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

Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 591 posts

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#571

Post by hnfong »

throw0101c wrote: post #431
hansbo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

> I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right? Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist. There was the Big Bang, but we do not know what caused the Big Bang. But the particular Big Bang that started our particular universe may not have b…

> Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist.

I think the unsatisfactory feeling I get from these answers is that nobody ever tries to model worlds with different physics or different physical parameters and try to make them work.

It's one thing to know that everything will break down if parameters of this universe change slightly, but I don't think anyone ever actually seriously tried to make alternatives work, and simply assumed that the only model we know that works is the only possibility.

Of course, I understand it's hard, and we might not have the compute to properly run the simulations to see how things actually work out (without quantum computers, apparently the problem is exponentially hard on classical computers). But philosophically it feels lazy and unimaginative.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#572

Post by layer8 »

hnfong wrote: post #571
throw0101c wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right? Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist. There was the Big Bang, but we do not know what caused the Big Bang. But the particular Big Bang that started our particular universe may not have b…

> Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist. I think the unsatisfactory feeling I get from these answers is that nobody ever tries to model worlds with different physics or different physical parameters and try to make them work . It's one thing to know that everything will break down if parameters of this universe change slightly, but I don't think anyone ever actually…

> nobody ever tries to model worlds with different physics or different physical parameters and try to make them work.

Alternative models are being explored all the time. There is incentive to do so, because coming up with better explanations is likely to win Nobel prizes. What is now called the standard model, however, so far explains the existing observations the best, despite being more complex and having a higher amount of arbitrariness than most physicists would like.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#573

Post by layer8 »

User23 wrote: post #435
throw0101c wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right? Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist. There was the Big Bang, but we do not know what caused the Big Bang. But the particular Big Bang that started our particular universe may not have b…

Which leads to the wonderful question: why are there any contingent things? And: why are the contingent things that there are as complex as they are? I don't know of any plausible naturalist explanation besides Many-Worlds. And that supposes for the sake of discussion that Many-Worlds is in fact naturalist.

Many-worlds doesn’t explain the complexity of the standard model at all. It merely gets rid of the arbitrariness and discontinuity implied by wave-function collapse.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#574

Post by layer8 »

hansbo wrote: post #356
importantstuff wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one who has replied to your question has got the right answer. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21753/why-do-ele... has the right answer. There are multiple aspects to this argument, but essentially, the symmetries of your system force the charges in the Standard Model (quarks and leptons) to be the way they are due to gauge anomaly cancellation. If you believe in quark confinement, which is extremely w…

I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

I would posit that self-consistency is the only possible ultimate reason. Whatever other reason there is, you can always continue asking “why”, like children like to do, and will never come to an end. The only final explanatory is the absence of reduction ad absurdum. Another way to state this is to say that everything logically consistent probably exists, because there cannot be any other ultimate reason why it wouldn’t.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#575

Post by Mauneam »

knightoffaith wrote: post #570
Mauneam wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your card example, the theory that posits that you picked the cards intentionally is something that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. We are allowed to ask where you came from, what caused you to form the intent, and then prove or disprove such claims. No such inquiry is allowed with fine tuning, because it's designed to terminate the scientific probing. The designer is beyond understanding by definition. Y…

> The designer is beyond understanding by definition. Where in the argument is the designer defined this way? The argument is, roughly speaking: (1) The fine-tuning of universal constants is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. (3) Therefore, it is due to design. > You say that fine tuning proponents are still "open" to figuring out why or what this i…

>Where in the argument is the designer defined this way?

The argument is, roughly speaking:

(1) The fine-tuning of universal constants is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. (3) Therefore, it is due to design.

Ok, let me try and help you here.

In the argument, the designer is defined as beyond understanding right here: "(3) Therefore, it is due to design."

Still having trouble seeing it? Let me try and help a little more. It's here: "(3) THEREFORE, IT IS DUE TO DESIGN."

Do you see how absurd it would be for you to propose that this "design" came about on its own, or by chance? How that would put you right back on square one, exposing fine tuning as the mindless drivel that it is? Do you see how comical it would be of you to suggest that you have all the mysteries of this universe figured out and you are now ready to take on the challenge of figuring out its designer, or even more comically, that you have barely even begun understanding the universe you're in but you're "open" to leapfrogging right into figuring out the thing that designed it? Where else are you going to take this? The simulation hypothesis? As if the dude that built the simulator can be any less complicated than the dude that fine-tuned everything?

Let's resolve this disagreement before tackling the other issues you raise in your response. Do you still have trouble understanding where in the argument the designer is defined this way?

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#576

Post by knightoffaith »

Mauneam wrote: post #575
knightoffaith wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The designer is beyond understanding by definition. Where in the argument is the designer defined this way? The argument is, roughly speaking: (1) The fine-tuning of universal constants is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. (3) Therefore, it is due to design. > You say that fine tuning proponents are still "open" to figuring out why or what this i…

> Where in the argument is the designer defined this way? The argument is, roughly speaking: (1) The fine-tuning of universal constants is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. (3) Therefore, it is due to design. Ok, let me try and help you here. In the argument, the designer is defined as beyond understanding right here: "(3) Therefore, it is due to d…

Yes, I still have trouble where "beyond understanding" is in (3). One reason I'm having trouble is because theologians, for example, have made arguments about ascribing various properties about the designer, e.g. that the designer is omnipotent, spaceless, timeless, etc. This shouldn't be possible even in principle if the designer is beyond understanding by definition, just like it's impossible to make coherent arguments that a triangle does not have three sides. You've suggested that it seems silly to be able to understand anything beyond the physical universe accessible to us when we don't yet have a full understanding of it, but "it seems silly" seems to be different from "it follows by definition". And in any case, the multiverse hypothesis is an attempt to understand something beyond the physical universe accessible to us, but presumably you wouldn't leverage this same objection against it.

