201–210 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What experiments violate causality?
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-violate-local-causa... is one
In other words, it's a violation of classical realism, not a violation of locality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Earth is round" was once an unsatisfiable theory for quite a while.
This is such a common trope. Erasthenes observed the Earth must be round using shadows over 2 thousand years ago. There was never an intellectual controversy about it before internet dupes fell for an obvious prank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh this is super cool, thanks for sharing. I have strong (admittedly mostly irrational) inclinations against determinism, seeing something like this is exciting. Definitely going to have to give it a read. Sapolski's take on determinism was really a low blow for me, and I've since seen several other intellectuals I respect very highly espouse similar views, and there was a point where I would have agreed in my adoles…
The problem with arguing quantum non-determinism gives rise to consciousness is that it doesn't really give you free will, it just implies the consciousness is an unpredictable process. But a quantum physicist would then ask "to what degree?" because quantum mechanics is very deterministic over large sample sizes (and a few trillion proteins in the brain would be a very large sample). More importantly though, free wi…
The concept of infinity seems impossible to me in physical world. It's a great mathematical concept to model our understanding. Just like imaginary numbers. I cannot imagine anything being infinite in the physical world. I find the simulation hypothesis more probable than Universe being infinite. Space and Time is not infinite. It may be Gazillions of centuries old, but not infinity. It can't be.
If you're happy for mathematical structures to be infinite, why can't our universe (including ourselves) just be one infinite mathematical structure? Yes, it's very complex, but there's plenty of room in infinity. It doesn't need to have a "real" physical instantiation anywhere. It's like the simulation hypothesis, except you don't need the simulation. We're just the inside of an infinite self-experiencing mathematic…
Then how did the first one came about? What was there before it, pls don’t tell me nothing because it was nothing for a long time and then something must have triggered the first one. Or was there no first one because of infinity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-violate-local-causa... is one
>If a Bell inequality is violated, then either locality or realism (or simply "local realism") has also been violated. In other words, it's a violation of classical realism, not a violation of locality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're happy for mathematical structures to be infinite, why can't our universe (including ourselves) just be one infinite mathematical structure? Yes, it's very complex, but there's plenty of room in infinity. It doesn't need to have a "real" physical instantiation anywhere. It's like the simulation hypothesis, except you don't need the simulation. We're just the inside of an infinite self-experiencing mathematic…
Because universe is a physical structure, not mathematical, e.g. you can't define things into existence.
[0] Title of a paper by John Wheeler. Can't find it right now, but if you google "it from bit" you'll find a lot of commentary on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a common trope. Erasthenes observed the Earth must be round using shadows over 2 thousand years ago. There was never an intellectual controversy about it before internet dupes fell for an obvious prank.
How about 2001 year ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a common trope. Erasthenes observed the Earth must be round using shadows over 2 thousand years ago. There was never an intellectual controversy about it before internet dupes fell for an obvious prank.
There's nothing new in human experience. If we have flat Earthers now then they absolutely existed back then.
> What proof does the physicist have for this theory he dubbed “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC) that goes against the current Big Bang dogma? It doesn't go against the current "dogma", as the Big Bang theory only covers history up until a fraction of a second after the big bang. Anything before that is basically fair game, even though some ideas are further out there than others. Penrose admits it's a "crazy idea o…
> Hossenfelder's thoughts about FTL travel in her video from yesterday I didn't watch said video, but we have theories rooted in GR and Quantum Mechanics that would allow for FTL travel already using negative energy/pressure. We know there exists mechanisms to create negative pressure, like the Casimir effect. We know the universe is non-local, as per the Nobel prize awarded last year. And we are beginning to see exp…
Also 'violates causality' is an awful lot to unpack, and is glossing over so much nuance that I don't think it's really a meaningful thing to say. For example violation of the Bell inequalities does not rule out superdeterminism, and that has a very solid account of causality. It's just not a conventional one.