5 ms·

This is your regular reminder that epicycles were not an incorrect theory addition until an alternative hypothesis could explain the same behavior without requi

by XorNot 9mo ago

This 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 9mo ago
Sure, 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 9mo ago
  Even better, there are the "nightmare" scenarios where dark matter can only interact gravitationally with Standard Model particles.
  - Paracompact 9mo ago
    Personally—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 9mo ago
      I'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 9mo ago
        Or, the mind is in spectator mode?
        skeptic_ai 8mo ago
        From 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 ago
        That 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 ago
        But 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 ago
        Yes. 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 9mo ago
  FYI, 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 9mo ago
[deleted]
suddenlybananas 9mo ago
Scientific theories are not curve-fitting.

by XorNot 9mo ago

This 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 9mo ago

Sure, 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 9mo ago
Even better, there are the "nightmare" scenarios where dark matter can only interact gravitationally with Standard Model particles.
- Paracompact 9mo ago
  Personally—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 9mo ago
    I'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 9mo ago
      Or, the mind is in spectator mode?
      - skeptic_ai 8mo ago
        From 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 ago
        That 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 ago
        But 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 ago
        Yes. 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 9mo ago
FYI, 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 9mo ago

[deleted]

suddenlybananas 9mo ago

Scientific theories are not curve-fitting.