QM embarrassment

[jillery]

While stumbling through Youtube, I came across this from Sean
Carrroll:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y>

Titled "Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment)", Sean Carroll talks
about how, even after 80 years, there is still no consensus among
physicists about what QM actually means. He then spends most of his
time plugging his preferred interpretation, Many Worlds.

It's just 14 minutes long, and deals with topics that have been raised
in T.O. as relevant to the origins of the universe and how it actually
works.

This is one of series of science videos called "Sixty Symbols".

A point Carroll doesn't cover in this video is one I think important
to emphasize, that the many worlds Sean Carroll describes here are not
the same as the multiple universes from Multiverse.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ernest Major]

On 11/10/2017 19:11, jillery wrote:
> While stumbling through Youtube, I came across this from Sean
> Carrroll:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y>
>
> Titled "Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment)", Sean Carroll talks
> about how, even after 80 years, there is still no consensus among
> physicists about what QM actually means. He then spends most of his
> time plugging his preferred interpretation, Many Worlds.
>
> It's just 14 minutes long, and deals with topics that have been raised
> in T.O. as relevant to the origins of the universe and how it actually
> works.
>
> This is one of series of science videos called "Sixty Symbols".
>
> A point Carroll doesn't cover in this video is one I think important
> to emphasize, that the many worlds Sean Carroll describes here are not
> the same as the multiple universes from Multiverse.

I have a different argument (based on an argument against many worlds by
Larry Niven) that the number of universes under many worlds is infinite.
If there's a measurement in which the probabilities involve irrational
numbers there has to be a infinite number of universes for this to be
possible.

Carroll doesn't explicitly state this - in fact he seems to hold a
different opinion - but on watching the video I see that many worlds
could be interpreted not as universes splitting, but universes diverging.

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Stewart Robert Hinsley]

On 12/10/2017 01:25, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 19:11, jillery wrote:
>> While stumbling through Youtube, I came across this from Sean
>> Carrroll:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y>
>>
>> Titled "Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment)", Sean Carroll talks
>> about how, even after 80 years, there is still no consensus among
>> physicists about what QM actually means.  He then spends most of his
>> time plugging his preferred interpretation, Many Worlds.
>>
>> It's just 14 minutes long, and deals with topics that have been raised
>> in T.O. as relevant to the origins of the universe and how it actually
>> works.
>>
>> This is one of series of science videos called "Sixty Symbols".
>>
>> A point Carroll doesn't cover in this video is one I think important
>> to emphasize, that the many worlds Sean Carroll describes here are not
>> the same as the multiple universes from Multiverse.
>
> I have a different argument (based on an argument against many worlds by
> Larry Niven) that the number of universes under many worlds is infinite.
> If there's a measurement in which the probabilities involve irrational
> numbers there has to be a infinite number of universes for this to be
> possible.
>
> Carroll doesn't explicitly state this - in fact he seems to hold a
> different opinion - but on watching the video I see that many worlds
> could be interpreted not as universes splitting, but universes diverging.

I wonder how the quantum Zeno effect works in the Everett Interpretation?

[jillery]

I confess I don't understand the distinction Carroll makes between
splitting and diverging.

[Ernest Major]

Splitting - one universe become two
Diverging - two identical universes become two non-identical universes.

>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:29:58 +0100, Ernest Major

IIUC diverging implies a number of universes, possibly infinitely
many, already exist, while splitting implies new universes are being
dynamically created from each quantum decision.

Now that you point it out, I understand what Carroll meant @2:44.
Thank you.

Interestingly, the off-camera interviewer continued to use "splitting"
instead of Carroll's "diverging".

[Ernest Major]

Splitting seems to be how many worlds is understand among the lay
population, and perhaps even among physicists who haven't studied the
question. The WikiPedia article on interpretations uses "splitting", but
with scare quotes.

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:itittc9ck8eajc2s2...@4ax.com...

I've reached a stage where I no longer care or worry.
I trust the universe won't do anything drastic in what time I have left on
this planet, and I'll let the rest of the future take care of itself. I hope
you all may reach a similar stage. But by all means, allow your curiosity to
rule.
Our curiosity is what have made us what we are and I wouldn't be without
mine at any price. And without the invention of language, we'd still be
living in the green jungle instead of the steel and concrete jungle.

The benefits are dubious.

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ormuki$col$1...@dont-email.me...

My question is: If universes split, won't the number of universes eventually
reach absurd numbers?
Do they split at every moment in time, or is the timing entirerely random?
Maybe it doesn't even split anytime at all?

I don't understand the universe but I know we're living in what looks like
one.

Much of the world is mind-boggling. I guess I'll have to look up boogle to
see exactly what it is.

Rolf

[Ernest Major]

That's why diverging makes more sense to me than splitting. Having an
infinite, but fixed, number of universes coexisting, makes more sense to
me that having an infinite number of universes being created every second.

