tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post1021780746148117243..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Why I am not a UnicornianRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-11291106295240820742018-08-20T11:30:48.009-07:002018-08-20T11:30:48.009-07:00Hi Ron. FYI there is a discussion forum with Deuts...Hi Ron. FYI there is a discussion forum with Deutsch fans and colleagues (Deutsch used to participate and wrote thousands of posts, but hasn't been active for years). http://fallibleideas.com/discussionxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362370435432417320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-573286915739214072009-04-20T11:25:00.000-07:002009-04-20T11:25:00.000-07:00You're on the right track, but you haven't quite g...You're on the right track, but you haven't quite gotten it yet. Again, the explanation is fairly long, so I'll make it a regular post. But here's another hint: Cerf and Adami's quantum information theory can be summed up in one pithy slogan: entanglement and measurement are the same physical phenomenon. Therefore, any explanation of QM that talks about measurement without talking about Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-2836439331862274402009-04-20T10:10:00.000-07:002009-04-20T10:10:00.000-07:00OK, I read chapter 2 of TFOR. Let me see if I can...OK, I read chapter 2 of TFOR. Let me see if I can guess the "crucial mistake" that you mention.<br /><br />Is it: Deutsch invents a concept of "trillions of shadow photons" in order to explain QM, which is really a needless complication. A much simpler model is that each individual photon is non-local, distributed throughout space. Deutsch seems to want photons to be point particles -- which Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-38698066815757536312009-04-19T11:46:00.000-07:002009-04-19T11:46:00.000-07:00Haven't read chapter 2 yet. I'll give it a try, a...Haven't read chapter 2 yet. I'll give it a try, and see if I can solve your challenge...Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36049816086254893592009-04-19T11:41:00.000-07:002009-04-19T11:41:00.000-07:00Thanks for the reading suggestions, Don and Ron. ...Thanks for the reading suggestions, Don and Ron. I think I'll start with Yudkowsky posts and Einstein's Relativity, and keep an eye out for a cheap used copy of of Taylor and Wheeler.<br /><br />By "comparison", I meant a description of the incompatibility of the theories, but it sounds like that may be too advanced of a topic for an introduction.Christian G. Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00101196524698315657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-83666687537788390462009-04-19T11:28:00.000-07:002009-04-19T11:28:00.000-07:00> Just for the record, his recommended The Fabr...> Just for the record, his recommended The Fabric of Reality also covers quantum mechanics (for the layman!) in the early chapters.<br /><br />Yes, but unfortunately Deutsch makes a crucial mistake that causes him to run somewhat off the rails. I won't tell you what it is because it makes too good of an exercise to figure it out on your own, but I'll give you a hint: it's in the Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-84619524282427462632009-04-19T11:18:00.000-07:002009-04-19T11:18:00.000-07:00Nothing is off topic in Rondam Ramblings :-)
The ...Nothing is off topic in Rondam Ramblings :-)<br /><br />The best accessible work on general relativity that I know of is Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics." (http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Physics-Edwin-F-Taylor/dp/0716723271) Or you can go straight to the source and read Einstein's own popular account "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory" (http://Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-3898319369487292482009-04-19T11:15:00.000-07:002009-04-19T11:15:00.000-07:00Christian: Ron may offer his own advice. Just for...Christian: Ron may offer his own advice. Just for the record, his recommended <I>The Fabric of Reality</I> also covers quantum mechanics (for the layman!) in the early chapters.<br /><br />I myself would recommend the <A HREF="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/the-quantum-phy.html" REL="nofollow">Quantum Physics sequence</A> from the Overcoming Bias blog. (It covers much of the same Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-32772877561353872222009-04-19T10:24:00.000-07:002009-04-19T10:24:00.000-07:00Hi Ron,
This is a bit off-topic, but do you have a...Hi Ron,<br />This is a bit off-topic, but do you have any reading suggestions on a description and comparison of general relativity and quantum mechanics for the layman?<br /><br />Thanks.Christian G. Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00101196524698315657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-76404744644487686682009-04-17T17:42:00.000-07:002009-04-17T17:42:00.000-07:00OK, I got TFOR and read chapter 7 (as well as a co...OK, I got TFOR and read chapter 7 (as well as a couple of the earlier ones).<br /><br />I enjoyed his takedown of inductionism, which was novel for me.<br /><br />Similarly, I have long thought that science, at root, was about making predictions. He made a strong case that it is about making explanations, not (just) predictions. I found it really enlightening to consider his hypothetical Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-26527643566308443922009-04-17T12:58:00.000-07:002009-04-17T12:58:00.000-07:00Ordered TFOR. It's all your fault.
