4 ms·
What about underexplained cosmological epicycles like dark matter (in explaining long-standing divergences of gravitational theory from observation), or the Hub
by Paracompact 8mo ago
What about underexplained cosmological epicycles like dark matter (in explaining long-standing divergences of gravitational theory from observation), or the Hubble tension?
- XorNot 8mo agoThis is your regular reminder that epicycles were not an incorrect theory addition until an alternative hypothesis could explain the same behavior without requiring them.
- Paracompact 8mo agoSure, but in that regard dark matter is even more unsatisfying than (contemporary) epicycles, because not only does it add extra complexity, it doesn't even characterize the source of that complexity beyond its gravitational effects.
- cozzyd 8mo agoEven better, there are the "nightmare" scenarios where dark matter can only interact gravitationally with Standard Model particles.
- Paracompact 8mo agoPersonally—and this is where I expect to lose the materialists that I imagine predominate HN—I think we are already in a nightmare scenario with regard to another area: the science of consciousness. The following seem likely to me: (1) Consciousness exists, and is not an illusion that doesn't need explaining (a la Daniel Dennett), nor does it drop out of some magical part of physical theory we've somehow overlooked until now; (2) Mind-matter interactions do not exist, that is, purely physical phenomena can be perfectly explained by appeals to purely physical theories. Such are the stakes of "naturalistic dualist" thinkers like David Chalmers. But if this is the case, it implies that the physics of matter and the physics of consciousness are orthogonal to each other. Much like it would be a nightmare to stipulate that dark matter is a purely gravitational interaction and that's that, it would be a nightmare to stipulate that consciousness and qualia arise noninteractionally from certain physical processes just because. And if there is at least one materially noninteracting orthogonal component to our universe, what if there are more that we can't even perceive?
- im3w1l 8mo agoI've thought about this possibility but come to reject it. If mind-matter interactions did not exist, then matter could not detect the presence of mind. And if the brain cannot detect the mind then we wouldn't be able to talk or write about the mind.
- meindnoch 8mo agoOr, the mind is in spectator mode?
- skeptic_ai 8mo agoFrom a physics point of view should be as every effect is caused by previous state. And next tick is always next tick, except quantum bacause has some randomness, but let’s assume it’s a seeded randomness. I think every tick is predictable from previous state. Inevitable. Therefore I really like how you put it: mind is just spectating.
- Dylan16807 8mo agoThat doesn't answer the question though. If a rock starts moving in one tick, it affects other things in the next tick. Despite being deterministic, that rock is not a spectator. So if the mind is a spectator, it's not for that reason, it's some other reason.
- skeptic_ai 8mo agoBut the rock moves that way because of the previous tick. Doesn’t “just start” or do something that’s not fitting with previous tick state
- Dylan16807 8mo agoYes. That doesn't make it a spectator. The rock is a participant in the predetermined progression. The "spectator mode" thing you replied to was a totally different concept, where the "mind" is some weird parasite to your brain and you'd walk and talk the same even if you didn't have a "mind". Which is quite a weird idea in my opinion.
- dataflow 8mo agoFYI, very recently (as in this has been in the news the past few days, and the article is from December) an article was published that suggested we might already have experimental evidence for dark matter being primordial black holes, though there are reasons to doubt it as well. I just posted the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46955545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46955545 But this might be easier to read: https://www.space.com/astronomy/black-holes/did-astronomers-see-a-black-hole-explode-an-impossible-particle-that-hit-earth-in-2023-may-tell-us https://www.space.com/astronomy/black-holes/did-astronomers-...
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- suddenlybananas 8mo agoScientific theories are not curve-fitting.
- joe_the_user 8mo agoThe dark matter theory broadly is that there is amount of invisible matter that obeys the laws of Einsteinian gravity but isn't otherwise visible. By itself, it has considerable experimental evidence. It doesn't resemble Ptolemaic theories of planetary motion notably in that doesn't and hasn't required regular updating as new data arrives. It really fits well with the OP comments. Nothing really contradicts the theory but there's no deeper theory beyond it. Another comment mentioned as "nightmare" of dark matter only have gravitational interaction with other matter. That would be very unsatisfying for physicists but wouldn't something that really disprove any given theory.
- geysersam 8mo agoWhen you say dark matter theory doesn't require updates when new data arrives, it sounds like you don't count the parameters that describe the dark matter distribution to be part of the theory.