5 ms·

Metaphysical experiments probe our hidden assumptions about reality

71 points by Gooblebrai 2y ago

nobodyknowin 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
analog31 2y ago
As I scrolled down, I was just waiting in anticipation for the picture of the giant optical breadboard, bristling with bits from Thor Labs. I wasn't disappointed.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
upwardbound 2y ago
Some of my favorite fun questions or speculations in the applied metaphysics realm, which I sincerely hope we or our descendants can someday test, are about whether one of the deepest axioms of modern astrophysics, the Cosmological Principle, is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle It says basically that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If it's false, this would allow moonshot bets to escape this universe's limiting ending, its heat death - because we might be able to do things that are impossible here, but are possible in a different region of space, with different laws. Reposting some of my previous comments about this: For example, if we eventually have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, then I hope we put at least a trillion dollars per topic into long-shot research topics such as time travel, the multiverse, FTL travel, methods of creating new universes via an artificial Big Bang, applied theology (trying to find evidence of a God so that we can communicate with them), methods of achieving infinitely positive states of qualia such as something like nirvāṇa, and so on. Each bet might be 1 in a million - but I'd much rather that we try every possible chance at escaping what we currently see as the inevitable, and not go gentle into that heat death night. This goal, to break through the wall at the end of the universe, was what Asimov called for in his inspiring short story The Last Question. https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone. For example, there might turn out to be particle types which don't exist at all in our zone, but which are force carriers for forces that enable time travel or other violations of causality. We might have evolved in a zone with zero of these particles simply because it's hard for life to evolve in a zone without causality. Our zone might be a life-friendly little bubble beyond which things get truly strange, but where with appropriately designed nanotechnology, we might achieve incredible things we've never before observed, including changing the past or even stepping entirely outside of the fabric of spacetime into someplace with more or fewer spatial dimensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle So, 1 in a million is my approximate a priori estimate of the odds of the Cosmological Principle being false in a useful way. For a fun example of fiction that takes place in a setting where the Cosmological Principle is false, check out A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. The zone where Earth is situated, and where the laws of physics are the same as in our observed reality, is called the Slow Zone. There are three other types of zones with other laws, called the Beyond, the Transcend, and the Unthinking Depths. I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who sought to understand their universe without yet having the instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is, without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ), philosophy of knowledge (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds ). Originally I posted these here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38217412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38217412
- srcreigh 2y ago
  Is there any axiom for the principle that the laws of physics don't change with time? (not sure if that even makes sense-not a physicist)
  - rolisz 2y ago
    There's Noether's conservation theorem, which roughly states that symmetries of a force imply a corresponding conservation law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
  - slashdave 2y ago
    No. It is an assumption.
- generalizations 2y ago
  I'd bet that by the time we have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, we'll also have entire universities dedicated to that kind of research. At that scale, everything scales.
  - basementcat 2y ago
    We already have multiple star systems worth of resources at our disposal. Many of the elements of the periodic table require higher mass (than our Sun) stars or colliding neutron stars to make. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/ https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/
    - generalizations 2y ago
      If it's not tantamount to a dyson sphere, then IMO it's not even equivalent to the star, much less the star system.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  > Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone. This is... overly optimistic. To say the least, it depends on exactly which laws change with location, and how far. That is to say, we could conceivably know for a fact that the Cosmological Principle is false, but still know that there is nowhere in the universe that time travel is possible, or that it's impossible to prevent the end of the universe. The only way "everything is possible" is in the conditional sense that we don't know what's possible yet, but you don't need to invoke the CP for that at all.
inshard 2y ago
The experiment seems flawed if they cannot rely on classical observers and measuring tools. The whole point of reality is that it is classical, not quantum. You need to collapse the quantum wave function through entanglement with a classical super system (physical reality).
- goatlover 2y ago
  That's called decoherence, and it doesn't actually collapse the wave function, it just spreads it out over everything. The measuring device, observer, labaratory, etc all become entangled. You need an additional assumption that collapse actually occurs to get rid of the world being in a massive superposition we can't observe, if you don't want Many Worlds Interpretation. Also, physical reality is made up of quantum systems, so there is a real question as to whether the classical is actually quantum. MWI and some other realist interpretations like Bohmian Mechanics would say yes. The Copenhagen Interpretation would say the math is just a predictive tool and we don't know what's actually going on when not making measurements.