Finally got a...Ordered TFOR. It's all your fault.<br /><br />Finally got around to buying The God Delusion, too. (Kindle on the iPhone. Who'd've guessed.)Larry Clapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09056791619989601236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-18871150715836409332009-04-14T15:14:00.000-07:002009-04-14T15:14:00.000-07:00Thanks! Now we just have to figure out how to get...Thanks! Now we just have to figure out how to get the word to the atheist mafia. It's going to be an uphill battle because resolving conflicts doesn't help book sales.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-47611225634595914152009-04-14T14:27:00.000-07:002009-04-14T14:27:00.000-07:00Oh, and just because it is so beautifully written,...Oh, and just because it is so beautifully written, I want to take special notice of your closing lines. This is the kind of thing that should be on a poster somewhere:<br /><br /><I>Lumping all religious people together is a huge mistake. Social drinkers ought not be conflated with heroin addicts.</I>Simply awesome.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-72087920992902035052009-04-14T14:22:00.000-07:002009-04-14T14:22:00.000-07:00Ah! Objective truth vs. metaphysical truth. Yes,...Ah! Objective truth vs. metaphysical truth. Yes, that makes sense. In the past, I've used the argument that: even if we are just brains in a jar somewhere, and all our perceptions are just illusion, science is about predicting exactly which illusions we'll be seeing tomorrow. There still remains something to predict, which we generally label "objective reality". That doesn't mean it is True,Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-37574335714057423052009-04-14T11:26:00.001-07:002009-04-14T11:26:00.001-07:00Oh, one more thing:
> (Maybe I just have to re...Oh, one more thing:<br /><br />> (Maybe I just have to read your recommended TFOR book.)<br /><br />Yeah, you really should.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-53663917848036474932009-04-14T11:26:00.000-07:002009-04-14T11:26:00.000-07:00> But what is the connection between explanator...> But what is the connection between explanatory power and truth?<br /><br />You have to distinguish between two different kinds of truth. There's objective truth, and there is metaphysical truth. Explanatory power is (empirically) related to predictive power, and predictive power is related to objective truth *by definition*. If I predict that it is going to rain tomorrow and it does Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-58882922315524092112009-04-14T10:32:00.000-07:002009-04-14T10:32:00.000-07:00(Just to be clear: I'm a scientist/atheist myself....(Just to be clear: I'm a scientist/atheist myself. Just playing devil's advocate here.)<br /><br />The thing I'm trying to address is your Unicornian's statement that: <I>"you still have to assume with no proof that "explanatory power" is a reliable guide to Truth. So your beliefs are still, at root, based on faith."</I>When you tell me that science is self-justified (that there are scientific Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-76187081258042732492009-04-14T10:03:00.000-07:002009-04-14T10:03:00.000-07:00> At the end of the day, there's still the ...> At the end of the day, there's still the (possible) Matrix universe out there<br /><br />Along with the (possible) invisible unicorns and the (possible) invisible construction elevator. All of these can be (tentatively of course) rejected for the same reason: compared to existing scientific theories, these alternate theories are more complicated but have less explanatory power. There Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-2370198244329455542009-04-13T19:11:00.000-07:002009-04-13T19:11:00.000-07:00Yeah, sorry, I should have been more specific (and...Yeah, sorry, I should have been more specific (and the "necessarily true" part of my comment wasn't the phrase I should have used). It's the, "possible but unlikely" description that confused me. How do you even begin to form a probability estimate, of a correspondence between effective theories and truth?<br /><br />At the end of the day, there's still the (possible) Matrix universe out there,Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89533788720550761912009-04-13T18:18:00.000-07:002009-04-13T18:18:00.000-07:00> The dialogue style (and to some extent the su...> The dialogue style (and to some extent the subject matter) remind me a little of Hofstader's "Godel, Escher, Bach". :-)<br /><br />High praise indeed. Thank you!<br /><br />> why are effective theories necessarily true?<br /><br />You must have missed this part:<br /><br />"I never said that scientific theories are actually true, only that they are reliable guides to Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-88393340890792280802009-04-13T18:05:00.000-07:002009-04-13T18:05:00.000-07:00Thanks for the expansion. The dialogue style (and...Thanks for the expansion. The dialogue style (and to some extent the subject matter) remind me a little of Hofstader's "Godel, Escher, Bach". :-)<br /><br />I don't quite get the scientific metaphysics (why are effective theories necessarily true?). But all interesting stuff. Thanks. (Perhaps I should read Deutsch's book, like you keep badgering me to.)Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.com