Just the sheer hype from the AI rules! proponents alone should warn us to listen to a different perspective.
Dembski: It’s a lot more powerful than the earlier version, allowing visitors to click on items to get information about them and also to push and pull the images for better viewing.
Question: Who decided that physics had to be “natural”? What does that mean? And what if “naturalness” is not an attribute of the physics of our universe? What does that mean?
Maybe the cosmologists who don’t like the theistic implications of the Big Bang can overthrow the current universe and appoint another one?
Dr Carol Wood of Wesleyan University (a student of Abraham Robinson who pioneered non-standard analysis 50+ years ago) has discussed the hyperreals in two Numberphile videos: First: Extended: Wenmackers may also be helpful: In effect, using Model Theory (thus a fair amount of protective hedging!) or other approaches, one may propose an “extension” of the […]
As far as I can tell, Smolin sees this as a Darwinian solution to The Multiverse Problem. I think I’d call it “The Multiphysics Solution”. I suppose this falls under the dictum, “Fight fire with fire.” My own estimation is “garbage in, garbage out.”
So here’s where it stands: They’re compelled to stumble and make up nonsense and the rest of us are compelled to support them, cheer them on, and accept the dismal outcome, forever if need be.
Actually, Darwin and his followers simply imposed a vision on the natural world: In their vision, masses of complex, specified information simply arise naturally in the struggle among life forms, though we have yet to identify a single example.
It’s actually a good thing if theses in physics don’t gain currency just because they make good TED talks. That could be part of theirproblem.
If reality truly is constructed of disparate natures, maybe no theory from inside would explain it all.
What if the true state of things is something one is not supposed to discuss? That situation is very common and leads to similar conundrums.
Recently, theoretical physicist Ethan Siegel crossed our screen while making clear why, in his view, a multiverse MUST exist. If we know so little about the actual universe that we can’t answer the title question, what sense does it make to insist that there must be an infinity of universes?
Is it theoretically possible that the axion is so small that it is not individually measurable by any foreseeable technique but the mass of axions has an enormous effect?
“ infinitely far from having any connection to conventional science”? Wow.
Sheldon: It suggests that 30 years of string theorists have been searching in the wrong part of phase space. That promising solutions are not in the “weak interaction” swampland, but in the “strong interaction” wasteland. By limiting their search, they claim they have eliminated many previous solutions, and are closing in on “the solution” as one-in-a-quadrillion. Their track record would say otherwise.