Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ : Let us try to reason together without the chest puffing? When I heard Penrose discussing this last, he was talking about memories. You can program a computer to know what a grandmother is, in terms of genetics, economics, diet, fashion, even in terms of culture, and with modern large language models, you can have that same computer speak convincingly about having a grandmother, even sounding rather sentimental about it. But that computer still, “feels,” nothing.
However, when a human has the task, that discussion triggers emotions and digressions that are not logically programmable. While you’re describing the colour of grandma’s eyes, you might actually be thinking of the way she smelled, or the smell of her house and suddenly say, “I haven’t eaten apple pie in a long time. Let’s make a pie. I know a recipe.” Not just a tangential connection being made, but a course of action, including time used, resources spent, shops visited and cooking and eating with a person whom you want to share the experience of what Grandma’s apple pie used to taste like.
I can expand further on the qualia aspect of what it is that Penrose is getting at. But that is what he said he doesn’t believe an AI can match. That does not mean that there aren’t new avenues to pursue that might result in subtler, more capable, “thinking,” processes for computers. Indeed, he has discussed possibilities himself. Which is why I believe Sabine may have the wrong end of the stick here.
1
-
@ : Addendum: The point Penrose is making about current approaches is A) Being large language models, they are brute-forcing the problem, rather than refining it. This is why all the tech companies are stealing as much data as they can from any source available, because it’s an unwieldy process that doesn’t mimic human thinking at all. B) They are still, largely, black boxes. These are self teaching models that are essentially told, “correct,” or, “wrong,” billions of times an hour, over simple reasoning and recognition tests. Yet no one, not even the programmers, know what adjustments the machines make to their own code to get to the correct answers. This is why they frequently hallucinate. It is the equivalent of setting off to the moon, one millimetre off course, which will place you millions of miles off target. And no one can prevent these hallucinations because they’re occurring within a closed system to which the programmers do not have prior knowledge.
Sure, you can lift the lid to see what went wrong. But you’re then doing the equivalent of trying to identify which grain in a cup of sand is blue, when all the others are red.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I find most interesting about it, is what she put her finger on, right at the end of her presentation. It’s a, “philosophical,” difference. It’s a mutation of paranoia and distrust, born out of anti-authoritarianism and disillusionment with, “authority,” figures. Give me a Flat Earther in the same room as me and access to the internet, and I can destroy their, “scientific,” arguments, in minutes. Yet, I know this will not convert them, for one of three possible reasons: They’re (1) too emotionally damaged to, “want,” to accept the truth (too proud to admit this six foot, hairy boomer, who can’t stop laughing at him is right, for example) (2) too educationally challenged (stoopid, or probably a combination of 1 & 2?) or, (3) they’re being paid to refute common sense. The group 3 are the ones I despise, because they could do untold harm, and they do it for money. You might argue there is a group 4? The troll. But, actually, the troll is just any one, or combination of, the previous three categories.
But, here’s the, “interesting,” bit that I promised (trigger warning) : Many Worlds Theory, or MTW. That is a, “hypothesis,” which has some mathematical basis, which can be made to fit the hypothesis. But, only ever at the cost of disregarding some other fatal flaws which have yet to be resolved. It is popular among many of our leading physicists. And, though more and more people are questioning it, it has taken on the trappings of Dogma. Yet, there is no, “scientific,” basis for it. No evidence, no disprovability, no testable experiments, no predictions, no applications, no foundation for its conjecture whatsoever. It is a philosophical idea, which some scientists cling to with the emotional commitment of high priests. Why is that, exactly?
I believe it is because it solves one thorny problem and no other. If it were true, we could then dispense with, “God.” And that is the ONLY reason MWT is a philosophical belief that has taken root in physics and is doing duty for science where there is no science to be had. In other words, it’s not just Flat Earthers, who are willing to run away with their philosophical ideas. It seems anyone is capable of that type of thinking, if the emotional stakes are high enough? . . . Food for thought? . . . ✌️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaybingham3711 : There are countless examples of great physicists and chemists who have gone to their graves never knowing that their breakthroughs would be accepted and recognised by a tardy, ungrateful world. Einstein is the exception of the lionised man in his own lifetime. Indeed, some of physics’ greatest thinkers have committed suicide in the face of mockery and rejection, or died in poverty, only to have their theories form the basis of what we all know now or their work form the standard by which we all do things now. From Mendeleev to Tesla, the list is long. All because of rampant egos, which force humanity to have to wait for a generation for the old thinkers to die off, before new ideas are allowed, “permission,” to be right.