> Do they split at every moment in time, or is the timing entirerely random?
> Maybe it doesn't even split anytime at all?

If I understand correctly Sean Correll splitting/divergence occurs when
quantum decoherence occurs; don't ask me to explain what that means.

I was probably taught the Copenhagen interpretation, but my preference
has been for a pragmatic (instrumentalist) approach; if we don't have
the tools to address a question remaining agnostic on the answer is a
reasonable stance.

>
> I don't understand the universe but I know we're living in what looks like
> one.
>
> Much of the world is mind-boggling. I guess I'll have to look up boogle to
> see exactly what it is.
>
> Rolf
>

--

alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Nah, that has been taken care off. The intelligent designer anticipated
overpopulation of universes, which would have disastrous impact on house
prices on Cori Celesti and similar inflationary pressures (cf:
"cosmological inflation").

They therefore designed a gigantonormous XXXXXXXXXXXXXX^666 sized condom
made from intelligently designed Latex that enclsoes the universe and
grows with the universe's metric expansion of space, so everything is
sorted.

[Glenn]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:ornc1t$1jd$1...@dont-email.me...

Perhaps you should consider where "two identical universes become two non-identical universes" comes from, and whether it comes from Carroll.

"The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less."

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:18:57 +0100, Ernest Major

A side note: some years back, David Deutsch mentioned that the
interference pattern seen in double-slit experiments can be viewed as
evidence of the Many Worlds interpretation. At the time, I had
thought Many Worlds assumed splitting, ie quantum decisions creating
new alternate universes. So I didn't understand what he thought were
interfering. When I apply Carroll's concept of diverging, where all
universes already exist and quantum decisions merely have them go down
different paths, it's those multiple universes stacked into (?) each
other that Deutsch was talking about.

I confess, pre-existing universes bothers me, as it sounds too similar
to conjectures about pre-loaded alleles in a genome. Yes, I
understand such comparison is a superficial one.

OTOH all of the QM conjectures Carroll identified bother me. Yes, I
understand Carroll says that's where the math leads. Yes, I
understand I ought not judge QM based on my everyday experience.
Still, I can't help shake my impression that physics still hasn't hit
on the right explanation, that our understanding of what QM means is
still at the level it was when scientists first observed the
interference pattern from electrons.

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:08:29 +0100, Ernest Major

IIUC Sean Carroll means its when different quantum events interact.

>I was probably taught the Copenhagen interpretation, but my preference
>has been for a pragmatic (instrumentalist) approach; if we don't have
>the tools to address a question remaining agnostic on the answer is a
>reasonable stance.
>
>>
>> I don't understand the universe but I know we're living in what looks like
>> one.
>>
>> Much of the world is mind-boggling. I guess I'll have to look up boogle to
>> see exactly what it is.
>>
>> Rolf
>>

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:21:06 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Indeed, infinitely absurd.

>Do they split at every moment in time, or is the timing entirerely random?

IIUC they diverge whenever a quantum event has a choice of outcomes.

>Maybe it doesn't even split anytime at all?

Of course that's possible, but as Sean Carroll says, that not what the
math says.

>I don't understand the universe but I know we're living in what looks like
>one.
>
>Much of the world is mind-boggling. I guess I'll have to look up boogle to
>see exactly what it is.

It's the mind-boggling world of QM which helps me appreciate how the
ancient Greeks got so many theories so wrong. Our ordinary everyday
experience incorporates just a fraction of the entire universe. It's
no surprise that a flea sitting on an elephant's rump can't even
imagine the whole elephant.

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:14:38 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I understand that feeling you express above, that all of this
questioning and arguing and running around and so-called progress is
just busywork, without real value, as it's one I feel from
time-to-time. After all, just as you and I will die, the world will
also come to and end sooner than later, and so too all intelligence
stuck on it. So why bother?

But I can say this about that: Yes, problems are inevitable. But
problems are also soluble with new knowledge. And with more minds,
the more quickly new knowledge will be discovered. It's no accident
that the most discoveries about how the universe works have happened
at the same time there are more people on Earth than ever before.
Malthus wasn't wrong, he just didn't take into account the application
of new knowledge.

So like evolution, "progress" is a ratchet, where solving problems
helps to support more minds to discover new knowledge to solve the new
problems old solutions created; rinse and repeat. SO ISTM the point
of it all is to raise enough minds to discover enough new knowledge to
make humanity's survival inevitable.

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:38:10 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

If you listened to my cited video, or even read your own cited
article, you would know Carroll didn't originate the concept.

>"The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less."
>
>https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/

And Michael Egnor didn't listen to Carroll's video either, or at least
not very well, else he would have known Carroll's interpretation of
Many Worlds does not presume the creation of worlds, but instead that
those worlds already exist.

