4 ms·

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 cha

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 8mo ago
Even better, there are the "nightmare" scenarios where dark matter can only interact gravitationally with Standard Model particles.
- Paracompact 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.
  - galaxyLogic 8mo ago
    I don't think there is any mystery to what we call "consciousness". Our senses and brain have evolved so we can "sense" the external world, so we can live in it and react to it. So why couldn''t we also sense what is happening inside our brains? Our brain needs to sense our "inner talk" so we can let it guide our decision-making and actions. If we couldn't remember sentences, we couldn't remember "facts" and would be much worse for that. And talking with our "inner voice" and hearing it, isn't that what most people would call consciousness?
    - tehjoker 8mo ago
      another one that thinks they solved the hard problem of consciousness by addressing the easy problem. how on earth does a feedback system cause matter to "wake up"? we are making lots of progress on the easy problem though
      - dgfl 8mo ago
        This is not as good a refusal as you think it is. To me (and I imagine, the parent poster) there is no extra logical step needed. The problem IS solved in this sense. If it’s completely impossible to even imagine what the answer to a question is, as is the case here, it’s probably the wrong question to pose. Is there any answer you’d be satisfied by? To me the hard problem is more or less akin to looking for the true boundaries of a cloud: a seemingly valid quest, but one that can’t really be answered in a satisfactory sense, because it’s not the right one to pose to make sense of clouds.
        Paracompact 8mo ago
        > If it’s completely impossible to even imagine what the answer to a question is, as is the case here, it’s probably the wrong question to pose. Is there any answer you’d be satisfied by? I would be very satisfied to have an answer, or even just convincing heuristic arguments, for the following: (1) What systems experience consciousness? For example, is a computer as conscious as a rock, as conscious as a human, or somewhere in between? (2) What are the fundamental symmetries and invariants of consciousness? Does it impact consciousness whether a system is flipped in spacetime, skewed in spacetime, isomorphically recast in different physical media, etc.? (3) What aspects of a system's organization give rise to different qualia? What does the possible parameter space (or set of possible dynamical traces, or what have you) of qualia look like? (4) Is a consciousness a distinct entity, like some phase transition with a sharp boundary, or is there no fundamentally rigorous sense in which we can distinguish each and every consciousness in the universe? (5) What explains the nature of phenomena like blindsight or split brain patients, where seemingly high-level recognition, coordination, and/or intent occurs in the absence of any conscious awareness? Generally, what behavior-affecting processes in our brains do and do not affect our conscious experience? And so on. I imagine you'll take issue with all of these questions, perhaps saying that "consciousness" isn't well defined, or that an "explanation" can only refer to functional descriptions of physical matter, but I figured I would at least answer your question honestly.
  - eucyclos 8mo ago
    I think the old theory of the planes of existence has a lot of utility here - if you substitute "the dimensionality at which you're analyzing your dataset" for the hermetic concept of "planes of existence" you get essentially the same thing, at least in lower dimensions like one (matter) or two (energy). Mind, specifically a human mind, would be a four dimensional under the old system, which feels about right. No idea how you'd set up an experiment to test that theory though. It may be completely impossible because experiments only work when they work in all contexts and only matter is ever the same regardless of context.
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    How can consciousness have information about the material world if it doesn't interact with it in any way? And when your fingers type that you experience qualia, are they bullshitting because your fingers have never actually received any signals from your consciousness in any direct or indirect way?
  - jemmyw 8mo ago
    I don't think any of this is particularly nightmarish. Just because we don't yet know how this complex system arises from another lower level one doesn't make it new physics. There's no evidence of it being new or orthogonal physics. Imagine trying to figure out what is happening on someone's computer screen with only physical access to their hardware minus the screen, and an MRI scanner. And that's a system we built! We've come exceedingly far with brains and minds considering the tools we have to peer inside.
    - Paracompact 8mo ago
      Knowing how to build a brain is different from knowing whether that brain has consciousness in the sense that you or I do. The question of consciousness appears to demand new/orthogonal physics because according to our existing physics, there's no sense in which you or should "feel" any differently than a rock does, or a computer does, or Searle's room does, or a Chinese brain does, or the universe as a whole does, etc.
      - squeefers 8mo ago
        > The question of consciousness appears to demand new/orthogonal physics because according to our existing physics, there's no sense in which you or should "feel" any differently than a rock does, deepak chopra may interest you
      - jemmyw 8mo ago
        I don't believe in the hard consciousness problem. Yes, materialist. And yes, it might be that we can never actually put together the path of physical level to how it feels, just like we might never find the fundamental physical rules of the universe. At this time both our positions are belief.
  - geysersam 8mo ago
    That would certainly be a difficult scenario. But it doesn't seem very likely. For example, consciousness and material systems seem to interact. Putting drugs in your blood changes your conscious experience etc.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8mo ago
    Yes, but it doesn't even need mysticism or duality. There's a more straightforward problem, which is that all of science is limited by our ability to generate and test mental models, and there's been no research into the accuracy and reliability of our modelling processes. Everything gets filtered through human consciousness - math, experiment, all of it. And our definition of "objective" is literally just "we cross-check with other educated humans and the most reliable and consistent experience wins, for now." How likely is it that human consciousness is the most perfect of all possible lenses, doesn't introduce distortions, and has no limits, questionable habits, or blind spots?
  - tim333 8mo ago
    Yeah - the nightmare situation doesn't exist if you take a materialist approach. Maybe that's evidence for it?
dataflow 8mo 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-...

cozzyd 8mo ago

Even better, there are the "nightmare" scenarios where dark matter can only interact gravitationally with Standard Model particles.

