Friday, July 19, 2013

Who Listens to Lubos Motl Anymore

Who Listens to Lubos Motl Anymore

L. Edgar Otto  July 19, 2013

A nice essay, Phil. A few words of mine about it:

reply to Lubos on viXra :

Lubos, of the stances of Bohr, Einstein, Bohm, and Everett, in the mutltverse of quantum interpretations by what unnaturally natural higher physics can you assert and discern whom has the crackpot stance?

* * * *

The fb discussion continues in comments to SH on free will ...

L. Edgar Otto I find it interesting that Einstein was a fan of Spinoza, and the attempt in Ethics to define things based on Euclid as a model interesting for the old lens grinder...his was a valid inquiring system. How does he define fear: fear is the lesser of two evils (do we fear incomplete but total yet contradictory theories?) Color is a very complicated idea- not merely some post modern magical word of philosophy- it is also deep science for no machine can correctly color match. it arises it is said between quantum levels of visible light and a possible higher level of psi phenomenon (Ramsberger, Encycopedia of Philosophy, Brittanica) But is it not amazing that in a different gravitational field colors may shift? Or that a change of one base in the DNA may allow the differences in how we see blue? Deep associations do exist as in mathematics... I find it interesting that birds see four primary colors while we see three and wonder if we could see them would we feel more at home in flight in three space.

Dominik, (if no one minds my cross dialog here) as philosophy it is the old Plato's cave problem or the Chinese box debate (how do we know by a mechanical procedure if a thinking entity is reading the Chinese or just reacting to the algorithm?  In a multiverse may there not  be a multiversal Turing machine as a way to debate core issues?  Connectionism of neuronets even with recent more complicated connections and the hierarchy that suggests holographic levels is not enough for it has to be intimate with the molecular DNA read fractally within a range of useful distinctions thus information. A further unified level as science we hope so to speak will prove relevant, thus science trumps philosophy here in the thought and research.  Now from lesser considerations you ask if we turned off the "machine" would we be guilty of murder?  From a quantum principle we can suggest that the computations are done more efficiently when the machine is turned off only to awaken to a solved problem- a sort of born again.  Science begins to ask such questions of identity between changes of state.  Certainly the brain is at least a quantum stance in its complexity- where is all the information stored, yes if wires it would have to be as large as the north american telephone system?

No comments:

Post a Comment