter issue
At a “micro level”, we can talk about planets, stars and gravity, but maybe at a “macro level”, those concepts stop being useful to describe the behavior of the universe, and different models might be needed
- boringuser2 3y agoThat's not a novel insight, it's a standard way of interrogating systems at various levels and has been in common intellectual discourse for some time now.
- meristohm 3y agoNovel to them, and that's okay; I don't assume anyone knows everything. Your content is helpful in clarifying that this insight has been novel to many others already.
- boringuser2 3y agoThat's a bit of a problem when you're presenting yourself as someone who knows anything at all.
- nico 3y agoSo? What’s your point? That it can’t be used for anything else because some people, including you, already knew about it, hence it can’t be applied in novel ways? Btw, no one said it was a novel insight
- mikhailfranco 3y agoIt's not a great insight for you today, or a recent workshop on consciousness. It is ~150 years old and it's a well-known foundation for all current discussion of emergence in general, and consciousness in particular.
- boringuser2 3y agoThe problem is that every concept is novel to someone that doesn't know anything.
- mikhailfranco 3y agoNo, it's not a great insight - unless you have not studied physics before. It's the standard context for thermodynamics (macro) and statistical mechanics (micro) explanations. Sometimes called coarse-graining and fine-graining. For dark matter there are 3 potential levels: - micro would be be new dark subatomic particles (WIMPs), or sterile right-handed neutrinos in the Standard Model (see Turok); - meso is macroscopic clumps of those particles (dark stars) /OR/ no micro, but dark conventional matter objects, like naked black holes, neutron stars or brown dwarves (MACHOs), or perhaps just lots of dust; - macro would be the truly cosmological state of the whole universe (a stat mech theory over the micro/meso). Think dark matter fluids, and phase changes to dark superfluids, that might have MONDian effects on gravity at the galactic level - and beyond!
- nico 3y agoSo according to you, nothing that anyone has discovered before is a great insight? Now, regarding the dark matter issue, maybe there are more levels that models can be separated in. It seems overly simplistic to separate the whole immensity of the universe in only 3 levels
- mikhailfranco 3y agoIt was a great insight by Boltzmann, and his intellectual heirs. But that was circa 1877, around 150 years ago. It is not a great insight today. Please keep up.
- nico 3y agoYou mean it’s not a novel insight to you It’s still a great insight, regardless of who is remembered in history for coming up with it first
- mikhailfranco 3y ago[flagged]