Metaphysical experiments probe our hidden assumptions about reality(quantamagazine.org)
quantamagazine.org
Metaphysical experiments probe our hidden assumptions about reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/metaphysical-experiments-test-hidden-assumptions-about-reality-20240730
60 comments
> Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it to solve the open problems involving quantum gravity, measurement, consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a clear and simple way. I would think that’s a much more likely outcome.
You assume quite a lot here. Even if AGI is possible (I think it is) it's not clear how far above human intelligence it will actually go. Then it's not clear that problems you outline are even solvable with intelligence, not all problems are. Some are just computationally hard (and we're heavily limited by mass and energy available in the solar system) others can be unsolvable at all -- e.g. you can build a universe in a way that makes it impossible to fully study from within, and maybe ours is of that kind.
You assume quite a lot here. Even if AGI is possible (I think it is) it's not clear how far above human intelligence it will actually go. Then it's not clear that problems you outline are even solvable with intelligence, not all problems are. Some are just computationally hard (and we're heavily limited by mass and energy available in the solar system) others can be unsolvable at all -- e.g. you can build a universe in a way that makes it impossible to fully study from within, and maybe ours is of that kind.
You are implying the possibility that "somebody built the universe", right? Or that "We live in a simulated universe", which amounts to the same, someone or something building the simulation.
While I think living in simulation, or living in a universe built by someone, is a very plausible possibility, it kind of just pushes the question of the origin of universe just a bit further. If WE live in a simulation, how did the universe of those who built our simulation come about?
While I think living in simulation, or living in a universe built by someone, is a very plausible possibility, it kind of just pushes the question of the origin of universe just a bit further. If WE live in a simulation, how did the universe of those who built our simulation come about?
[deleted]
If you believe that's a plausible way of going about this, you should figure out a way to test it! I think that's the spirit of the article.
You could probably do both?
If there was no harm to me, I would probably volunteer to put myself into superposition.
If there was no harm to me, I would probably volunteer to put myself into superposition.
For more details on the motivation and logic behind this experiment, see: https://www.wignersfriends.com/
If you were looking for a rabbit hole and were disappointed, go here instead:
https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
Very interesting. I started to toy with the thought some years ago that all humans collectively are some type of consciousness and that our ability to develop new technologies and advance is tied somehow to our collective understanding allowing it, when ideas or possibilities are accepted or embraced more than not.
I guess my idea is just a rehash of the 100th monkey effect.
I guess my idea is just a rehash of the 100th monkey effect.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heart-Sutra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
Emptiness refers to the absence of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena. Everything is empty of an intrinsic nature because everything exists in dependence on causes and conditions. No object, thought, or being exists independently or permanently. Emptiness is the foundation that allows for the interconnection and impermanence of all things. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
Emptiness refers to the absence of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena. Everything is empty of an intrinsic nature because everything exists in dependence on causes and conditions. No object, thought, or being exists independently or permanently. Emptiness is the foundation that allows for the interconnection and impermanence of all things. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
You may enjoy the short story “God’s Debris” by Scott Adams (who did the Dilbert cartoons). Free pdf below, although I went the Audible route.
Free pdf: http://www.nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf
Free pdf: http://www.nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf
summaries of God's Debris and the sequel The Religion War --
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Religion_War
Reading this, I realized I love science because it helps me adjust my metaphysics. That's definitely my top priority when consuming arguments and advancements from the scientific community.
The only reality so far proven to exist is your own
How do you account for someone else's unproven reality punching you in the face?
Reality and the universe coexist, and intersect.
Must be your subconscious
Do robots have reality, they can also punch me. To me I can say everyone else is NPC and I can not disprove it, but my believe is that they are not
Yes, a robot has reality. Of course it has reality, especially if it can punch you in the face. Does it have a mind? That's a different question.
Do you believe that all humans share a human nature?
Do you believe that all humans share a human nature?
I think reality is there for robots only if it can feel concious. Same as a rock if it falls on you. Arguing everything that exists has a reality isn't the thing here.
Some of my favorite fun questions or speculations in the applied metaphysics realm, which I sincerely hope we or our descendants can someday test, are about whether one of the deepest axioms of modern astrophysics, the Cosmological Principle, is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
It says basically that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If it's false, this would allow moonshot bets to escape this universe's limiting ending, its heat death - because we might be able to do things that are impossible here, but are possible in a different region of space, with different laws.