  - inshard 2y ago
    I feel entanglement post measurement is the exchange of which way information with a classical system (all matter beyond a mass threshold when other forces override quantum uncertainty). Which way information integrity is critical and is non local (see delayed choice quantum eraser). But reality is mostly classical, a network of entanglements starting from the Big Bang, crystallized which way information.
    - Vecr 2y ago
      "Which way" as in the arrow of time? Can you explain more?
      - inshard 2y ago
        Which way as in one of the two paths of a double slit experiment or one of n paths of another setting
worstspotgain 2y ago
If you were looking for a rabbit hole and were disappointed, go here instead: https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/ https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Very interesting. I started to toy with the thought some years ago that all humans collectively are some type of consciousness and that our ability to develop new technologies and advance is tied somehow to our collective understanding allowing it, when ideas or possibilities are accepted or embraced more than not. I guess my idea is just a rehash of the 100th monkey effect.
  - neom 2y ago
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heart-Sutra https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heart-Sutra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81 Emptiness refers to the absence of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena. Everything is empty of an intrinsic nature because everything exists in dependence on causes and conditions. No object, thought, or being exists independently or permanently. Emptiness is the foundation that allows for the interconnection and impermanence of all things. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
  - TSP00N3 2y ago
    You may enjoy the short story “God’s Debris” by Scott Adams (who did the Dilbert cartoons). Free pdf below, although I went the Audible route. Free pdf: http://www.nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf http://www.nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf
    - ahazred8ta 2y ago
      summaries of God's Debris and the sequel The Religion War -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Religion_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Religion_War
datavirtue 2y ago
Reading this, I realized I love science because it helps me adjust my metaphysics. That's definitely my top priority when consuming arguments and advancements from the scientific community.
Xcelerate 2y ago
The idea mentioned in the article of using an advanced AI that’s as smart as a human in a giant superposition experiment is a bit funny to me. Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it to solve the open problems involving quantum gravity, measurement, consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a clear and simple way. I would think that’s a much more likely outcome. I’m not even sure we need AGI for that—advanced ML combined with automated theorem proving applied to the space of physically relevant no-go theorems might lead to substantial progress on a lot of these metaphysical mysteries.
- bubblyworld 2y ago
  If you believe that's a plausible way of going about this, you should figure out a way to test it! I think that's the spirit of the article.
  - airtonix 2y ago
    [dead]
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  > Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it to solve the open problems involving quantum gravity, measurement, consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a clear and simple way. I would think that’s a much more likely outcome. You assume quite a lot here. Even if AGI is possible (I think it is) it's not clear how far above human intelligence it will actually go. Then it's not clear that problems you outline are even solvable with intelligence, not all problems are. Some are just computationally hard (and we're heavily limited by mass and energy available in the solar system) others can be unsolvable at all -- e.g. you can build a universe in a way that makes it impossible to fully study from within, and maybe ours is of that kind.
  - galaxyLogic 2y ago
    You are implying the possibility that "somebody built the universe", right? Or that "We live in a simulated universe", which amounts to the same, someone or something building the simulation. While I think living in simulation, or living in a universe built by someone, is a very plausible possibility, it kind of just pushes the question of the origin of universe just a bit further. If WE live in a simulation, how did the universe of those who built our simulation come about?
pdonis 2y ago
For those who can't get past the paywall on the actual paper by Cavalcanti et al., the arxiv preprint is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607 https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607
m3kw9 2y ago
The only reality so far proven to exist is your own
- prometheus76 2y ago
  How do you account for someone else's unproven reality punching you in the face?
  - pyinstallwoes 2y ago
    Must be your subconscious
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Reality and the universe coexist, and intersect.
  - m3kw9 2y ago
    Do robots have reality, they can also punch me. To me I can say everyone else is NPC and I can not disprove it, but my believe is that they are not
    - prometheus76 2y ago
      Yes, a robot has reality. Of course it has reality, especially if it can punch you in the face. Does it have a mind? That's a different question. Do you believe that all humans share a human nature?
      - m3kw9 2y ago
        I think reality is there for robots only if it can feel concious. Same as a rock if it falls on you. Arguing everything that exists has a reality isn't the thing here.
dangirsh 2y ago
For more details on the motivation and logic behind this experiment, see: https://www.wignersfriends.com/ https://www.wignersfriends.com/

