Scantlings

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

So, physics tells us that when you and I are sailing together, we may really be doing entirely different things in different parts of the universe at different times, but somehow the Newtonian illusion is convincing enough that we can talk about it or even drown together. I really need to think about this more.

Don Hoffman was a totally brilliant PhD classmate of Janell's at MIT. When we knew him, he was also an evangelical who was just beginning to drink alcohol and believe in evolution. He seems still to be grappling with some of the same issues.

He started his career as an aircraft engineer at Hughes, so there's still hope that Larry will blossom into a quantum/cognitive philosopher.

I like the perception, and really don't give a crap if it's real. I'm going to just go on perceiving/pretending I have a nice boat and a beautiful wife.

Works for me.

The article is a fun read. I think I'll forward it to my son.

Orestes Munn wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

So, physics tells us that when you and I are sailing together, we may really be doing entirely different things in different parts of the universe at different times, but somehow the Newtonian illusion is convincing enough that we can talk about it or even drown together. I really need to think about this more.

Don Hoffman was a totally brilliant PhD classmate of Janell's at MIT. When we knew him, he was also an evangelical who was just beginning to drink alcohol and believe in evolution. He seems still to be grappling with some of the same issues.

He started his career as an aircraft engineer at Hughes, so there's still hope that Larry will blossom into a quantum/cognitive philosopher.

I guess that explains the 1000 yard stare you had after the squalls last summer. I was in the universe where we had to live with what came and I have enough trouble functioning in 1 universe, much less mine, yours, Tim's, Bob's and Rob's. I have only so many brain cells left firing. they can't keep up with you lofty thinkers.

Rob McAlpine wrote:I like the perception, and really don't give a crap if it's real. I'm going to just go on perceiving/pretending I have a nice boat and a beautiful wife.

Works for me.

The article is a fun read. I think I'll forward it to my son.

I am with Rob on this, I like the illusion I am living.

According to Pastafarians the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after a heavy drinking session.
Although this may be a slightly flawed belief, it would explain a few things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Jeroen

LarryHoward wrote:
I guess that explains the 1000 yard stare you had after the squalls last summer.

That was the scopolamine and other Newtonian issues.

So Hoffman is saying quantum mechanics says objects don't exist, but I thought the Pauli uncertainty principle stated you can't project exactly where an object is, just the probability of it being in that position.

Have I missed something as this stuff has moved on over the years?

Interesting article, I have always justified being somewhere pleasurable on the premise that if I wasn't there, the place wouldn't exist.

I thought it was just a joke.

Olaf Hart wrote:So Hoffman is saying quantum mechanics says objects don't exist, but I thought the Pauli uncertainty principle stated you can't project exactly where an object is, just the probability of it being in that position.

Have I missed something as this stuff has moved on over the years?

Interesting article, I have always justified being somewhere pleasurable on the premise that if I wasn't there, the place wouldn't exist.

I thought it was just a joke.

Pauli was talking about things that exist at the quantum level, i.e., subatomic particles. However, they are only where they are in a probabilistic way. The objects Don Hoffman is referring to are the subjects of human perceptions. They have no meaningful existence at the quantum level.

I thought he was trying to tie the subatomic theory to objects that we can perceive.
" there are no public objects out there sitting in some pre existing space"
I think he is simplifying what quantum mechanics actually predicts.

I'll save reading the article for later, but no drinking or religion or philosophy required: Look at two basic observable phenomena.

1) The simple "time dilation" experiment of Special Relativity. A before-voyage synchronized clock sent into orbit where it can travel significantly close to the speed of light that returns to earth shows a time different from clocks that stayed on earth. Time is not the storybook "this happened and then that happened and then..."

2) The two-slit experiment from quantum physics. A photon, the smallest indivisible bundle of light, travels through two adjacent slits to interfere with itself! It somehow goes through both slits.

Our "local," as mathematicians would say, perception is a naive view of a richer universe.

A corollary is that our basic notion that we live and we die and it's over is a silly view. We exist, that's all we can say. Comforting. Again, no religion required.

Olaf Hart wrote:I thought he was trying to tie the subatomic theory to objects that we can perceive.
" there are no public objects out there sitting in some pre existing space"
I think he is simplifying what quantum mechanics actually predicts.

Oh, sorry. Yes, I think that's at least in part what Hoffman is doing, inasmuch as I understand it. However, if Rob's boat and wife existed on the quantum plane, they would have a disquietingly non-zero probability of being in my slip and evil hands, respectively, as we speak.

Reality is overrated.

As long as the beer still works, it's OK.

Speaking of that - I like the idea of a quantum multiverse. I can absolve myself of all responsibility for, "choices", since somewhere one of me is making all of them.

Reality is frequently inaccurate.
That has always been one of my guiding principles. Reading the books of Carlos Castaneda was an interesting view into another personal reality.

I say hogwash.

I say it's tree. Someone says, no, the tree is not thing because it's made up of molecules too small to see. And someone else says, actually, the molecules are made up of atoms, and the atoms are made up of even smaller particles, and the individual smaller particles don't behave like big collections of molecules and their behavior is modeled by these equations that we call quantum mechanics. So what.

But I say it's still a tree. You look at it, and I look at it, and we see the same thing in the same place. It has properties that are independent of the observer and which persist through time. That's all we ask of reality.

Olaf Hart wrote:So Hoffman is saying quantum mechanics says objects don't exist, but I thought the Pauli uncertainty principle stated you can't project exactly where an object is, just the probability of it being in that position.

Have I missed something as this stuff has moved on over the years?

Interesting article, I have always justified being somewhere pleasurable on the premise that if I wasn't there, the place wouldn't exist.

I thought it was just a joke.

Doesn't this mean that we've finally found a way for Physics to catch up with Rene D'Carte ???