Reposting some of my previous comments about this:
For example, if we eventually have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, then I hope we put at least a trillion dollars per topic into long-shot research topics such as time travel, the multiverse, FTL travel, methods of creating new universes via an artificial Big Bang, applied theology (trying to find evidence of a God so that we can communicate with them), methods of achieving infinitely positive states of qualia such as something like nirvāṇa, and so on.
Each bet might be 1 in a million - but I'd much rather that we try every possible chance at escaping what we currently see as the inevitable, and not go gentle into that heat death night.
This goal, to break through the wall at the end of the universe, was what Asimov called for in his inspiring short story The Last Question.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone.
For example, there might turn out to be particle types which don't exist at all in our zone, but which are force carriers for forces that enable time travel or other violations of causality. We might have evolved in a zone with zero of these particles simply because it's hard for life to evolve in a zone without causality. Our zone might be a life-friendly little bubble beyond which things get truly strange, but where with appropriately designed nanotechnology, we might achieve incredible things we've never before observed, including changing the past or even stepping entirely outside of the fabric of spacetime into someplace with more or fewer spatial dimensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
So, 1 in a million is my approximate a priori estimate of the odds of the Cosmological Principle being false in a useful way.
For a fun example of fiction that takes place in a setting where the Cosmological Principle is false, check out A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. The zone where Earth is situated, and where the laws of physics are the same as in our observed reality, is called the Slow Zone. There are three other types of zones with other laws, called the Beyond, the Transcend, and the Unthinking Depths.
I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who sought to understand their universe without yet having the instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is, without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ), philosophy of knowledge (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds ).
Originally I posted these here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38217412
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
It says basically that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If it's false, this would allow moonshot bets to escape this universe's limiting ending, its heat death - because we might be able to do things that are impossible here, but are possible in a different region of space, with different laws.
Reposting some of my previous comments about this:
For example, if we eventually have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, then I hope we put at least a trillion dollars per topic into long-shot research topics such as time travel, the multiverse, FTL travel, methods of creating new universes via an artificial Big Bang, applied theology (trying to find evidence of a God so that we can communicate with them), methods of achieving infinitely positive states of qualia such as something like nirvāṇa, and so on.
Each bet might be 1 in a million - but I'd much rather that we try every possible chance at escaping what we currently see as the inevitable, and not go gentle into that heat death night.
This goal, to break through the wall at the end of the universe, was what Asimov called for in his inspiring short story The Last Question.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone.
For example, there might turn out to be particle types which don't exist at all in our zone, but which are force carriers for forces that enable time travel or other violations of causality. We might have evolved in a zone with zero of these particles simply because it's hard for life to evolve in a zone without causality. Our zone might be a life-friendly little bubble beyond which things get truly strange, but where with appropriately designed nanotechnology, we might achieve incredible things we've never before observed, including changing the past or even stepping entirely outside of the fabric of spacetime into someplace with more or fewer spatial dimensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
So, 1 in a million is my approximate a priori estimate of the odds of the Cosmological Principle being false in a useful way.
For a fun example of fiction that takes place in a setting where the Cosmological Principle is false, check out A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. The zone where Earth is situated, and where the laws of physics are the same as in our observed reality, is called the Slow Zone. There are three other types of zones with other laws, called the Beyond, the Transcend, and the Unthinking Depths.
I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who sought to understand their universe without yet having the instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is, without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ), philosophy of knowledge (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds ).
Originally I posted these here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38217412
> Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone.
This is... overly optimistic. To say the least, it depends on exactly which laws change with location, and how far. That is to say, we could conceivably know for a fact that the Cosmological Principle is false, but still know that there is nowhere in the universe that time travel is possible, or that it's impossible to prevent the end of the universe. The only way "everything is possible" is in the conditional sense that we don't know what's possible yet, but you don't need to invoke the CP for that at all.
This is... overly optimistic. To say the least, it depends on exactly which laws change with location, and how far. That is to say, we could conceivably know for a fact that the Cosmological Principle is false, but still know that there is nowhere in the universe that time travel is possible, or that it's impossible to prevent the end of the universe. The only way "everything is possible" is in the conditional sense that we don't know what's possible yet, but you don't need to invoke the CP for that at all.