71 points by Gooblebrai 2y ago

nobodyknowin 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

analog31 2y ago

As I scrolled down, I was just waiting in anticipation for the picture of the giant optical breadboard, bristling with bits from Thor Labs. I wasn't disappointed.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

upwardbound 2y ago

Some of my favorite fun questions or speculations in the applied metaphysics realm, which I sincerely hope we or our descendants can someday test, are about whether one of the deepest axioms of modern astrophysics, the Cosmological Principle, is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle It says basically that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If it's false, this would allow moonshot bets to escape this universe's limiting ending, its heat death - because we might be able to do things that are impossible here, but are possible in a different region of space, with different laws. Reposting some of my previous comments about this: For example, if we eventually have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, then I hope we put at least a trillion dollars per topic into long-shot research topics such as time travel, the multiverse, FTL travel, methods of creating new universes via an artificial Big Bang, applied theology (trying to find evidence of a God so that we can communicate with them), methods of achieving infinitely positive states of qualia such as something like nirvāṇa, and so on. Each bet might be 1 in a million - but I'd much rather that we try every possible chance at escaping what we currently see as the inevitable, and not go gentle into that heat death night. This goal, to break through the wall at the end of the universe, was what Asimov called for in his inspiring short story The Last Question. https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone. For example, there might turn out to be particle types which don't exist at all in our zone, but which are force carriers for forces that enable time travel or other violations of causality. We might have evolved in a zone with zero of these particles simply because it's hard for life to evolve in a zone without causality. Our zone might be a life-friendly little bubble beyond which things get truly strange, but where with appropriately designed nanotechnology, we might achieve incredible things we've never before observed, including changing the past or even stepping entirely outside of the fabric of spacetime into someplace with more or fewer spatial dimensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle So, 1 in a million is my approximate a priori estimate of the odds of the Cosmological Principle being false in a useful way. For a fun example of fiction that takes place in a setting where the Cosmological Principle is false, check out A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. The zone where Earth is situated, and where the laws of physics are the same as in our observed reality, is called the Slow Zone. There are three other types of zones with other laws, called the Beyond, the Transcend, and the Unthinking Depths. I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who sought to understand their universe without yet having the instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is, without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ), philosophy of knowledge (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds ). Originally I posted these here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38217412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38217412

srcreigh 2y ago
Is there any axiom for the principle that the laws of physics don't change with time? (not sure if that even makes sense-not a physicist)
- rolisz 2y ago
  There's Noether's conservation theorem, which roughly states that symmetries of a force imply a corresponding conservation law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
- slashdave 2y ago
  No. It is an assumption.
generalizations 2y ago
I'd bet that by the time we have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, we'll also have entire universities dedicated to that kind of research. At that scale, everything scales.
- basementcat 2y ago
  We already have multiple star systems worth of resources at our disposal. Many of the elements of the periodic table require higher mass (than our Sun) stars or colliding neutron stars to make. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/ https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/
  - generalizations 2y ago
    If it's not tantamount to a dyson sphere, then IMO it's not even equivalent to the star, much less the star system.
andrewflnr 2y ago
> Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone. This is... overly optimistic. To say the least, it depends on exactly which laws change with location, and how far. That is to say, we could conceivably know for a fact that the Cosmological Principle is false, but still know that there is nowhere in the universe that time travel is possible, or that it's impossible to prevent the end of the universe. The only way "everything is possible" is in the conditional sense that we don't know what's possible yet, but you don't need to invoke the CP for that at all.

inshard 2y ago

The experiment seems flawed if they cannot rely on classical observers and measuring tools. The whole point of reality is that it is classical, not quantum. You need to collapse the quantum wave function through entanglement with a classical super system (physical reality).