Now I feel like we’re all waiting for Alan Guth to die before someone says, “But, wouldn’t time have expanded at the same rate as space? After all, E=MC2 and all that?” and wins a Nobel Prize for his special theory of the bleedin’ obvious! 😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find her presentations fascinating and her voice is so soothing to me. I’m quite the fanboy . . .
The Many Worlds notion has always struck me as bogus; from my not-expert perspective. It’s untestable, and certainly unprovable, for a start, even if, “evidence,” may one day be found. The same evidence can and will be usable for rival theories. But, my real problem with it, is that it’s actually philosophy, not physics.
The very same prejudice that Einstein felt, which made him find the work of LeMetre so unpalatable, (which evidenced the Big Bang Theory) is at work in MWT. It’s a philosophical argument, with one purpose; refuting the existence of God. Einstein apologised to LeMetre, a Catholic priest, after having once told him, “Your math is correct but your physics is abominable.” And, The Big Bang is now generally accepted, despite having been held back for almost a generation by the egos of over powerful scientists. And, once again, we are seeing the history repeat itself.
The idea of something miraculous happen, that the physical world could actually be altered by the mere act of, “observation,” and all that this implies, is intolerable to an atheistic culture, that is as guilty of prejudice, groupthink and dogma, as any religious organisation in history. The very same people who worship Galileo as their Martyr for being a victim of prejudice and dogma, perpetrated by an over weening establishment, have now become that very thing they despise. They are sacrificing science on the alter of that dogma, which might as well be stated as, “We refuse to accept any conclusions that may imply a creator of the universe, regardless of what the facts are,” and they come up with the most extravagant, superstitious and logically implausible solutions, and pursue them with such vehemence that they have become the new dogma!
No doubt, someone reading this, will assume that I am a, “believer,” in God, and have a personal axe to grind, rather than question their own assumptions, because they have been trained to respond in that fashion, as though I was a Flat Earther or denying Gravity . . . But, my actual point is that there is yet to be a scientific explanation for our observations, and that the Copenhagen position has become a dogma, enforced by a powerful scientist, with a famously powerful and intolerant personality, and has evolved in to ever increasingly extravagant philosophical ideas. Without any evidence (hard or otherwise) Physics has been actively encouraged to wonder away from the path of science.
We must look harder at the problem, and bring in fresh minds. And, whether we find evidence, or proof, of a God, a creator, or the exact opposite, we must accept the truth of whatever we find, unflinchingly, with the disciplined eyes of the scientist. We must leave philosophy to the philosophers, especially when we cannot even establish a working mathematical model for MWT that doesn’t have one or more fatal flaw in it. We simply have NO BASIS for MWT. Yet, I hear, you can actually fail your doctorate for saying that now!
You would have thought we’d have learned by now, after the famously appalling ways great scientists have been treated, by the scientific community in the past, (leading to suicides and even murders! . . . In the 20th Century!) that anything that smacks of dogma is unhealthy for science. And the establishment must NEVER be allowed to get too comfortable, or, “established.”
These were just some general thoughts on the nature and culture of science today, as it relates to this fascinating problem . . . It’s worth pondering, do any of you know any Christian believers in science? Physics especially? And, do any of you know any atheists in that field? Of the ones who claim to have, “open minds,” who are the least tolerant of difference in beliefs? You already know the answer, right? . . .
1
-
@Jehannum2000 : Try telling that to the scientific community? The unspoken rule seems to be, “Your conclusions better not come out = God, or anything that might imply it.” It’s not on anyone’s mind, until the unspoken rule is enforced. People like Richard Dawkins have become the new High Priests of an increasingly cultish society, doing untold harm, based upon the mere suspicion of what could be, “read into,” scientific results and conflating religion and personal beliefs into a totem of fear and loathing. If only your statement were true? “God,” should have, “nothing to do with science and vice versa.” But, that’s simply not the case. I read Einstein’s correspondence about LeMetre (and with him) and he isn’t exactly subtle about his mental blocks. We do ourselves a disservice by failing to acknowledge an institutional prejudice, however, “benign,” we can persuade ourselves it is.