If you really mean "beyond empirical inquiry", I would be inclined to agree, though I don't know how other explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe are better in this respect.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#577

Post by Mauneam »

knightoffaith wrote: post #576
Mauneam wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where in the argument is the designer defined this way? The argument is, roughly speaking: (1) The fine-tuning of universal constants is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. (2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. (3) Therefore, it is due to design. Ok, let me try and help you here. In the argument, the designer is defined as beyond understanding right here: "(3) Therefore, it is due to d…

Yes, I still have trouble where "beyond understanding" is in (3). One reason I'm having trouble is because theologians, for example, have made arguments about ascribing various properties about the designer, e.g. that the designer is omnipotent, spaceless, timeless, etc. This shouldn't be possible even in principle if the designer is beyond understanding by definition, just like it's impossible to make coherent argum…

Ahh, theologians have made various claims about the designer? The same people that claim that he showed up as a burning bush one day, and as his own son the next?

Theologians have made many garbage assertions throughout centuries. Just because something is self-contradictory, paradoxical or nonsensical does not mean that a human hand can't put it down on paper. Here, watch this:

"A triangle does not have three sides. To find out why, and to get saved, come to the service on Sunday! (don't forget the donation)"

Other than theologians and their quackery, is there anything else that troubles you with regards to the assertion that the designer must be complex beyond understanding?

Furthermore, were you not trying to divorce religion from fine tuning? Are you finding that a little difficult? Do you see irony in the fact that you dragged it back into the dialogue all the while claiming that fine tuning can stand on its own?

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#578

Post by knightoffaith »

Mauneam wrote: post #577
knightoffaith wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I still have trouble where "beyond understanding" is in (3). One reason I'm having trouble is because theologians, for example, have made arguments about ascribing various properties about the designer, e.g. that the designer is omnipotent, spaceless, timeless, etc. This shouldn't be possible even in principle if the designer is beyond understanding by definition, just like it's impossible to make coherent argum…

Ahh, theologians have made various claims about the designer? The same people that claim that he showed up as a burning bush one day, and as his own son the next? Theologians have made many garbage assertions throughout centuries. Just because something is self-contradictory, paradoxical or nonsensical does not mean that a human hand can't put it down on paper. Here, watch this: "A triangle does not have three sides.…

These aren't the kind of assertions I'm referring to though---I'm referring to arguments whose conclusions follow logically from their premises, the kind you can't make about triangles not having three sides because you end up in logical contradictions. If you don't like theologians, go back to Aristotle and his arguments about, for example, the unmoved mover. I mention theologians because they are the ones most often in the business of making arguments about this subject. Of course, you still needn't buy into any religion or theology in going about this project of understanding the designer. Just one example: you might raise the famous problem of evil to claim that the designer cannot be all-good---that's a kind of understanding.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#579

Post by geye1234 »

jononomo wrote: post #555
knightoffaith wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know evolutionary psychology has been getting a lot of heat, but is evolutionary biology in general in crisis? As far as I know people like Gould weren't rejecting evolution wholesale so much as they were rejecting adaptationism.

Yes. There was a conference on this in 2016: https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-seek-to-update-evo... You can also read my other comment on this topic here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37014923

Very interesting, thanks!

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#580

Post by Mauneam »

knightoffaith wrote: post #578
Mauneam wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, theologians have made various claims about the designer? The same people that claim that he showed up as a burning bush one day, and as his own son the next? Theologians have made many garbage assertions throughout centuries. Just because something is self-contradictory, paradoxical or nonsensical does not mean that a human hand can't put it down on paper. Here, watch this: "A triangle does not have three sides.…

These aren't the kind of assertions I'm referring to though---I'm referring to arguments whose conclusions follow logically from their premises, the kind you can't make about triangles not having three sides because you end up in logical contradictions. If you don't like theologians, go back to Aristotle and his arguments about, for example, the unmoved mover. I mention theologians because they are the ones most ofte…

In an attempt to refute the point about the designer being beyond understanding, you appealed to religion, all the while claiming that you don't have to appeal to religion.

Then you claim that one can't make a kind of an argument that I just demonstrated one can make.

Now you bring the problem of evil into the dialogue, as if that somehow brings the designer within reach of our understanding, when if anything it moves the concept even further beyond our reach.

Not to mention that with the problem of evil, you're dragging morality into this, another framework of thought just like religion, and closely coupled with it, that science does not deal with or recognize. All the while claiming that fine tuning can stand on its own.

You brought up a bunch of very interesting points in one of your previous posts that I would love to respond to, and I have enjoyed the discussion thus far, but I feel like it would be pointless to engage further unless you can clean up and strengthen your argumentation with regards to understanding the designer, so that it's free of contradictions and self-refutations. Or at least demonstrate willingness to concede a point.

Post reply on HN