Paracompact 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.
- galaxyLogic 8mo ago
  I don't think there is any mystery to what we call "consciousness". Our senses and brain have evolved so we can "sense" the external world, so we can live in it and react to it. So why couldn''t we also sense what is happening inside our brains? Our brain needs to sense our "inner talk" so we can let it guide our decision-making and actions. If we couldn't remember sentences, we couldn't remember "facts" and would be much worse for that. And talking with our "inner voice" and hearing it, isn't that what most people would call consciousness?
  - tehjoker 8mo ago
    another one that thinks they solved the hard problem of consciousness by addressing the easy problem. how on earth does a feedback system cause matter to "wake up"? we are making lots of progress on the easy problem though
    - dgfl 8mo ago
      This is not as good a refusal as you think it is. To me (and I imagine, the parent poster) there is no extra logical step needed. The problem IS solved in this sense. If it’s completely impossible to even imagine what the answer to a question is, as is the case here, it’s probably the wrong question to pose. Is there any answer you’d be satisfied by? To me the hard problem is more or less akin to looking for the true boundaries of a cloud: a seemingly valid quest, but one that can’t really be answered in a satisfactory sense, because it’s not the right one to pose to make sense of clouds.
      - Paracompact 8mo ago
        > If it’s completely impossible to even imagine what the answer to a question is, as is the case here, it’s probably the wrong question to pose. Is there any answer you’d be satisfied by? I would be very satisfied to have an answer, or even just convincing heuristic arguments, for the following: (1) What systems experience consciousness? For example, is a computer as conscious as a rock, as conscious as a human, or somewhere in between? (2) What are the fundamental symmetries and invariants of consciousness? Does it impact consciousness whether a system is flipped in spacetime, skewed in spacetime, isomorphically recast in different physical media, etc.? (3) What aspects of a system's organization give rise to different qualia? What does the possible parameter space (or set of possible dynamical traces, or what have you) of qualia look like? (4) Is a consciousness a distinct entity, like some phase transition with a sharp boundary, or is there no fundamentally rigorous sense in which we can distinguish each and every consciousness in the universe? (5) What explains the nature of phenomena like blindsight or split brain patients, where seemingly high-level recognition, coordination, and/or intent occurs in the absence of any conscious awareness? Generally, what behavior-affecting processes in our brains do and do not affect our conscious experience? And so on. I imagine you'll take issue with all of these questions, perhaps saying that "consciousness" isn't well defined, or that an "explanation" can only refer to functional descriptions of physical matter, but I figured I would at least answer your question honestly.
- eucyclos 8mo ago
  I think the old theory of the planes of existence has a lot of utility here - if you substitute "the dimensionality at which you're analyzing your dataset" for the hermetic concept of "planes of existence" you get essentially the same thing, at least in lower dimensions like one (matter) or two (energy). Mind, specifically a human mind, would be a four dimensional under the old system, which feels about right. No idea how you'd set up an experiment to test that theory though. It may be completely impossible because experiments only work when they work in all contexts and only matter is ever the same regardless of context.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  How can consciousness have information about the material world if it doesn't interact with it in any way? And when your fingers type that you experience qualia, are they bullshitting because your fingers have never actually received any signals from your consciousness in any direct or indirect way?
- jemmyw 8mo ago
  I don't think any of this is particularly nightmarish. Just because we don't yet know how this complex system arises from another lower level one doesn't make it new physics. There's no evidence of it being new or orthogonal physics. Imagine trying to figure out what is happening on someone's computer screen with only physical access to their hardware minus the screen, and an MRI scanner. And that's a system we built! We've come exceedingly far with brains and minds considering the tools we have to peer inside.
  - Paracompact 8mo ago
    Knowing how to build a brain is different from knowing whether that brain has consciousness in the sense that you or I do. The question of consciousness appears to demand new/orthogonal physics because according to our existing physics, there's no sense in which you or should "feel" any differently than a rock does, or a computer does, or Searle's room does, or a Chinese brain does, or the universe as a whole does, etc.
    - squeefers 8mo ago
      > The question of consciousness appears to demand new/orthogonal physics because according to our existing physics, there's no sense in which you or should "feel" any differently than a rock does, deepak chopra may interest you
    - jemmyw 8mo ago
      I don't believe in the hard consciousness problem. Yes, materialist. And yes, it might be that we can never actually put together the path of physical level to how it feels, just like we might never find the fundamental physical rules of the universe. At this time both our positions are belief.
- geysersam 8mo ago
  That would certainly be a difficult scenario. But it doesn't seem very likely. For example, consciousness and material systems seem to interact. Putting drugs in your blood changes your conscious experience etc.
- TheOtherHobbes 8mo ago
  Yes, but it doesn't even need mysticism or duality. There's a more straightforward problem, which is that all of science is limited by our ability to generate and test mental models, and there's been no research into the accuracy and reliability of our modelling processes. Everything gets filtered through human consciousness - math, experiment, all of it. And our definition of "objective" is literally just "we cross-check with other educated humans and the most reliable and consistent experience wins, for now." How likely is it that human consciousness is the most perfect of all possible lenses, doesn't introduce distortions, and has no limits, questionable habits, or blind spots?
- tim333 8mo ago
  Yeah - the nightmare situation doesn't exist if you take a materialist approach. Maybe that's evidence for it?

dataflow 8mo 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-...