351–360 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not entirely true https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-action-distance/
> Not entirely true If you want to communicate anything by that, please explain what you're referring to. I'm not going to read that entire page trying to guess. I can't at first glance see anyone asking "what is physics?", if that's what you meant.
Interesting because it messes with the school of thought that everything is determined already and we're just following a sequence of actions that arise from the starting conditions of the universe. If causality is broken then maybe we have free will?
Causality isn't broken; the universe is "simultaneously causal and teleological," because it's superdetermined. There also isn't any free will, because there isn't actually any agent who could have it. Actions we perceive as volitional actually arise in the brain up to 7s before we "choose" them. The sense of a "me" is a post hoc add-on that claims credit for everything, in order to unite the disparate phenomena that…
The compilation of each possible Play in an Extensive Normal Form Game into a cellular automata can constitute a refutation by counterexample of your claim. It satisfies the agent condition through congruence with the technical language defining the concept of agent in artificial intelligence literature as it relates to agents in multi-agent multi-step decision theory problems. The condition of non-deterministic policies is found and shown to be optimal by Nash's justification for an mixed strategy equilibrium. The underlying mathematics that leads there is proven via Russel and there exists various proofs of the desiderata of probability from others which can begin atop that. Furthermore by compiling the formal system to get a physical system we create the ability for a logical analogy between the formal system and the physical system through Aristotle's analogical congruence concepts. We can count the cell configurations and we can count the transitional structure, but this is mostly a formality since we know through the definition of the compilation that they must agree. As far as I can tell at every single step in the laddering up there are proofs from the basics of logic to the mathematics to the use of probability to the justification through utility theory and even to the computational universality necessary to create the physical embedding of the agent in our reality.
The prior conception of guess appears laughable posterior to computation and comparison with evidence, but is just science prior and seeing it is wrong is hindsight bias posterior. It might sound laughable, but it is actually the case that it is not a laughing matter [1]. In like manner, but slightly different and perilously close to being anti-scientific is that you don't know until the observation whether guesses would go one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not entirely true If you want to communicate anything by that, please explain what you're referring to. I'm not going to read that entire page trying to guess. I can't at first glance see anyone asking "what is physics?", if that's what you meant.
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy includes topics from quantum mechanics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While most laws of physics may be time symmetric, the laws of thermodynamics are not - wherever there is a gradient in entropy. In very informal terms, anywhere where there is very low entropy (higher order), any direction away from that will likely (to the point of certainty) be in a direction of higher entropy (lower order). For instance, if you have a jar of red & blue marble, with high order (such as perfect alte…
Not sure if you appreciate this, but if you repeat the shaking experiment enough times, you will see it return to perfect order- at some exceptionally tiny probability. I'm pretty sure you are saying that but instead of "practical amount", it's easier to say it's just exceptionally unlikely.
Marbles in a jar are not arranged in a neat spacial grid, but in all kinds of configurations.
The chance of recovering any near perfect starting symmetry, depending on the size of a jar, might take decades or millions, or more years.
In the meantime, all that energy being used to shake the jar is generating huge amounts of heat entropy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While most laws of physics may be time symmetric, the laws of thermodynamics are not - wherever there is a gradient in entropy. In very informal terms, anywhere where there is very low entropy (higher order), any direction away from that will likely (to the point of certainty) be in a direction of higher entropy (lower order). For instance, if you have a jar of red & blue marble, with high order (such as perfect alte…
So I think I understand this argument and it makes sense to me (at the moment). To me the (to paraphrase), "increasing as we move away from the big bang" stuff seems to lead right to the idea that the expansion of the universe is what we perceive as the passing of time, but I never hear any one knowledgeable say that. Is there some obvious reason that it's not that succinct?
It is possible that that the original expansion, inflation, and even dark energy are also driven by thermodynamics, but we just don’t know that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While most laws of physics may be time symmetric, the laws of thermodynamics are not - wherever there is a gradient in entropy. In very informal terms, anywhere where there is very low entropy (higher order), any direction away from that will likely (to the point of certainty) be in a direction of higher entropy (lower order). For instance, if you have a jar of red & blue marble, with high order (such as perfect alte…
That all makes sense, but why does cause and effect seem to go one way with the entropy arrow?
Everything we do takes advantage of the higher to lower entropy gradient.
We get relatively organized photons from the sun, a percentage get stored in wood of trees, so we can burn that for heat which can drive an engine or generate electricity, with the end result is doing some useful work.
And we don’t actually lose any energy, due to conservation of energy.
But we have now lost USABLE energy, because all our captured energy is now heat diffusely spreading out from our engine into the atmosphere where it becomes uncontrolled DISORGANIZED and therefore no longer usable.
So clear causes tend to occur in past of clear effects.
For large objects.
But again, if you watch videos of individual marbles bouncing around, forward or backward, you see just as clear chains of cause and effect in either direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While most laws of physics may be time symmetric, the laws of thermodynamics are not - wherever there is a gradient in entropy. In very informal terms, anywhere where there is very low entropy (higher order), any direction away from that will likely (to the point of certainty) be in a direction of higher entropy (lower order). For instance, if you have a jar of red & blue marble, with high order (such as perfect alte…
> And no practical amount of shaking the jar will ever return the marbles to a high order state again. This can't be true. Take the case where there's only 2 marbles, it's likely that at some point that shaking them will return them to the original state. For higher numbers of marbles the probability becomes lower and lower, but is never 0.
Exactly. It doesn’t take a very large jar to make a return to an original state practically impossible. But even for two marbles, shaking them to return them to their original locations costs a fair amount of organized energy.
And that is organized chemical energy in your muscles, which you are dissipating as disorganized heat energy due to your efforts, increasing the total disorganization.
And the marbles are microscopically wearing down, shedding compounds. The jar is also wearing down. Both becoming less organized.
So even with two marbles, overall entropy continues increasing.
We can locally reverse entropy, only at the cost of actually increasing entropy in total.
- Organizing your day takes effort and uses up useful organized energy.
- Computation uses up useful organized energy.
- Your cells, maintaining their metabolism, uses up useful organized energy.
No matter what we do, entropy still increases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main thing I didn't like about it was pretending it's all scientists involved and not philosophers. The article talks mostly about Huw Price—and from phrases like "Scientists, including Price", you'd think he's a scientist. He's an Australian philosopher. He was my professor for a couple of philosophy-of-science-related courses at Sydney Uni 20 years ago. He started the Centre for Time there I believe. He's a gre…
I would imagine that the vast majority of people working at a place like vice don't understand the distinction between soft and hard sciences, don't care about the distinction, or are bitter about the distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feynman was actually quite sophisticated philosophically eg. “The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth.” I think when there is a purpose to philosophy eg. understanding science, it works better. When there isn't really philosophers tend to in many cases just discuss what other philosophers have said about each other which tends to get a bit circular and pointless.
I think perhaps there's a subtlety in that quote - "philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". Maybe part of the meaning, is that I'm the course of doing what scientists do, philosophy doesn't move their particular ball forward in the way they want so they can and sometimes do ignore it. Not necessarily that they should. This guy helped create nuclear weapons, and then quoted…
That was Oppenheimer, not Feynman.