Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by codexon » Fri, May 04, 2012, 6:54 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #33

planetguy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't understand why some researchers are so quick to blame our failure to understand consciousness on the fact that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. I was under the impression that we're still nowhere near fully understanding the brain even from a classical perspective.

We understand parts of the brain classically. There are parts of the brain that operate like organic circuits of boolean operators.

There is no quantum level magic.

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

#52

Post by jessriedel » Fri, May 04, 2012, 6:56 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #19

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to start by looking up the way sperm is being produced. It will help you clear the confusion with the link between the mother's age and birth defects.

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.

Thought this was important enough to reply again. Wikipedia:

> In 1933, Lionel Penrose analyzed data for 727 children in 150 families and found no paternal age effect for the risk of Down syndrome after controlling for the maternal age effect. Largely based on a 2003 paper by Fisch et al. that found a paternal age effect only "in association with a maternal age of 35 years and older", a 2009 review of the literature subsequent to Penrose's paper concludes that "a paternal-age effect exists, but is very small in comparison to maternal-age effect in Down syndrome prevalence".

In principle, I suppose this is compatible with what your article stated:

> "Older fathers may contribute just as much as older mothers to the dramatic increase in Down syndrome risk faced by babies born to older couples. A new study found that older fathers were responsible for up to 50% of the rise in Down syndrome risk when the mother was also over 40.

I'm not sure how many conflicting studies are out there and factored into the 2009 review.

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

#53

Post by planetguy » Fri, May 04, 2012, 6:56 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #47

maxharris wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Also, astronomers in the Renaissance didn't have telescopes, so the moons of Jupiter weren't part of what they saw around them anyway.

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

#54

Post by saraid216 » Fri, May 04, 2012, 6:56 PM UTC

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…

Uh. That's what evidence is for. If you have new evidence arguing for a different theory, then you present that evidence and have it tested. It gets added to the pool of "what we see around us".

That's why Penrose is unable to argue against QM the way he argues against string theory: there's experimental evidence and he can't gainsay that.

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

#55

Post by ThomPete » Fri, May 04, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

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…

Why do there need to be a unified theory?

That seems only the be necessary if you are looking for some sort of Truth which in itself is saying there must be a creator (i.e. someone must have defined the true way too look at this)

Science the way I understand it in its most postmodern interpretation isn't really about finding a unified theory but rather about finding the one thing that changes the paradigm and using that.

For instance beliving the world is flat might not be true, but it's true enough to get from one village to the next. The problem is when you want to travel further.

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

#56

Post by calibraxis » Fri, May 04, 2012, 7:08 PM UTC

Whodi wrote: post #20

"Is it true that you were bad at math as a kid?" "I was unbelievably slow... I always got lost... I was at least twice as slow as anybody else. Eventually I would do very well. You see, if I could do it that way, I would get very high marks." Speaking as someone who still struggles with math, and was generally the dumbest kid in the most advanced classes, it's a huge relief to hear that someone as brilliant as Penros…

Grothendieck is one of the towering figures of 20th century math. He said:

"Since then I’ve had the chance in the world of mathematics that bid me welcome, to meet quite a number of people, both among my “elders” and among young people in my general age group who were more brilliant, much more ‘gifted’ than I was. I admired the facility with which they picked up, as if at play, new ideas, juggling them as if familiar with them from the cradle–while for myself I felt clumsy, even oafish, wandering painfully up an arduous track, like a dumb ox faced with an amorphous mountain of things I had to learn (so I was assured) things I felt incapable of understanding the essentials or following through to the end. Indeed, there was little about me that identified the kind of bright student who wins at prestigious competitions or assimilates almost by sleight of hand, the most forbidding subjects."

There are many other such mathematicians who aren't flashy. (I recall that Hilbert is a famous example.) So I wouldn't be discouraged by this. Environmental factors are probably far more important.

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

#57

Post by ktizo » Fri, May 04, 2012, 7:09 PM UTC

codexon wrote: post #51

baddox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why some researchers are so quick to blame our failure to understand consciousness on the fact that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. I was under the impression that we're still nowhere near fully understanding the brain even from a classical perspective.

We understand parts of the brain classically. There are parts of the brain that operate like organic circuits of boolean operators. There is no quantum level magic.

Quantum biology is making inroads in a few areas, such as in the mechanism of chlorophyll. I would not be surprised if it starts popping up in bits of neurology, even in the parts that we currently understand classically.

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

#58

Post by jakeonthemove » Fri, May 04, 2012, 7:10 PM UTC

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…

But you can in fact build such a computer - you'll just have to solve the little problem of accounting for absolutely all the factors that directly and indirectly affect the result. Then predicting the future is easy peasy :-)...

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

#59

Post by planetguy » Fri, May 04, 2012, 7:10 PM UTC

codexon wrote: post #51

baddox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why some researchers are so quick to blame our failure to understand consciousness on the fact that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. I was under the impression that we're still nowhere near fully understanding the brain even from a classical perspective.

We understand parts of the brain classically. There are parts of the brain that operate like organic circuits of boolean operators. There is no quantum level magic.

A large slab of Penrose's book The Emperor's New Mind is, if I recall correctly, devoted to describing how certain structures of the brain just might have some quantum mechanics involved. I don't recall the details and I don't know whether it's all been disproven as we understand the brain better.

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

#60

Post by pradocchia » Fri, May 04, 2012, 7:13 PM UTC

planetguy wrote: post #22

Whodi wrote: post #20

"Is it true that you were bad at math as a kid?" "I was unbelievably slow... I always got lost... I was at least twice as slow as anybody else. Eventually I would do very well. You see, if I could do it that way, I would get very high marks." Speaking as someone who still struggles with math, and was generally the dumbest kid in the most advanced classes, it's a huge relief to hear that someone as brilliant as Penros…

I don't know how old you are, but I'm pretty sure Penrose overtook you by the time he was your age.

Please be charitable.