tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post7701970896914985064..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Argument that Science Requires FaithRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-91976749597674162582022-02-28T02:25:52.207-08:002022-02-28T02:25:52.207-08:001. Gee, if only I could come up with a theory that...1. Gee, if only I could come up with a theory that says I am a mindless meat puppet without any ability to think, since I'm merely part of a casual chain reaction due to everything being utterly deterministic... thus having no ability to actually even do science... <br /><br />2. Gee if only I could come up with a theory that says I'm a mindless meat puppet across infinite universes and reduce my existence to something so insignificant that the probability of my own existence approaches zero...thus having no ability to much less reason to do actual science since everything happens just somewhere else undetectably.<br /><br />3. Gee, if only I could shove every last superdeterminist and many world theorist into a big wood chipper to grant them the mindless nihilist nirvana of oblivion they so desperately desire, freeing up oodles of very finite grants and funding to go to truly curious and skeptical souls who actually have a desire to do something useful in this world besides sneer at their own miraculous existence. <br /><br /><br />...I enthusiastically choose option 3. <br /><br /><br /><br />“Nihilism is best done by professionals.” ― Iggy PopCFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-71567990679733379202022-02-27T07:25:40.521-08:002022-02-27T07:25:40.521-08:00Roger,
1. Good points. However...
>> &qu...Roger,<br /><br />1. Good points. However... <br /><br />>> "* Causality. Events depend on the past light cone, and nothing else."<br /><br />Causality actually is a much broader concept. It refers to the fact that the nature of actions taken by an entity (the effects) necessarily follows from the nature of entities that act (the causes).<br /><br />Of course, in the context of the special theory of relativity (STR), I would not mind using the narrower idea of the light cone, because it does capture the main causality operative there. ... I was wondering though... <br /><br />... I am still studying STR, but isn't it true that only light stays precisely on the surface of the light cone, and that massive objects could be anywhere within the light cone? If what I am saying is correct, then this phrase "nothing else" would fall short for massive particles. Their motion would sure be confined to the interior region of the light cone, but the question of precisely where within that region is something which would get left out, though it would still be ruled by causality. So, you would have to specify more auxiliary data to pinpoint their motions... So, how about this formulation?:<br /><br />The zone of dependence for events lies completely within the light cone (or, put negatively: it does not extend outside of the light cone).<br /><br />2. On another note: I think it might be better to separate out superdeterminism from MWI. The difference between them is this:<br /><br />MWI is a theory, though a "wrong" theory --- actually a meaningless idea. Reason: The idea of the universe, taken as a whole, is not subject to quantifications. Quantification requires finding similarities (common grounds) and differentiations (distinctions). In other words, it requires that contraries or "foil"s be there, at least in principle. But the universe, taken as a whole and qua the super-set, can have no contraries, no foils. That's why, the idea is devoid of basic meaning.<br /><br />OTOH, from what I read at Dr. Hossenfelder's blog (including the latest one), I gather that superdeterminism still is not a completed theory; it is rather like a *template* for a theory. It seems that they are still exploring particular options to make some theory which might conform to this template. From what they indicate, I tend to think that even a nonlocal theory should fit their template --- i.e., even if they introduce some new ("hidden") variables. ... There can always be a nonlocal hidden variables theory. They seem pretty tentative about the details, though not about the template. (Mine is a nonlocal theory, and doesn't have hidden variables. But the point is, logically speaking, the structure of their template should allow the aforementioned possibility too --- nonlocal + hidden.) All in all, that's quite different from MWI! <br /><br />Best,<br />--Ajit<br /><br /><br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttps://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-49469685941135785952022-02-22T13:46:45.811-08:002022-02-22T13:46:45.811-08:00To know what someone believes, merely watch carefu...To know what someone believes, merely watch carefully what they actually do. Actions are the most honest reflections of a person's truths. Sadly, words are quite often used as mere disposable tools to achieve one's ends, and often have precious little to do with truth.<br /><br /> Look for people who's words and actions align.<br /><br /><br /><br />“To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.”<br />― Mahatma Gandhi <br />CFTnoreply@blogger.com