But, thank you for responding, and for being patient enough to wade through my diatribe in the first place. All this time after your initial comment, I really didn’t expect to be noticed, let alone actually answered. Respect ✌️
1
-
@Jehannum2000 : Let me put it to you like this? Do you think it was really the, “science,” that Einstein was struggling with? It wasn’t LeMetre’s math? He told him as much, right from the start. At the very minimum, Einstein was struggling with his own personal pride, in being able to admit of flaws in his own theory? It was a period of years, before he could admit LeMetre was right. But, he said himself that he did not like the implications of a priest, no less, establishing a moment of, “creation,” in physics, and that he was suspicious of letting God into the science. LeMetre was the one who argued that God was irrelevant to the discussion. It was just the way the universe worked . . . works . . .
But, imagine if LeMetre had been as bombastic as Bohr? Or just egotistical enough to match Einstein? What if he actually was pressing the religious subtext as hard as Einstein feared he, or others, might? How long would THAT debate have lasted? And how many casualties might such an intellectual war have claimed? Would we still be debating the Big Bang to this day? Would the Hubble Telescope ever have been funded, by a Congress that can get so very twitchy about, “religion,” in politics?
Too much, “personality,” and not enough science, is the problem that people of faith run into in science (physics in particular) and which the people without never even notice. They make a point of not noticing. I speak as a none-scientist, outsider, looking in. I know many scientists, and I’m reasonably well,read on the history of science, though, by no means any kind of expert. But, I honestly believe (bringing this back to the topic) that the MWT is nothing more than an expression of this desperation to lock away certain possibilities, due to an unspoken, but no less potent, dogma. It is a philosophical explanation, doing duty for science, where science has nothing to offer. Or, what it does have to offer, we cannot yet tell, because no one has tread that ground and been lead where the science is taking them.
I do see an increasing number of sceptics, unhappy with MWT though. And I occasionally wonder if such people will get the support they need to explore the no man’s land, or if they’ll just find themselves on another front, of the Galileo Wars? . . .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’m kinda late to this party but, for what it’s worth . . . It is true that science has nothing to say about, “God.” Certainly not the God of the three main faiths that share the same original Jehovah. In the same way that physics has nothing to say about an individual’s personal taste in music, or to explain why we’re happy or sad. And that works both ways. While one’s personal faith might inform a scientist’s personal approach to their work, their relationships within the scientific community, or the type of physics they are interested in, God will not show up in their equations, nor should He.
I take issue, only in part, with one thing you said. Dark Energy is my exemplar to explain why. People assume it exists, because of observed phenomena, but they might be investigating something that is not even there, or real in a physical sense? It could be an effect of gravity that has not yet been discovered, or any one of several other hypotheses that have been suggested by great minds? Yet, we investigate it, because we want to understand the universe better and settle on a universally understood theory, which would benefit all of science and, ultimately, all of human kind. You will say, “Yes. But that is a scientific response to a real, observable phenomena in the universe, which science has something to say about.” But, my answer would be that there are phenomena which are genuinely, objectively experienced in the universe, which could be caused by something outside of our time space continuum, like Dark Energy, that could be caused by a knowing, all powerful, “god-like,” consciousness. Science cannot rule that out, despite the fact that there is no hypothesis for investigating it directly.
That being said, though science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about hard science, all I’m suggesting is that, once we start using science to refute the existence of God, we have done a disservice to both science and people of faith. On the one hand, we are ruling out the possibility of something, without any evidence to support that stance: attempting to prove a negative, which is by its nature, impossible. And, on the other hand, we are making God a preoccupation of science, whilst arguing that God has no place in science. If scientists believe there’s no place for God in the physics, they fail to see the fallacy of their own placing of God at the centre of the science, in a vain attempt to prove a negative.
That’s comes off as a bad faith exercise, and somewhat oppressive to people of faith, don’t you think? Scientists need to leave God alone, if they truly have no belief in him. A trivial point, you think? If you think that, you’re failing to see why physics has hit a brick wall in the last 20 or so years. Instead of doing the science they get paid to do, physicists (not all of them, obviously) have devoted themselves to the disputation of faith, spending time, money and other resources on ever increasingly extravagant hypotheses, which are reaching a breaking point of sheer lunacy, if you ask me!
