Jul 31, 2024 05:16 PM
Numbers game: Is math the language of nature or just a human construct?
https://www.salon.com/2024/07/27/numbers...construct/
EXCERPT: Simply put, it’s the idea that mathematics exists independently of human cognition and that we discovered math rather than inventing it. “Realism in Mathematics” was the title of Maddy’s first book, published in 1990, followed by “Naturalism in Mathematics” published in 1997, which explores mathematical naturalism.
These days, she sees herself as having landed somewhere between the two extremes. “In the days of Galileo and Newton, it wasn't unreasonable to regard mathematics as the language of the Great Book of Nature,” Maddy explained in an email interview with Salon. “But over the course of the 19th Century, developments in both mathematics and science undermined this view.” (MORE - missing details)
Quantum information theorists are shedding light on entanglement, one of the spooky mysteries of quantum mechanics
https://theconversation.com/quantum-info...ics-222861
EXCERPT: . . . According to quantum information theory, all of quantum mechanics, to include its quantum entangled states, is based on the qubit with its quantum superposition.
What my colleagues and I proposed is that this quantum superposition results from the relativity principle, which (again) states the laws of physics are the same for all observers with different orientations in space.
If the electron with a vertical spin in the up direction were to pass straight through the horizontal magnets as you might expect, it would have no spin horizontally. This would violate the relativity principle, which says the particle should have a spin regardless of whether it’s being measured in the horizontal or vertical direction.
Because an electron with a vertical spin in the up direction does have a spin when measured horizontally, quantum information theorists can say that the relativity principle is (ultimately) responsible for quantum entanglement.
And since there is no force used in this principle explanation, there are none of the “spooky actions at a distance” that Einstein derided.
With quantum entanglement’s technological implications for quantum computing firmly established, it’s nice to know that one big question about its origin may be answered with a highly regarded physics principle... (MORE - missing details)
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/rqmIVeheTVU
Boltzmann brains and epistemology (philosophy of physics)
https://daily-philosophy.com/sadasivan-b...nn-brains/
EXCERPTS: The assumption that minds can be explained through material processes leads to a paradox. There would be nearly infinitely many more Boltzmann Brains than there are brains that were created through a gradual process of evolution. If each of these collections of atoms was capable of internal experience, it would come with false memories that it honestly believed were records of its past. If Boltzmann brains will one day exist, how do we know that we are not Boltzmann brains...
[...] What does this mean for us? Is it reasonable to conclude that we are nothing more than fluctuations who will vanish in the blink of an eye? Are all our experiences, thoughts, and loved ones really just arbitrary patterns from electrons stored in the memory of an ephemeral brain? Most physicists and philosophers would answer no. But the question we must ask is, why can we reject this argument?
[...] As a species capable of science, we first experience consciousness and memory. We use these faculties to observe the world around us. With these observations, we follow the scientific method to make powerful conclusions about the natural world. Scientific conclusions are the results of our consciousness and memory. Any scientific result that denies the existence of these faculties undercuts its own evidence. Thus, the argument behind Boltzmann brains does not need a scientific rebuttal. Either we should accept that minds are not merely made up of matter and therefore we know we’re not Boltzmann Brains or we can conclude that we might be Boltzmann Brains whose experiences cannot be trusted and, therefore, we have no reason to believe in scientific conclusions like Boltzmann Brains. Either way, the conclusion that our minds don’t exist is incorrect.
The benefit of refuting Boltzmann Brains extends beyond merely knowing that we have permanent existence. It demonstrates that certain philosophical conclusions should be given greater certainty than scientific ones. Very few people in mainstream society believe that they are merely Boltzmann Brains and even those who profess the belief do not live like it is true. Thus, there is little point in proving, for its own sake, that we have permanent existence. However, the argument demonstrates that the idea of a conscious mind should take epistemological primacy over our understanding of matter. Phrased a different way, the understanding that our nature is fundamentally human is less shakable and more certain than any scientific conclusion.
[...] On the other hand, no scientist has made progress towards an understanding of what causes us to be able to experience things. Unlike a machine, which can be understood by looking at the operation of its parts, we cannot break a mind or an experience into parts. Thus, science is left without any knowledge of this harder question of consciousness.
The fact that we have no scientific explanation for our experiences gives further confirmation that the mind, not the subatomic particle, should be the starting point for our investigation of reality. The argument for Boltzmann Brains assumed that a mind can entirely be explained with chemistry, biology, and physics. But the only reason to make this assumption is the desire to extend the scientific method beyond its domain. We have good reasons to conclude that mankind is not merely a medley of molecules. Instead, we can use real minds to really know the world around us... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.salon.com/2024/07/27/numbers...construct/
EXCERPT: Simply put, it’s the idea that mathematics exists independently of human cognition and that we discovered math rather than inventing it. “Realism in Mathematics” was the title of Maddy’s first book, published in 1990, followed by “Naturalism in Mathematics” published in 1997, which explores mathematical naturalism.