Worse, the substance of the article is just an ad hominem attack,
without even trying to address anything Carroll said, or any part of
QM generally. Your cited article is no different than Ray Martinez
refuting atheist evolutionists.

[John Bode]

I have come to the conclusion that you cannot truly understand QM (or GR,
or a host of other non-intuitive physical theories) without understanding
the math behind them, because lay analogies are simply inadequate. It's
like the bromide of "writing about music is like dancing about
architecture." There's no good way to translate the math into a non-math
language. There's no way to relate the ramifications of QM to our everyday
experience, because our everyday experience is at the macro scale and
cannot perceive quantum-scale phenomena.

[jillery]

For me, I don't require a deep understanding of QM phenomena. It's
sufficient to just accept its idiosyncrasies, a bit like dealing with
a dotty relative. The behavior doesn't have to make sense, that's
just the way it works. That's the level of my understanding.

So I know about the Standard Model of subatomic particles, and
electron orbitals and their different shapes, and the behavior of
electronic devices, and the double-slit experiment, and enough nuclear
physics to make some sense about nuclear power plants and weapons and
why these isotopes work and those isotopes don't, and some of the
quantum consequences affecting cosmological Inflation.

I accept AOTA anecdotally, fully aware I have only a superficial
understanding of them. That's why I rely on people like Sean Carroll,
Richard Feynman, Larry Krauss, Ethan Siegel, Steve Carlip et al, who
seem to enjoy serving digestible bits of their deep understanding, to
keep me from getting too entangled in quantum confusion.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:v26vtc97s26kqgtds...@4ax.com...

I understand your concern.
I may be a bit less concerned about the future of mankind.
I have long been of the opinion that mankind is a freak of nature.
When mankind invented language, it created a tool for changing itself and
the world in ways nobody could have predicted. Is a turning back possible? I
don't think so.

Without a reversal, robots, cyborgs and whatever may be the next big step in
evolution. Robots would be perfect for colonization of the moon, Mars and
other planets and eventually all of our galaxy. That would be fun but we
will not be there to watch the show. Would robots invent religion? I think
that may be a possibility. The operative parts of the robots brain may begin
to conceive of it's ultimate control center as a sacred, divine entity -
God. BTW, isn't that what mankind already have?
The more human-like robots become, the less need for mankind to survive.
Robots might be capable of survival all on their own, without the need for
mankind to orchestrate the show.

A pity we won't be there to enjoy it. Just a religions have been and still
are of importance to mankind; books are being written about it all the time,
manologic robots will continue writing books about mankind.

What say, besides LOL?

[Bill Rogers]

I agree. I took one of those Open Course Ware courses from MIT on QM. Out of a semester long course the prof spent about 10 minutes talking about interpretations of QM. It seems that the overwhelming majority of physicists "just get on with it," doing the math and designing experiments without worrying about the interpretation. And I think you are right about the reason - there's no reason to expect that we'll be able to come up with a good mental image of something that happens on a scale we weren't evolved to image things on.

[jillery]

Most physicists "just get on with it" because that's what their job
requires them to do. Fortunately for me, there are physicists like
Sean Carroll who go beyond their job and explain what they do to
people like me.

My impression is people like Sean Carroll understand that part of
their job is to explain what they do to people like me, for which I am
grateful.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:27:15 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I am too, but Bill has a valid point, that some things
simply can't be adequately treated in words alone; the math
is necessary to fully explain them. Vague concepts, yes, but
vague concepts leave the one providing them open to the
usual charge of intentional obfuscation. As noted, QM and GR
(and for that matter, SR) are two of them; I can follow the
usual lay explanations, but "words don't describe" may as
well have been invented specifically for that scenario, and
I treat "That doesn't make sense!" as a red flag when
esoteric scientific issues are under discussion even though
it's frequently my own emotional response to explanations of
the more arcane branches of science. Frequently it doesn't,
indeed, "make sense", but "sense" is based on everyday
experience, which is poor preparation for understanding
things which are *not* part of that experience, and by
nature *can't* be.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

...

QM explains what cannot be understood by other means; it
makes the absurd appear rational. It explains why what we
perceive appears real. It allows impossible possibilities
such as many worlds, multiverses, etc. to appear scientific.
It allows us to believe that we understand the
incomprehensible. And that, of course, is a great comfort.

Bill

[Ernest Major]

You seem to have been reading a different thread from an alternative
universe. The whole point of the thread is that QM allows us to model
and predict (bits of) the universe, and possibly even describe it, but
not to understand it.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

How bothered you are by us not knowing what QM "means" may depend to an
extent on your position of philosophical issues such as realism and
instrumentalism. If you're position is that physical theories model the
world rather than describe the world then what you worry about is
whether the predictions of the theory model the work rather than what
the theory "means".

