4 ms·

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics. - Lee Smolin (he's a physicist) https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics. - Lee Smolin (he's a physicist) https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733 https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733

fsckboy 2y ago
I'm talking about the effectiveness and reasonableness of data, algorithms, and computation (with massively parallel execution, infinite precision analog, etc) in doing away with a need for "material". Humans have an intuition for the existence of "material" because on our scale, we can reach out and touch something. But on the femto or atto scale, this does not happen, or when it does happen, we describe it with quantum collision math. So why cling to this intuition? I'm simply saying that an immaterial universe with the same properties such that it is isomorphic to the universe that most believe we live in is a better thought experiment to carry in your head. For one, you'll stop thinking "mind body problem, what is mind such that it is not body?" instead you'll say "well, body is not, so it must be the same substance as mind, it's not really that strange after all. It's VMs all the way down"
Animats 2y ago
Although Smolin doesn't mention it, that may be part of his reaction to string theory. String theory was a mathematical edifice which purported to explain some major issues in physics, and, for a while, dominated the field. But it wasn't supported by experimental evidence.[1] Smolin argued against string theory for a long time.[2] This seems related. The classic assumption of physics is that, at some level, things are simple. For a long time, that worked. From F=ma to Maxwell's equations, the basic rules were short, and most results corresponded to those rules. Engineering is based on those rules. Quantum mechanics had people upset for decades, but it was eventually understood reasonably well, and led to another generation of engineering that worked. But basic physics has been somewhat stuck for decades now. There's still no unified field theory. Smolin is suggesting that maybe there are no underlying simple rules. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/requiem-for-a-string-charting-the-rise-and-fall-of-a-theory-of-everything/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/requiem-for-a-string... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics

A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics. - Lee Smolin (he's a physicist) https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733 https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733

fsckboy 2y ago

I'm talking about the effectiveness and reasonableness of data, algorithms, and computation (with massively parallel execution, infinite precision analog, etc) in doing away with a need for "material". Humans have an intuition for the existence of "material" because on our scale, we can reach out and touch something. But on the femto or atto scale, this does not happen, or when it does happen, we describe it with quantum collision math. So why cling to this intuition? I'm simply saying that an immaterial universe with the same properties such that it is isomorphic to the universe that most believe we live in is a better thought experiment to carry in your head. For one, you'll stop thinking "mind body problem, what is mind such that it is not body?" instead you'll say "well, body is not, so it must be the same substance as mind, it's not really that strange after all. It's VMs all the way down"

Animats 2y ago

Although Smolin doesn't mention it, that may be part of his reaction to string theory. String theory was a mathematical edifice which purported to explain some major issues in physics, and, for a while, dominated the field. But it wasn't supported by experimental evidence.[1] Smolin argued against string theory for a long time.[2] This seems related. The classic assumption of physics is that, at some level, things are simple. For a long time, that worked. From F=ma to Maxwell's equations, the basic rules were short, and most results corresponded to those rules. Engineering is based on those rules. Quantum mechanics had people upset for decades, but it was eventually understood reasonably well, and led to another generation of engineering that worked. But basic physics has been somewhat stuck for decades now. There's still no unified field theory. Smolin is suggesting that maybe there are no underlying simple rules. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/requiem-for-a-string-charting-the-rise-and-fall-of-a-theory-of-everything/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/requiem-for-a-string... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics