Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

discovermagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#41

Post by georgieporgie »

Create wrote: post #31
ceejayoz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age of the father does have an effect, actually. http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20030... edit: Also, as someone who's had to use sperm donation to conceive... > Wonder if that's his kid? is pretty offensive. It's his kid, whether he's the genetic father or not.

Although citation is needed, if I remember correctly, because of lacking healthy young Japanese men after WWII, ageing fathers' sperm contributed to at least as much to newborn malformations as the nuclear fallout. But the thread also tells you about the euphemism under the guise of 'ego' in the article, and how society today is structured (ie. power of the old vs. youth in our times). At his age, he should clearly l…

It's interesting that you mention the Japanese, because when I looked into it awhile ago, I could find no evidence of any increase in birth defects following the bombing. I could swear that we had pictures of deformed children in a textbook as a kid, so I started Googling it, but the only things I turned up said "no statistically significant increase".

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#42

Post by maxharris »

Symmetry wrote: post #40

A rather depressing interview. I enjoyed a lot of the explanations of Physics in *The Emperor's New Mind", but even there I could see big holes in his arguments about consciousness. For example, he talks about how its impossible to make an algorithm tile a grid in a certain way, but I had a screensaver which in fact did what he was saying was impossible. Here I just feel sort of sad and lost. I think my least favorit…

> astronomers in the Renaissance would have been equally justified in rejecting the heliocentric system on account of it being at odds with what they saw around them

False. Sights observed through a telescope were also part of "what they saw around them." A true theory accounts for all the evidence (and if it's not ultimately reducible to or based on something you can get from the five senses, it's not evidence).

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#43

Post by natep »

planetguy wrote: post #37
natep wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see that as an accurate description of how Penrose is thinking about the problem (disclaimer: I've only read this interview, and not any of his books). I think he's saying that 1. Everything about QM other than its extremely accurate predictions is wrong 2. We don't have a theory that explains consciousness And since he is looking for a unified theory, he wants his theory to encompass all of general relativit…

I've skimmed one or two of his books. There's no doubt that he knows his physics better than most physicists. However I'm not sure what you're saying he's saying differs from what I'm saying he's saying. In both cases, the basic argument is that since we don't understand physics and we don't understand quantum mechanics then they might be related. Now, that's not a conclusive proof that they're related but it might b…

I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this?

I (and Penrose, I believe) like to think that there is a unified theory out there waiting to be found, because the alternative is that reality arbitrarily behaves in different ways in different situations. If that is the case, then fine, but we've made so much progress in science already by assuming that physical laws are universally applicable and not arbitrarily varying.

To put it another way, I reversed the premise and conclusion, Penrose think there is a unified theory, therefore there is a connection between consciousness and QM phenomenon that we don't understand. But you claim that Penrose doesn't understand A&B, therefore thinks there is a connecting universal theory.

Maybe it's a minor nitpick, but it caused me to question why I think there's a unified theory out there, which was good mental exercise.

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#44

Post by flom »

Due to the inconsistency between quantum and relativity, I'm more inclined to believe that the problem is with relativity. The idea that physics is fundamentally non-deterministic satisfies me philosophically. If physics were deterministic, than I should be able to theoretically build a computer, input the state of the universe, and then be able to know what will happen in your life (assuming I don't tell anyone the computer output, because that would perturb the dynamics). I find that prospect far more unsettling than having to account for a superposition of states until I obtain more information in the future.

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#45

Post by evoxed »

te_platt wrote: post #27
Flow wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are any of his book suitable as casual on-the-tram reading? Could you recommend one of his books? Thanks.

I wouldn't say any of his books are exactly casual reading. The Large the Small and the Human Mind is probably the most casual in that it merely requires thinking and even then some of that is done for you the responses from Abner Shimony, Nancy Cartwright, and Stephen Hawking (contributing authors). The others require active engagement to work through. Especially Road to Reality - there is nothing casual about that…

I started reading Road to Reality very casually– bought the book one day, next day I was in a Starbucks enjoying it and my tea. 10 minutes later one of the employees takes a break and the only table open is next to mine near the back. After a few minutes of sighing, stretching, and looking at the door to see if any new customers were coming in he turned to ask what I was reading. The next 30 minutes was the first and only time I have ever had a discussion about particle physics with a barista.