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bill]

I'm sure you're right but that kind of renders science a
pointless exercise in futility, does it not? If
understanding what we model or predict or describe is merely
incidental, why bother? Most descriptions of science include
the notion of understanding what is studied.

A possible exception is, maybe, quantum mechanics where what
happens can be known while why it happens might not be. In
this case understanding is of a different order than most
other sciences.

Bill

[jillery]

It's your kind of comments above which some scientists use to
rationalize their conceit as keepers of privileged information.

[jillery]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:08:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Of course Bill Rogers has a valid point, as does John Bode, else they
wouldn't have posted them. But I too have a valid point, and you
don't mention that.

Your "but" suggests you think their point mitigates or even moots my
point. I don't think it does, and your comments below don't say how
you think it does. IMO their point at best is orthogonal to mine, and
so doesn't even qualify for your "but".

Typically, their point is used by some scientists to rationalize a
conceit that they are keepers of privileged information, like
modern-day monks. It's no small irony that any scientist would now
assert the very same attitude the Church once used to suppress inquiry
about the natural world. Had that opinion prevailed with Carl Sagan,
there would have been no "Cosmos".

> that some things
>simply can't be adequately treated in words alone; the math
>is necessary to fully explain them. Vague concepts, yes, but
>vague concepts leave the one providing them open to the
>usual charge of intentional obfuscation. As noted, QM and GR
>(and for that matter, SR) are two of them; I can follow the
>usual lay explanations, but "words don't describe" may as
>well have been invented specifically for that scenario, and
>I treat "That doesn't make sense!" as a red flag when
>esoteric scientific issues are under discussion even though
>it's frequently my own emotional response to explanations of
>the more arcane branches of science. Frequently it doesn't,
>indeed, "make sense", but "sense" is based on everyday
>experience, which is poor preparation for understanding
>things which are *not* part of that experience, and by
>nature *can't* be.

--

[Öö Tiib]

It is in the opposite way. Knowledge why gravity works is perhaps
totally useless in practice. Explanations and accurate formulas how
it works have great value in practice.

>
> A possible exception is, maybe, quantum mechanics where what
> happens can be known while why it happens might not be. In
> this case understanding is of a different order than most
> other sciences.

Quantum mechanics is exception only because it is not much used
directly in practice. That does not mean that it is not very useful
in practice; it means that our tool-set to operate at quantum level
is under design and not in every men garage.

[Robert Carnegie]

I'm not an expert, but I predict that doing that
won't help. :-)

What I mainly remember from seeing the play _Copenhagen_
is that at the mid-show interval I thought it had finished.

I want to argue that infinitely many alternate universes
already exist when an experiment starts and so they should
bumo into each other a well as diverging, but I think there
is a maths law that says after universes split, they stay
split. (But that doesn't account for diffraction.)

[Ernest Major]

QM (or its results) is used more than you think.

For example

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-applications-of-quantum-physics-in-everyday-life

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 14/10/2017 15:17, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> What I mainly remember from seeing the play_Copenhagen_
> is that at the mid-show interval I thought it had finished.

I once came across a two-part docudrama about a contemporary
caldera-forming eruption at Yellowstone. The first part ended with the
eruption - I thought that (TEOWAWKI) was the end of the docudrama.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Öö Tiib]

I understand that our world is built upon QM so when anything happens,
(for example you fart) then you use QM. I meant "directly" when I said
"directly".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:06:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

No.

> If
>understanding what we model or predict or describe is merely
>incidental, why bother? Most descriptions of science include
>the notion of understanding what is studied.

The point you seem to miss is that there are those who *do*
understand it, but not everyone has the educational
background to do so. I suspect that you don't have the
specific education to understand how TV, or even radio,
works (the internals, not the broadcasts), or for that
matter *any* modern electronics (such as the computer you're
using to access Usenet, or the multiple computers in your
car) but I also suspect that doesn't lead you to conclude
that electronics is "useless".

>A possible exception is, maybe, quantum mechanics where what
>happens can be known while why it happens might not be. In
>this case understanding is of a different order than most
>other sciences.

Your error is in concluding that since *you* don't
understand it, no one does.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:28:35 -0400, the following appeared

I thought that my "I am, too" covered that, but I guess not.

>Your "but" suggests you think their point mitigates or even moots my
>point. I don't think it does, and your comments below don't say how
>you think it does. IMO their point at best is orthogonal to mine, and
>so doesn't even qualify for your "but".

Sorry you think so; there was no intent to moot your point,
so of course my comments below don't say how it does so. I
see your point as valid (as I said).

>Typically, their point is used by some scientists to rationalize a
>conceit that they are keepers of privileged information, like
>modern-day monks. It's no small irony that any scientist would now
>assert the very same attitude the Church once used to suppress inquiry
>about the natural world. Had that opinion prevailed with Carl Sagan,
>there would have been no "Cosmos".