Alternately, we might discover that our "normal rules" don't rule everywhere, but that they will always rule us, because the rule-set is spreading at-or-above the speed of light while simultaneously preventing us from being able to exceed it
P.S.: Even if we could... Don't cross the seams. It would be bad. Try to imagine all life as you it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Total protonic reversal.
P.S.: Even if we could... Don't cross the seams. It would be bad. Try to imagine all life as you it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Total protonic reversal.
> Alternately, we might discover that our "normal rules" don't rule everywhere, but that they will always rule us, because the rule-set is spreading at-or-above the speed of light while simultaneously preventing us from being able to exceed it
You don't even need to assume it is spreading. You just need to assume that it is locally true in our spacetime neighbourhood. Make that neighbourhood big enough – e.g. a googolplex parsecs by a googolplex years – and it is implausible we'd ever be able to escape it, even if its boundaries were completely static.
You don't even need to assume it is spreading. You just need to assume that it is locally true in our spacetime neighbourhood. Make that neighbourhood big enough – e.g. a googolplex parsecs by a googolplex years – and it is implausible we'd ever be able to escape it, even if its boundaries were completely static.
Hmm. In these sort of thought experiments it would seem a bit much to
suppose that 100 light years from Earth there's a sign on the
hyperspace freeway that says "Quantum Gravity Ends Here" or "c =
299792458m/s Please Drive Carefully".
More like physical constants vary imperceptibly over vast distances. And, given this continuity if you built an instrument to measure stuff and took it to another zone it would show the same readings as everything else would adjust to allow it to exist and be observed.
cool thread
More like physical constants vary imperceptibly over vast distances. And, given this continuity if you built an instrument to measure stuff and took it to another zone it would show the same readings as everything else would adjust to allow it to exist and be observed.
cool thread
> but that they will always rule us, because the rule-set is spreading at-or-above the speed of light while simultaneously preventing us from being able to exceed it
The rule-set would essentially be a field, I guess?
The rule-set would essentially be a field, I guess?
Speaking of the dangers of going to other zones of physics, and related fiction: Terminal World by Alastair Reynolds has this concept where the different zones are all on Earth. So that's fun.
Also the the "Zones of Thought" from the eponymous Vernor Vinge series [0], where different regions permit (or hinder) levels of information theory and error-rates and intelligence. The "slow zone" of Earth permits biological intelligence, but curbs AI in a way that indirectly prevents FTL travel or communications.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep
Is there any axiom for the principle that the laws of physics don't change with time? (not sure if that even makes sense-not a physicist)
There's Noether's conservation theorem, which roughly states that symmetries of a force imply a corresponding conservation law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
No. It is an assumption.
I'd bet that by the time we have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, we'll also have entire universities dedicated to that kind of research. At that scale, everything scales.
We already have multiple star systems worth of resources at our disposal. Many of the elements of the periodic table require higher mass (than our Sun) stars or colliding neutron stars to make.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13873/
If it's not tantamount to a dyson sphere, then IMO it's not even equivalent to the star, much less the star system.
I wonder what could happen at the edge of these zones where incompatible physical laws meet.
If we get to that point we will probably have such deeper understanding of time and space that things like time travel and FTL travel don’t even make sense as objectives anymore.
> which I sincerely hope we or our descendants can someday test
It is already being tested
It is already being tested
For those who can't get past the paywall on the actual paper by Cavalcanti et al., the arxiv preprint is here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607
As I scrolled down, I was just waiting in anticipation for the picture of the giant optical breadboard, bristling with bits from Thor Labs.
I wasn't disappointed.
I wasn't disappointed.
[deleted]
nobodyknowin(1)
The experiment seems flawed if they cannot rely on classical observers and measuring tools. The whole point of reality is that it is classical, not quantum. You need to collapse the quantum wave function through entanglement with a classical super system (physical reality).
Just the opposite. Quantum mechanics is real. Classical mechanics is an approximation that holds for large scales.
We're really attached to classical physics because we're macroscopic objects. Any observation we make will inherently be an aggregate that cannot support the delicate equilibria that characterize quantum superpositions.
We actually do have a pretty good understanding of how that works. The implications of it are hard to stomach, but the mathematics of it is well understood and experimentally confirmed to a dozen decimal places. Where it contradicts our classical intuition, it is always quantum physics that wins out.