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#46

Post by endtime »

planetguy wrote: post #28
snowwrestler wrote: post #17

Of course it's wrong; all scientific theories are provisional approximations, and the conflicts between quantum mechanics and general relativity are well known. The hard part is proposing an alternative theory that fits all the known evidence. Quantum mechanics and general relativity both match a ton of observations; anything that is going to replace them will need to at least match the same set of evidence at least…

You seem to be engaging more with the headline writer than with Penrose. They're both, perhaps, wrong, but Penrose is wrong in a far more interesting way. Penrose doesn't just think quantum mechanics is wrong in the sense that it can't quite be lined up with general relativity, he thinks that quantum mechanics and consciousness are the same problem and that we can't understand one without the other. Now, to me this s…

>In my own opinion the question is meaningless which is why I think consciousness is some kind of inevitable emergent property of intelligent systems;

Uh-oh...I was mostly with you up until that sentence. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ (or the underlying http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_...).

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#47

Post by Symmetry »

maxharris wrote: post #42
Symmetry wrote: post #40

A rather depressing interview. I enjoyed a lot of the explanations of Physics in *The Emperor's New Mind", but even there I could see big holes in his arguments about consciousness. For example, he talks about how its impossible to make an algorithm tile a grid in a certain way, but I had a screensaver which in fact did what he was saying was impossible. Here I just feel sort of sad and lost. I think my least favorit…

> astronomers in the Renaissance would have been equally justified in rejecting the heliocentric system on account of it being at odds with what they saw around them False. Sights observed through a telescope were also part of "what they saw around them." A true theory accounts for all the evidence (and if it's not ultimately reducible to or based on something you can get from the five senses, it's not evidence).

Telescopes don't show you that (contrary to what your inner ear is telling you) its the Earth that moves rather than the sun. At best they tell you that Jupiter has things orbiting it.

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#48

Post by CrLf »

flom wrote: post #44

Due to the inconsistency between quantum and relativity, I'm more inclined to believe that the problem is with relativity. The idea that physics is fundamentally non-deterministic satisfies me philosophically. If physics were deterministic, than I should be able to theoretically build a computer, input the state of the universe, and then be able to know what will happen in your life (assuming I don't tell anyone the…

You would never be able to predict future states of the universe, simply because you cannot represent such states within the universe they represent. Without the ability to predict, the universe is effectively non-deterministic (literally, no one within it can determine its future states).

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#49

Post by pjscott »

Symmetry wrote: post #36
maxharris wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you mean. His intellect certainly shines through in the interview, especially in the latter part where he talks about physics.

Really? I thought that the parts about physics were really disappointingly fuzzy. Especially: "physicists have to say, well, somehow your consciousness takes one route or the other route without your knowing it." I think that its sort of shocking that he could fail to understand the arguments of his opponents so badly as to end up saying something so ridiculous.

I have a generally negative opinion of Roger Penrose's ideas, but let's be fair: the fuzziness here was probably inevitable, given the popular nature of the magazine interviewing him. If you judged scientists harshly for sounding like handwavy simpletons in condensed interviews for reporters, you would end up drastically underestimating most scientists who have ever had such an interview.

Re: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

#50

Post by planetguy »

natep wrote: post #43
planetguy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've skimmed one or two of his books. There's no doubt that he knows his physics better than most physicists. However I'm not sure what you're saying he's saying differs from what I'm saying he's saying. In both cases, the basic argument is that since we don't understand physics and we don't understand quantum mechanics then they might be related. Now, that's not a conclusive proof that they're related but it might b…

I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? I (and Penrose, I believe) like to think that there is a unified theory out there waiting to be found, because the alternative is that reality arbitrarily behaves in different way…

I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this?

Well, a unified theory should "explain everything", but not necessarily on the right level. For instance, basic undergraduate-level physics and chemistry are sufficient to explain both "why is copper a conductor?" and "why do dogs like steak?" but this is not the correct level of explanation that you'd go to in order to understand both these phenomena. To explain the conductivity of copper, you'll want to go to crystal structures and electronic energy levels, whereas to explain why dogs like steak you'll want to bypass all the chemistry and go straight to the fact that dogs are omnivores, that fresh meat is a large portion of their ancestors' diets, that animals have nervous systems programmed to keep them alive, that eating is necessary to stay alive, and so forth. You could conceptually go all the way down to "this atom likes that atom" but these aren't the principles which you'd reach for.

Similarly, while everything should in theory be explicable by the fundamental physics of the universe, it may well be that consciousness can arise purely from classical physics.

Post reply on HN