OK, I don't see most of the professionals here exhibiting
that sort of conceit; what I see is those like Bill who
disparage anything they can't understand as "useless".

In summary, I agree with your comments regarding those
scientists who attempt to make the more esoteric branches of
science at least vaguely understandable to the average
intelligent layman, but I agree with Bill Rogers that true
understanding requires a level of math education that most
of us don't have; my 3 semesters of calculus and one of
differential equations hardly qualifies as a start. And I
thought I made that fairly clear below. That's all the "but"
signified.

>> that some things
>>simply can't be adequately treated in words alone; the math
>>is necessary to fully explain them. Vague concepts, yes, but
>>vague concepts leave the one providing them open to the
>>usual charge of intentional obfuscation. As noted, QM and GR
>>(and for that matter, SR) are two of them; I can follow the
>>usual lay explanations, but "words don't describe" may as
>>well have been invented specifically for that scenario, and
>>I treat "That doesn't make sense!" as a red flag when
>>esoteric scientific issues are under discussion even though
>>it's frequently my own emotional response to explanations of
>>the more arcane branches of science. Frequently it doesn't,
>>indeed, "make sense", but "sense" is based on everyday
>>experience, which is poor preparation for understanding
>>things which are *not* part of that experience, and by
>>nature *can't* be.
--

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:02:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

You "guess" correctly. Your comment refers to my expressed gratitude
to scientists who do more than "just get on with it" My point here is
not that.

>>Your "but" suggests you think their point mitigates or even moots my
>>point. I don't think it does, and your comments below don't say how
>>you think it does. IMO their point at best is orthogonal to mine, and
>>so doesn't even qualify for your "but".
>
>Sorry you think so; there was no intent to moot your point,
>so of course my comments below don't say how it does so. I
>see your point as valid (as I said).
>
>>Typically, their point is used by some scientists to rationalize a
>>conceit that they are keepers of privileged information, like
>>modern-day monks. It's no small irony that any scientist would now
>>assert the very same attitude the Church once used to suppress inquiry
>>about the natural world. Had that opinion prevailed with Carl Sagan,
>>there would have been no "Cosmos".
>
>OK, I don't see most of the professionals here exhibiting
>that sort of conceit; what I see is those like Bill who
>disparage anything they can't understand as "useless".

My comment to which you object refers to some of the individuals in
the scientific community generally. For example, Carl Sagan publicly
acknowledged negative comments from his professional peers for
"wasting time" speaking to the general public. More recently, the
negative comments from some "professionals" when Bill Nye debated Ken
Ham, they said Nye's participation "legitimized" Ham's POV.

>In summary, I agree with your comments regarding those
>scientists who attempt to make the more esoteric branches of
>science at least vaguely understandable to the average
>intelligent layman, but I agree with Bill Rogers that true
>understanding requires a level of math education that most
>of us don't have; my 3 semesters of calculus and one of
>differential equations hardly qualifies as a start. And I
>thought I made that fairly clear below. That's all the "but"
>signified.

And I also agree with both, because the two are both technically
correct and unrelated to each other. IMO there is no logical "but"
linking them, or with linking their comments to what Sean Carroll said
in my cited video. It's like saying blue is my favorite color but
penguins are the best birds.

>>> that some things
>>>simply can't be adequately treated in words alone; the math
>>>is necessary to fully explain them. Vague concepts, yes, but
>>>vague concepts leave the one providing them open to the
>>>usual charge of intentional obfuscation. As noted, QM and GR
>>>(and for that matter, SR) are two of them; I can follow the
>>>usual lay explanations, but "words don't describe" may as
>>>well have been invented specifically for that scenario, and
>>>I treat "That doesn't make sense!" as a red flag when
>>>esoteric scientific issues are under discussion even though
>>>it's frequently my own emotional response to explanations of
>>>the more arcane branches of science. Frequently it doesn't,
>>>indeed, "make sense", but "sense" is based on everyday
>>>experience, which is poor preparation for understanding
>>>things which are *not* part of that experience, and by
>>>nature *can't* be.

--

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Saturday, 14 October 2017 18:10:02 UTC+3, Ernest Major wrote:

The examples in Ernest Major's cite are a lot more "direct" than
farts. IMO lasers and LEDs and synthetic chemistry and quantum
computers and all semiconductor electronics and MRIs are more than
just hot air from someone's backside.

[jillery]

It would be appropriately ironic for a play called _Copenhagen_ to
have more than one outcome.

>I want to argue that infinitely many alternate universes
>already exist when an experiment starts and so they should
>bumo into each other a well as diverging, but I think there
>is a maths law that says after universes split, they stay
>split. (But that doesn't account for diffraction.)

IIRC diffraction occurs *before* any split/divergence. Afterwards, as
Sean Carroll says, the two outcomes go their separate ways, never to
interact with each other again.