“Many Worlds?” Really? An entire structure of, “scientific,” thinking, upon which millions have now been spent, despite there being ZERO proof for any of it! Sure, there are elegant mathematic theorems, etc, but all of them are fatally flawed when any attempt is made to apply them to the real world. An infinite number of dimensions, stretching out forever, from every single decision point of every living creature, which would make one minute of one day create so many separate universes springing into existence (out of thin vacuum) that their number is literally incalculable; yet bigger than the number of electrons in the known universe? Give me a break! It’s a philosophy, not a scientific hypothesis, and what’s more, it is far less plausible than the notion of a god.
So yes, I would agree that the two spheres of human endeavour, “faith,” and, “science,” have NOTHING to say to each other. But, instead of fallaciously trying to rid god from the equations, why don’t scientists get their own message, and leave God alone? If they stuck to the observable universe, instead of wasting vast sums on colliders, we might have all had our flying cars by now, floating on a cloud of Dark Matter, repelling the effects of gravity? I mean, who knows? Does it really require a new, enlightened generation before science can take its next paradigm shift, back to real physics? . . .
1
-
1
-
1
-
I made a comment that leaned very much in the same direction as your conclusions. People sometimes get attached to theories like they’re their children. And that’s often because of the system they operate in, wherein they are now, “known,” for their Dark Matter work and get asked to guest on, or even host, science shows on that basis. It becomes the foundation of their reputation, even the gongs they have been awarded, so they fear being, “discredited.”
It takes discipline and courage to lead the charge on alternative theories when you’re in such a position. Even Einstein was capable of a bit of humbug. Though he was at least capable of apologising for that and giving credit where it was due. Yet, that is a vanishingly rare quality in every profession. And I think it goes some way toward explaining many of the hold ups we have seen in the history of scientific developments.
I think it was Earnest Hemingway who said, “Sometimes we have to kill our darlings.” I may be paraphrasing that, from my unreliable memory? But it was pretty close. He was talking about great characters who, nevertheless, do not serve the story you’re trying to tell. Or a great plot line, which nevertheless, interfere’s with or fudges an otherwise clean story ark.
But it’s people with that kind of commitment to their craft, whether it be science or the arts, who always win out in the end. It would be a tragedy for, “Dark Matter,” to end up being remembered in the way we think of, “Flat Earth theories,” today. As beloved ideas that were clung to in spite of all mounting evidence to the contrary. But it seems to be steering that way.
1
-
@usdeac : People do complain about that a lot, so you’re obviously not alone. But, as a convention for identifying a phenomena that cannot be described by science (yet) I think it works rather well. At least as a short hand. I immediately know something about the topic, because I know what science means by, “dark,” when applied in the name. I think it arose out scientists referring to the opposite side of the moon, which gets as much light as the side we all see, as, “the dark side of the moon.” But I stand to be corrected there.
Dark energy, dark matter are known (at least, proposed) entities, but we don’t know how they work. I find the term useful.
1
-
Challenge for all: Who can answer this? Alan Guth says space inflated, but, “Time,” didn’t? If space inflated, so did time with it! That’s why it, “looks,” like space suddenly inflated in the blink of an eye. It didn’t. Time expanded with the rest of space, so it looks, “smaller,” from a huge distance, in the same way that baryonic matter does. I’m amazed this never occurs to physicists!
Can anyone contradict this? Or show where Guth has taken the expansion of time into account? Presumably, we are still believing in time dilation and Einstein’s theories? And before anyone says, “They must have thought about that,” I ask you to site ONE example where inflation takes the expansion of time into account? Just one?
I tell you, one of the greatest oversights of common sense in astrophysics is inflation theory! Which should technically be called the, “Inflation Hypothesis,” given that there is zero evidence for it, unless you count that which, as Sabine just explained, can be applied to a raft of other theories?
I can say, “There’s this guy who paints the sky each night to make it blue, but some nights he’s too tired and leaves it, so it’s white on those days.” To which you can say, “But, where’s your evidence?” To which I answer, “Look at the sky? It’s blue isn’t it? That’s my evidence.” Preposterous? Welcome to Inflation Theory.
It’s so obvious, when you think about it! Einstein showed us that we have to think of space AND time as being properties of the same thing! But then we exclude time for inflation? Inflation never happened!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1