goatlover 2y ago
That's called decoherence, and it doesn't actually collapse the wave function, it just spreads it out over everything. The measuring device, observer, labaratory, etc all become entangled. You need an additional assumption that collapse actually occurs to get rid of the world being in a massive superposition we can't observe, if you don't want Many Worlds Interpretation. Also, physical reality is made up of quantum systems, so there is a real question as to whether the classical is actually quantum. MWI and some other realist interpretations like Bohmian Mechanics would say yes. The Copenhagen Interpretation would say the math is just a predictive tool and we don't know what's actually going on when not making measurements.
- inshard 2y ago
  I feel entanglement post measurement is the exchange of which way information with a classical system (all matter beyond a mass threshold when other forces override quantum uncertainty). Which way information integrity is critical and is non local (see delayed choice quantum eraser). But reality is mostly classical, a network of entanglements starting from the Big Bang, crystallized which way information.
  - Vecr 2y ago
    "Which way" as in the arrow of time? Can you explain more?
    - inshard 2y ago
      Which way as in one of the two paths of a double slit experiment or one of n paths of another setting

worstspotgain 2y ago

If you were looking for a rabbit hole and were disappointed, go here instead: https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/ https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

datavirtue 2y ago
Very interesting. I started to toy with the thought some years ago that all humans collectively are some type of consciousness and that our ability to develop new technologies and advance is tied somehow to our collective understanding allowing it, when ideas or possibilities are accepted or embraced more than not. I guess my idea is just a rehash of the 100th monkey effect.
- neom 2y ago
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heart-Sutra https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heart-Sutra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81 Emptiness refers to the absence of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena. Everything is empty of an intrinsic nature because everything exists in dependence on causes and conditions. No object, thought, or being exists independently or permanently. Emptiness is the foundation that allows for the interconnection and impermanence of all things. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
- TSP00N3 2y ago
  You may enjoy the short story “God’s Debris” by Scott Adams (who did the Dilbert cartoons). Free pdf below, although I went the Audible route. Free pdf: http://www.nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf http://www.nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf
  - ahazred8ta 2y ago
    summaries of God's Debris and the sequel The Religion War -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Religion_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Religion_War

datavirtue 2y ago

Reading this, I realized I love science because it helps me adjust my metaphysics. That's definitely my top priority when consuming arguments and advancements from the scientific community.

Xcelerate 2y ago

The idea mentioned in the article of using an advanced AI that’s as smart as a human in a giant superposition experiment is a bit funny to me. Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it to solve the open problems involving quantum gravity, measurement, consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a clear and simple way. I would think that’s a much more likely outcome. I’m not even sure we need AGI for that—advanced ML combined with automated theorem proving applied to the space of physically relevant no-go theorems might lead to substantial progress on a lot of these metaphysical mysteries.

bubblyworld 2y ago
If you believe that's a plausible way of going about this, you should figure out a way to test it! I think that's the spirit of the article.
- airtonix 2y ago
  [dead]
alexey-salmin 2y ago
> Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it to solve the open problems involving quantum gravity, measurement, consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a clear and simple way. I would think that’s a much more likely outcome. You assume quite a lot here. Even if AGI is possible (I think it is) it's not clear how far above human intelligence it will actually go. Then it's not clear that problems you outline are even solvable with intelligence, not all problems are. Some are just computationally hard (and we're heavily limited by mass and energy available in the solar system) others can be unsolvable at all -- e.g. you can build a universe in a way that makes it impossible to fully study from within, and maybe ours is of that kind.
- galaxyLogic 2y ago
  You are implying the possibility that "somebody built the universe", right? Or that "We live in a simulated universe", which amounts to the same, someone or something building the simulation. While I think living in simulation, or living in a universe built by someone, is a very plausible possibility, it kind of just pushes the question of the origin of universe just a bit further. If WE live in a simulation, how did the universe of those who built our simulation come about?

pdonis 2y ago

For those who can't get past the paywall on the actual paper by Cavalcanti et al., the arxiv preprint is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607 https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607

m3kw9 2y ago

The only reality so far proven to exist is your own

prometheus76 2y ago
How do you account for someone else's unproven reality punching you in the face?
- pyinstallwoes 2y ago
  Must be your subconscious
- mistermann 2y ago
  Reality and the universe coexist, and intersect.
- m3kw9 2y ago
  Do robots have reality, they can also punch me. To me I can say everyone else is NPC and I can not disprove it, but my believe is that they are not
  - prometheus76 2y ago
    Yes, a robot has reality. Of course it has reality, especially if it can punch you in the face. Does it have a mind? That's a different question. Do you believe that all humans share a human nature?
    - m3kw9 2y ago
      I think reality is there for robots only if it can feel concious. Same as a rock if it falls on you. Arguing everything that exists has a reality isn't the thing here.

dangirsh 2y ago

For more details on the motivation and logic behind this experiment, see: https://www.wignersfriends.com/ https://www.wignersfriends.com/