[Öö Tiib]

The answers in that cite were of two kinds.

Some of these were about indirect QM. That was same like the hot air
from backside that is similarly result of QM applied in biochemistry
applied by gut bacteria.

Others were how the quantum effects really alter work in modern
semiconductor chip fab and in chips produced so have to be taken
into account. Modern such fab costs billions of dollars to build
and to equip. That is not in everyday life in "every men garage"
like I said.

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 04:04:31 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

wrote:

>On Sunday, 15 October 2017 08:20:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, 14 October 2017 18:10:02 UTC+3, Ernest Major wrote:

I agree with the biochemistry of gut flora as being indirect QM. Even
if all chemistry is QM, which is arguable, we use the results of gut
flora indirectly.

And you're right that no one manufactures lasers and semiconductors in
their garages.

OTGH when most everyone has DVD players and at least knows somebody
who has experienced MRI, which suggests a more intimate use of QM than
the tertiary use of gut flora QM.

I suggest a use of more shades of indirection than you do.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/14/17 7:13 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday, 13 October 2017 22:10:03 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure you're right but that kind of renders science a
>> pointless exercise in futility, does it not? If
>> understanding what we model or predict or describe is merely
>> incidental, why bother? Most descriptions of science include
>> the notion of understanding what is studied.
>
> It is in the opposite way. Knowledge why gravity works is perhaps
> totally useless in practice. Explanations and accurate formulas how
> it works have great value in practice.

Knowledge of why gravity works will be the first step in creating
anti-gravity devices, which could be extremely useful in practice.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:16:26 -0400, the following appeared

OK.

>>>Your "but" suggests you think their point mitigates or even moots my
>>>point. I don't think it does, and your comments below don't say how
>>>you think it does. IMO their point at best is orthogonal to mine, and
>>>so doesn't even qualify for your "but".
>>
>>Sorry you think so; there was no intent to moot your point,
>>so of course my comments below don't say how it does so. I
>>see your point as valid (as I said).
>>
>>>Typically, their point is used by some scientists to rationalize a
>>>conceit that they are keepers of privileged information, like
>>>modern-day monks. It's no small irony that any scientist would now
>>>assert the very same attitude the Church once used to suppress inquiry
>>>about the natural world. Had that opinion prevailed with Carl Sagan,
>>>there would have been no "Cosmos".
>>
>>OK, I don't see most of the professionals here exhibiting
>>that sort of conceit; what I see is those like Bill who
>>disparage anything they can't understand as "useless".
>
>
>My comment to which you object

And that seems to be the problem, that you think I "object"
to your comment. I don't. So we're through with this
subject.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 15 October 2017 18:55:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/14/17 7:13 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 October 2017 22:10:03 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm sure you're right but that kind of renders science a
> >> pointless exercise in futility, does it not? If
> >> understanding what we model or predict or describe is merely
> >> incidental, why bother? Most descriptions of science include
> >> the notion of understanding what is studied.
> >
> > It is in the opposite way. Knowledge why gravity works is perhaps
> > totally useless in practice. Explanations and accurate formulas how
> > it works have great value in practice.
>
> Knowledge of why gravity works will be the first step in creating
> anti-gravity devices, which could be extremely useful in practice.

Since we don't have any such knowledge it is pure speculation.
The knowledge how gravity works is good right now in calculating
every building construction and not "pointless exercise in futility"
(because we don't know why it works how it works) like Bill put that.

Also I believe that anti-gravity (if it is possible) will be discovered
without knowing how gravity works. Most likely is like majority of
other discoveries. Some calculations do not match in some
exotic situation with reality and playing around with it leads to
something new.

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:26:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>So we're through with this subject.

Yes, but...

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 15 October 2017 17:00:05 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 04:04:31 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 15 October 2017 08:20:02 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

> >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

I thjnk that it is good suggestion. My example of indirect QM
was not too nice If I think of it now, perhaps I was in grumpy
or humorous mood or something.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/15/17 10:59 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 October 2017 18:55:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/14/17 7:13 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Friday, 13 October 2017 22:10:03 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you're right but that kind of renders science a
>>>> pointless exercise in futility, does it not? If
>>>> understanding what we model or predict or describe is merely
>>>> incidental, why bother? Most descriptions of science include
>>>> the notion of understanding what is studied.
>>>
>>> It is in the opposite way. Knowledge why gravity works is perhaps
>>> totally useless in practice. Explanations and accurate formulas how
>>> it works have great value in practice.
>>
>> Knowledge of why gravity works will be the first step in creating
>> anti-gravity devices, which could be extremely useful in practice.
>
> Since we don't have any such knowledge it is pure speculation.

Since we don't have any such knowledge, it is pure speculation to say
that knowledge of why gravity works is perhaps totally useless in practice.