These days, she sees herself as having landed somewhere between the two extremes. “In the days of Galileo and Newton, it wasn't unreasonable to regard mathematics as the language of the Great Book of Nature,” Maddy explained in an email interview with Salon. “But over the course of the 19th Century, developments in both mathematics and science undermined this view.” (MORE - missing details)
Quantum information theorists are shedding light on entanglement, one of the spooky mysteries of quantum mechanics
https://theconversation.com/quantum-info...ics-222861
EXCERPT: . . . According to quantum information theory, all of quantum mechanics, to include its quantum entangled states, is based on the qubit with its quantum superposition.
What my colleagues and I proposed is that this quantum superposition results from the relativity principle, which (again) states the laws of physics are the same for all observers with different orientations in space.
If the electron with a vertical spin in the up direction were to pass straight through the horizontal magnets as you might expect, it would have no spin horizontally. This would violate the relativity principle, which says the particle should have a spin regardless of whether it’s being measured in the horizontal or vertical direction.
Because an electron with a vertical spin in the up direction does have a spin when measured horizontally, quantum information theorists can say that the relativity principle is (ultimately) responsible for quantum entanglement.
And since there is no force used in this principle explanation, there are none of the “spooky actions at a distance” that Einstein derided.
With quantum entanglement’s technological implications for quantum computing firmly established, it’s nice to know that one big question about its origin may be answered with a highly regarded physics principle... (MORE - missing details)
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/rqmIVeheTVU
Boltzmann brains and epistemology (philosophy of physics)
https://daily-philosophy.com/sadasivan-b...nn-brains/
EXCERPTS: The assumption that minds can be explained through material processes leads to a paradox. There would be nearly infinitely many more Boltzmann Brains than there are brains that were created through a gradual process of evolution. If each of these collections of atoms was capable of internal experience, it would come with false memories that it honestly believed were records of its past. If Boltzmann brains will one day exist, how do we know that we are not Boltzmann brains...
[...] What does this mean for us? Is it reasonable to conclude that we are nothing more than fluctuations who will vanish in the blink of an eye? Are all our experiences, thoughts, and loved ones really just arbitrary patterns from electrons stored in the memory of an ephemeral brain? Most physicists and philosophers would answer no. But the question we must ask is, why can we reject this argument?
[...] As a species capable of science, we first experience consciousness and memory. We use these faculties to observe the world around us. With these observations, we follow the scientific method to make powerful conclusions about the natural world. Scientific conclusions are the results of our consciousness and memory. Any scientific result that denies the existence of these faculties undercuts its own evidence. Thus, the argument behind Boltzmann brains does not need a scientific rebuttal. Either we should accept that minds are not merely made up of matter and therefore we know we’re not Boltzmann Brains or we can conclude that we might be Boltzmann Brains whose experiences cannot be trusted and, therefore, we have no reason to believe in scientific conclusions like Boltzmann Brains. Either way, the conclusion that our minds don’t exist is incorrect.
The benefit of refuting Boltzmann Brains extends beyond merely knowing that we have permanent existence. It demonstrates that certain philosophical conclusions should be given greater certainty than scientific ones. Very few people in mainstream society believe that they are merely Boltzmann Brains and even those who profess the belief do not live like it is true. Thus, there is little point in proving, for its own sake, that we have permanent existence. However, the argument demonstrates that the idea of a conscious mind should take epistemological primacy over our understanding of matter. Phrased a different way, the understanding that our nature is fundamentally human is less shakable and more certain than any scientific conclusion.
[...] On the other hand, no scientist has made progress towards an understanding of what causes us to be able to experience things. Unlike a machine, which can be understood by looking at the operation of its parts, we cannot break a mind or an experience into parts. Thus, science is left without any knowledge of this harder question of consciousness.
The fact that we have no scientific explanation for our experiences gives further confirmation that the mind, not the subatomic particle, should be the starting point for our investigation of reality. The argument for Boltzmann Brains assumed that a mind can entirely be explained with chemistry, biology, and physics. But the only reason to make this assumption is the desire to extend the scientific method beyond its domain. We have good reasons to conclude that mankind is not merely a medley of molecules. Instead, we can use real minds to really know the world around us... (MORE - missing details)