SemiSalt wrote:I say hogwash.

I say it's tree. Someone says, no, the tree is not thing because it's made up of molecules too small to see. And someone else says, actually, the molecules are made up of atoms, and the atoms are made up of even smaller particles, and the individual smaller particles don't behave like big collections of molecules and their behavior is modeled by these equations that we call quantum mechanics. So what.

But I say it's still a tree. You look at it, and I look at it, and we see the same thing in the same place. It has properties that are independent of the observer and which persist through time. That's all we ask of reality.

I agree with the first part and that's how virtually everyone goes through life, but I think the contribution of this line of inquiry is the formal demonstration that the tree, viewed at the quantum level, at least, does not have properties independent of the observer. That notion is fundamentally at odds with the conventional scientific notions of perception and mind.

I have a headache!

Orestes Munn wrote:

SemiSalt wrote:I say hogwash.

I say it's tree. Someone says, no, the tree is not thing because it's made up of molecules too small to see. And someone else says, actually, the molecules are made up of atoms, and the atoms are made up of even smaller particles, and the individual smaller particles don't behave like big collections of molecules and their behavior is modeled by these equations that we call quantum mechanics. So what.

But I say it's still a tree. You look at it, and I look at it, and we see the same thing in the same place. It has properties that are independent of the observer and which persist through time. That's all we ask of reality.

I agree with the first part and that's how virtually everyone goes through life, but I think the contribution of this line of inquiry is the formal demonstration that the tree, viewed at the quantum level, at least, does not have properties independent of the observer. That notion is fundamentally at odds with the conventional scientific notions of perception and mind.

Yup, to put it simply, I'm pretty sure that "Reality" is a series of conventions. Some are supported by "science" and some clearly aren't. I have dear friends with whom I do not share conventions. (I'm an atheist and they are devout.) For them and those who agree with them God is as "real" as the tree. For me, he/she/it simply doesn't exist. Given my friends and I share a tremendous number of "real" things, meaning we agree on what those things are, my conclusion is that one needs to choose the fantasy in which one wants to live, lay back, and enjoy the ride. Getting all puckered up about what is "real" and what is "not" is simply silly.

But, there is a way to measure the value of the various versions of reality. Some have a large number of positive consequences for those one loves and oneself. Others are highly destructive and painful. My brother had a view of reality that probably killed him. My view of reality seems to keep me happy and healthy. As a result, I'd posit that while there is simply no way to "prove" that one or another reality is "right", it is easy to establish the utility of a given reality by simply measuring how many folks feel better living in one reality over an other.

In the end, as D'carte said, we may be in a dream or we may not. We can't know. The only think we can "know" is that we are thinking. The rest is fantasy.

The rest is fantasy.

But if your run into it with your car, you'll find that it's still a tree.

BeauV wrote:
But, there is a way to measure the value of the various versions of reality. Some have a large number of positive consequences for those one loves and oneself. Others are highly destructive and painful. My brother had a view of reality that probably killed him. My view of reality seems to keep me happy and healthy. As a result, I'd posit that while there is simply no way to "prove" that one or another reality is "right", it is easy to establish the utility of a given reality by simply measuring how many folks feel better living in one reality over an other.

I think this is Don's point with the example of the adaptive significance of water to the organism not being a linear function of quantity. Clearly, the value functions we apply to the world determine survival.

SemiSalt wrote:

The rest is fantasy.

But if your run into it with your car, you'll find that it's still a tree.

As Samuel Johnson said striking his foot against a rock while talking about Bishop Berkeley's view that all objects were a fantasy: "I refute it thus!"

Just because a shared fantasy causes injury doesn't mean it's not a fantasy. It's just well and completely shared.

SemiSalt wrote:

The rest is fantasy.

But if your run into it with your car, you'll find that it's still a tree.

Semi, the "Car Care in the PNW" thread is two doors down.

One view of reality is simply how it's defined by our senses. Birds' eyes can detect UV light, so they see 4D color rather than humans' 3D, except for the color blind--many men have only 2D color perception. A dog's world is defined mostly through its sense of smell.

kdh wrote:One view of reality is simply how it's defined by our senses. Birds' eyes can detect UV light, so they see 4D color rather than humans' 3D, except for the color blind--many men have only 2D color perception. A dog's world is defined mostly through its sense of smell.

Since smells linger, dogs actually experience the past and present simultaneously.

Beau, I think the god thing is a very good example of reality being based on the observers perspective.

There appears to be a basic human need to believe In a greater good, and to contribute to this greater good.

To me, organised religion is a product marketed to this need.

So some people need religion, some need Greenpeace or Socialism.

Their reality is determined by their perspective.

On the other hand, the guy I just missed hitting on the highway the other night probably didn't exist.

Our deaths are a certainty. "Loss of consciousness." Ponder that.

We live knowing we're fucked. That's fucked.

Olaf Hart wrote:Beau, I think the god thing is a very good example of reality being based on the observers perspective.

There appears to be a basic human need to believe In a greater good, and to contribute to this greater good.

To me, organised religion is a product marketed to this need.

So some people need religion, some need Greenpeace or Socialism.

Their reality is determined by their perspective.

On the other hand, the guy I just missed hitting on the highway the other night probably didn't exist.

I agree, but I think it goes deeper. We seem to be wired for spiritual experience. I am a strong atheist. I think religion is, on the whole, not a very good thing. However, I routinely tear up during a good church service and even very, very, occasionally at a synagogue. I have an intense mistrust, but great respect, for the whole thing.

kdh wrote:Our deaths are a certainty. "Loss of consciousness." Ponder that.

We live knowing we're fucked. That's fucked.

.

Shit happens, then you die

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qFIaI1M5kU[/youtube]

With surtitles for those folks who don't speak Canadian.