Some discoveries are made by accident or by trial and error. Those
discoveries lead to questions, which lead to figuring out how the things
work. Then the knowledge of how it works leads to new applications and
new discoveries.

Drug discovery is a good example. Lots of drugs were discovered by
trial and error. But there has also been lots of research into finding
out *how* those drugs work, and that research has led to more drug
discovery. Trial and error is not eliminated, but now people know a lot
better what narrow range of things to look for.

> The knowledge how gravity works is good right now in calculating
> every building construction and not "pointless exercise in futility"
> (because we don't know why it works how it works) like Bill put that.
>
> Also I believe that anti-gravity (if it is possible) will be discovered
> without knowing how gravity works. Most likely is like majority of
> other discoveries. Some calculations do not match in some
> exotic situation with reality and playing around with it leads to
> something new.

Whenever there is a new discovery, there will be people saying, "Neato!
Now what else can we do with it?" For example, knowledge of QM led
directly to the invention of scanning tunneling microscopes. I have no
doubt that knowledge of gravity's workings will lead to new things.
Perhaps anti-gravity will have been stumbled upon before then (I very
much doubt it myself), but *something* new will come from the discovery.

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 16 October 2017 19:55:02 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/15/17 10:59 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Sunday, 15 October 2017 18:55:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 10/14/17 7:13 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 13 October 2017 22:10:03 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure you're right but that kind of renders science a
> >>>> pointless exercise in futility, does it not? If
> >>>> understanding what we model or predict or describe is merely
> >>>> incidental, why bother? Most descriptions of science include
> >>>> the notion of understanding what is studied.
> >>>
> >>> It is in the opposite way. Knowledge why gravity works is perhaps
> >>> totally useless in practice. Explanations and accurate formulas how
> >>> it works have great value in practice.
> >>
> >> Knowledge of why gravity works will be the first step in creating
> >> anti-gravity devices, which could be extremely useful in practice.
> >
> > Since we don't have any such knowledge it is pure speculation.
>
> Since we don't have any such knowledge, it is pure speculation to say
> that knowledge of why gravity works is perhaps totally useless in practice.

Exactly! Does not "perhaps" mean "maybe"? Does not very presence of that
word in sentence indicate a guess, a speculation? As contrast what we
already know is very valuable and useful like it is.

> Some discoveries are made by accident or by trial and error. Those
> discoveries lead to questions, which lead to figuring out how the things
> work. Then the knowledge of how it works leads to new applications and
> new discoveries.
>
> Drug discovery is a good example. Lots of drugs were discovered by
> trial and error. But there has also been lots of research into finding
> out *how* those drugs work, and that research has led to more drug
> discovery. Trial and error is not eliminated, but now people know a lot
> better what narrow range of things to look for.

So knowledge how something works leads to usage of it and that leads
more accurate research how it works in more detail and that results
with better and better explanations how it works. :D

>
> > The knowledge how gravity works is good right now in calculating
> > every building construction and not "pointless exercise in futility"
> > (because we don't know why it works how it works) like Bill put that.
> >
> > Also I believe that anti-gravity (if it is possible) will be discovered
> > without knowing how gravity works. Most likely is like majority of
> > other discoveries. Some calculations do not match in some
> > exotic situation with reality and playing around with it leads to
> > something new.
>
> Whenever there is a new discovery, there will be people saying, "Neato!
> Now what else can we do with it?" For example, knowledge of QM led
> directly to the invention of scanning tunneling microscopes. I have no
> doubt that knowledge of gravity's workings will lead to new things.
> Perhaps anti-gravity will have been stumbled upon before then (I very
> much doubt it myself), but *something* new will come from the discovery.

We are with gravity in about similar situation like with QM. The QM is
itself the reason why lot of things are like those are but no one has
knowledge *why* QM works like it works. Gravity is also itself the
reason why lot of things work like those work.

[Bill]

Gravity is an effect that seems to be a "thing" or "force"
so its existence is necessarily hypothetical. We know what
"it" does but not what "it" is. Quantum mechanics shares the
same degree of uncertainty. In these cases any knowledge is
only apparent, not direct or empirical; we can only
speculate.

Bill

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:19:03 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>嘱 Tiib wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 16 October 2017 19:55:02 UTC+3, Mark Isaak
>> wrote:

>>> On 10/15/17 10:59 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>>> > On Sunday, 15 October 2017 18:55:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak
>>> > wrote:

You conflate explanation with the thing being explained. Some
explanations are hypothetical, or more accurately contingent, but the
thing itself, gravity, is real.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:19:03 -0500, Bill
> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, 16 October 2017 19:55:02 UTC+3, Mark Isaak
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 10/15/17 10:59 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>> > On Sunday, 15 October 2017 18:55:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak
>>>> > wrote:

The effect is certainly real so explanations about the
effect will likely be accurate. The explanation, as you
acknowledge, is not the same as the "thing" explained so the
only fact we have is the explanation itself. We still don't
know what gravity is.