We're really attached to classical physics because we're macroscopic objects. Any observation we make will inherently be an aggregate that cannot support the delicate equilibria that characterize quantum superpositions.
We actually do have a pretty good understanding of how that works. The implications of it are hard to stomach, but the mathematics of it is well understood and experimentally confirmed to a dozen decimal places. Where it contradicts our classical intuition, it is always quantum physics that wins out.
We're also really attached to the highly-focused way of looking at things, and thinking... And there are probably some other massive biases lurking there too.
>The implications of it are hard to stomach,
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
One way or another, part of the wave function is inaccessible. It's really hard to fit that into our expectations about the world, where the truth can be known. The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. What does it even mean?
Interpretations of quantum mechanics try to shove that inaccessible part of the wave function into a place where we can feel comfortable about it. But they are all a serious blow to what we think of as reality.
Interpretations of quantum mechanics try to shove that inaccessible part of the wave function into a place where we can feel comfortable about it. But they are all a serious blow to what we think of as reality.
> The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting.
May I ask why? If it is true, why do you need to test it? Is your problem unknowable truths? Or something else?
May I ask why? If it is true, why do you need to test it? Is your problem unknowable truths? Or something else?
This is too interesting for me not to comment asking for more. I'm not a physicist so where should I go to if I want to keep reading?
In QBism the wave function is "just" a tool, superdeterminism shoves everything to the initial state, Multiple Worlds puts most of it into the other "multiple worlds", various pilot wave theories put it into "guides", and there's probably stuff I'm missing.
> It's really hard to fit that into our expectations about the world, where the truth can be known.
This is the sort of statement I expect from philosophers and not scientists.
That may be your expectation, but it's not mine. I believe (with a high degree of confidence) that the best we ever have is a Bayesian confidence in any hypothesis.
> The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting.
I think there's a big leap between "We can't test it" and "It's untestable".
I am not confident that humans 1000 years from now will still be bound by quantum indeterminacy. What we now model as probability fields may be in fact the result of a deterministic process which we do not yet understand.
This is the sort of statement I expect from philosophers and not scientists.
That may be your expectation, but it's not mine. I believe (with a high degree of confidence) that the best we ever have is a Bayesian confidence in any hypothesis.
> The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting.
I think there's a big leap between "We can't test it" and "It's untestable".
I am not confident that humans 1000 years from now will still be bound by quantum indeterminacy. What we now model as probability fields may be in fact the result of a deterministic process which we do not yet understand.
Essentially MWI, but you can say the other worlds are "not real" if you like. Decoherence is continuous, so either you come up with a (somewhat arbitrary) threshold or say reality is continuous as well.
That's called decoherence, and it doesn't actually collapse the wave function, it just spreads it out over everything. The measuring device, observer, labaratory, etc all become entangled.
You need an additional assumption that collapse actually occurs to get rid of the world being in a massive superposition we can't observe, if you don't want Many Worlds Interpretation.
Also, physical reality is made up of quantum systems, so there is a real question as to whether the classical is actually quantum. MWI and some other realist interpretations like Bohmian Mechanics would say yes. The Copenhagen Interpretation would say the math is just a predictive tool and we don't know what's actually going on when not making measurements.
You need an additional assumption that collapse actually occurs to get rid of the world being in a massive superposition we can't observe, if you don't want Many Worlds Interpretation.
Also, physical reality is made up of quantum systems, so there is a real question as to whether the classical is actually quantum. MWI and some other realist interpretations like Bohmian Mechanics would say yes. The Copenhagen Interpretation would say the math is just a predictive tool and we don't know what's actually going on when not making measurements.
I feel entanglement post measurement is the exchange of which way information with a classical system (all matter beyond a mass threshold when other forces override quantum uncertainty). Which way information integrity is critical and is non local (see delayed choice quantum eraser). But reality is mostly classical, a network of entanglements starting from the Big Bang, crystallized which way information.
[deleted]
Presumably, if we have AGI that advanced, why not just ask it to solve the open problems involving quantum gravity, measurement, consciousness, etc. and explain the solutions in a clear and simple way. I would think that’s a much more likely outcome.
I’m not even sure we need AGI for that—advanced ML combined with automated theorem proving applied to the space of physically relevant no-go theorems might lead to substantial progress on a lot of these metaphysical mysteries.