Bill

[jillery]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:39:05 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:19:03 -0500, Bill
>> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>>嘱 Tiib wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, 16 October 2017 19:55:02 UTC+3, Mark Isaak
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 10/15/17 10:59 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>>>>> > On Sunday, 15 October 2017 18:55:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak
>>>>> > wrote:

Incorrect. What is correct is that we have the fact of the existence
of gravity, as well as the fact of the existence of an explanation for
gravity.

[Burkhard]

To repost (without permission :o))the post from Steve Carlip from just a
few weeks ago:

"Nonsense. We've known what gravity is for a
century -- it's the curvature of spacetime.
The theory that gives this explanation, general
relativity, has just been spectacularly confirmed
by the observation of gravitational waves from
black hole mergers. There is, to date, absolutely
no evidence that this explanation is wrong.

Why on earth would you make up a claim like this?
If you really know so little about "modern sc "modern science,"
perhaps you shouldn't be posting about it."




>
>

[Bill]

Burkhard wrote:


...

>>>
>>> You conflate explanation with the thing being explained.
>>> Some explanations are hypothetical, or more accurately
>>> contingent, but the thing itself, gravity, is real.
>>
>> The effect is certainly real so explanations about the
>> effect will likely be accurate. The explanation, as you
>> acknowledge, is not the same as the "thing" explained so
>> the only fact we have is the explanation itself. We still
>> don't know what gravity is.
>>
>> Bill
>
> To repost (without permission :o))the post from Steve
> Carlip from just a few weeks ago:
>
> "Nonsense. We've known what gravity is for a
> century -- it's the curvature of spacetime.
> The theory that gives this explanation, general
> relativity, has just been spectacularly confirmed
> by the observation of gravitational waves from
> black hole mergers. There is, to date, absolutely
> no evidence that this explanation is wrong.
>
> Why on earth would you make up a claim like this?
> If you really know so little about "modern sc "modern
> science," perhaps you shouldn't be posting about it."

Again, the explanation is not the reality being explained.
While it's done all the time, an explanation is not data,
it's a response to data, an addendum. It's common and
acceptable to incorporate explanations into the data making
them a single entity.

Gravity is an effect that can be measured. The measurement
becomes confused with what is measured and the phenomenon is
believed to be explained. Gravity has been explained as a
wave, a graviton, a force and a distortion of space.
Explanations abound, so what?

Bill

[jillery]

All explanations are contingent. Having multiple explanations allows
one to evaluate which provides better/more answers. Not sure what
else you expect from an explanation.

[Burkhard]

Of course not, why would it be, and what would that even mean? A picture
of an apple is not an apple, a map of a city is not the city, and an
explanation of a phenomenon not that phenomenon. How exactly would I
upload gravity on the discussion group?

> While it's done all the time, an explanation is not data,
> it's a response to data, an addendum. It's common and
> acceptable to incorporate explanations into the data making
> them a single entity.
>
> Gravity is an effect that can be measured. The measurement
> becomes confused with what is measured and the phenomenon is
> believed to be explained. Gravity has been explained as a
> wave, a graviton, a force and a distortion of space.
> Explanations abound, so what?

Your claim was: we don't know what gravity is. That's wrong for any
meaningful reading of "gravity", "is" and "know". Gravity is the
curvature of spacetime. Gravitions, if they exist, are not gravity, they
would be an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation.

We can test for both if they are true by looking at what else we should
expect to see, and what we must not see, if they are correct - that's
how you test competing theories to chose the best one, and in this way
9ncrease your knowledge.

>
> Bill
>

[John Bode]

> I'm sure you're right but that kind of renders science a
> pointless exercise in futility, does it not? If
> understanding what we model or predict or describe is merely
> incidental, why bother?

Because those models and predictions are incredibly useful. The magic
box you are using to read this message relies on us being able to model
and predict quantum phenomena, even if we don't truly understand why it
works the way it does.

Likewise, we can land spacecraft on freaking *comets* because we have
accurate and precise models of gravity, yet we don't *understand* gravity.
We can't say why gravity is so weak relative to other forces, or why it
exists, or why it follows an inverse-square relationship.

> Most descriptions of science include the notion of understanding what
> is studied.

Some of the things we study are understandable. Some aren't, but they're
still worth studying because we get practical benefits out of it.

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 10/15/17 10:59 AM, ?? Tiib wrote:
>> On Sunday, 15 October 2017 18:55:05 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:

Amen, sir, amen.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:49:22 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:49:51 -0700, the following appeared

So, which is it, now that you're back?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:49:39 -0700, the following appeared

So, "I don't understand electronics, so it's useless" it is.
Got it.