Examples of Major Disjoints between PopperDeutsch and Science

[hibbsa]

I know it's good philosophy, the best explanation literally true and so
on, but I do have a lot of resistance to including MWI with hard science
theories, as if it's actually out there. Where do you stand on this?
I actually think Deutsch's ideas around this are....fine if that's the
right way to go for the philosophy...but they do not reflect scientific
philosophy at all.
There's two components to this. First the popperdeutsch idea that if
there is an explanatory gap, the first thing to do is throw an
explanation into that gap.
There might be instances of that in scientific history, but if there is
it'll have to be in the weaker less productive threads. Certainly, where
science has been most productive, the really key arterial veins that
produced the enduring discoveries, explanatory gaps - gaping holes even
- were left, sometimes for hundreds of years.
This is because the history of those most productive threads, is where
we most clearly see the phenomenon whereby theoretical breakthroughs
both advanced and confused things at the same time.

Deutsch and Popper do talk about this effect - of good explanations also
creating new problems to solve - but neither of them get it quite right,
or not in terms of what actually happened.

Again where science was most productive, the breakthroughs didn't just
created new problems, but new problems with the distinct property of not
even being satisfyingly definable in terms of the background conceptual
framework to the theoretical breakthrough. In other words, the problems
were of such form, almost definitively they could not be solved on the
same terms as the breakthrough that created them.

It took time but this phenomenon consistently emerged where the science
being done was most productive and most robust. Most mathematical, the
researchers the most ingenious. As an aside, C another problem with the
DeutschPopper notion science as Explanatory - that being a verbal
arrangement within a discussional context generically with the structure
of some problem statement followed by some explanation:

this might work for some threads of science, and perhaps to an extent
for all. But something neither Popper nor Deutsch explain, nor even
address, is the question of why, if they are correct, the most
productive, most revolutionary, most far reaching scientific threads,
are all at the other end of the spectrum. They are profoundly
mathematical, profoundly terse and profoundly predictive. I am speaking
of the theories that knocked on into technological and industrial
revolutions. The most influential, far reaching, world changing shit in
the box,.

How does that work? If Deutsch is right, why is all the greatest science
non-verbal. Sure, it's explanatory, but the language is maths. Surely if
Deutsch was right we'd see things in the other direction, with clear
evidence of intensive C&R.....I always think of those Victorian
gentlemen in smoking jackets, pipe smoke in the air, bitches in the
kitchen, awfully rational, one says in reply to the other, who had just
said "I have a conjecture.."

But seriously, don't you think this is an important question? I should
think Deutsch would seek to neuter the issue by indicating that all
these positive characteristics, most robust, most predictive, most far
reaching, most fundamental, most breaking through to technology; perhaps
all of that, he will say, is justificationalist. In that, surely I am
suggesting these theories are *more likely* to be true due to these
positive features.

But I actually think that's a load of crap (and note I'm not saying
Deutsch *would* say it). What about you Gary? For one thing, the context
is historical hindsight, and not a play off between two competing
explanations. And so there it still stands. Why, Deutsch, if you are
right, are all the most influential and important theories the least
like the sort of thing you envisage?

But anyway, back to the nature of the 'problems' that come out of the
best science. Yeah, so they cannot be solved in terms of the science
being done right there. Like, Newton's gravity - the conceptual
framework supporting it - couldn't do anything with the problem of
non-locality in the force of gravity. Everyone knew it at the time.
Newton knew it was a huge problem....basically he backed it off onto
God.

But they didn't try throwing explanations at the problem, because - I
think - their efforts in science had already garnered I them an
instinct....a scientific instinct...which allowed many of them to share
in the insight that although the problem would need to be solved
eventually, it was impossible for them to solve it now.....to a
scientific standard. I mean, they could throw an explanation at it. In
fact, do you know, I think it would be very feasible to explain that
force using a multiverse concept.

So, lucky you neo-scientist/philosopher types weren't the dominant force
back then eh? You might have discovered a multiverse there too, and we
would have spent the last 400 years throwing verbal explanations between
ourselves, and presumably science would have gone in another direction.
Gone back to where it came from: philosophy.

But anyway, back to the properties of such problems in general. You see,
Science was rewarded for keeping its powder dry and not throwing
explanations at everything. For what happened, was that over time
several of the hardest science threads were increasingly in the same
boat. They were all facing problems that could not be solved in terms of
themselves, and for a while things seemed to be grinding to a halt. A
bit like right now really.

But then it began to become clear these problems, did seem to become
defined when these previous separate threads were considered together.
Indeed also when the problems were considered together.

But a huge barrier was that each thread had defined different concepts
meaning different things. Now, what I think DeutschPopper would have
done, is kick off a round of explanations and criticisms seeking to
unifying these concepts. But that is actually totally anathema to the
'scientific instinct'...at least where things were most productive.

You just don't do that. After all the work they had done making
everything precise, and squeezing out all the subjectivit and ambiguity,
they just KNEW that some kind of conversational mashup of what were
already shaky concepts, would amount to throwing a huge shit pile of
subjectivity and misconception right into the middle of their beautiful
theories.

They knew, instinctually, that there was just no way to deal with those
concepts directly at all. Something that was much more practical and
empirical and objective was needed. And in my view this is an example of
one of the many overlooked or underappreciated moments of true genius.
What they did was set about revolutionizing the conceptual frameworks
defining units of measurement, ways of expressing measures, scales, and
so on.

Genius, because it was inherently friendly to mathematics.....,and the
power of mathematics is rigourous translations...from one form to
another. As such, the units revolutions naturally joined, translated
between and converted the previously separate threads, and wo and
behold, common conceptual frameworks arose naturally out of them.

And so the really big, even bigger, biggest yet revolutions then
occurred. Not as 'bold conjectures' - a conception which seems to amount
to simply standing on a rock and saying "I say, universalism!". Not as
that, but as the build up of convergent theories, and problems, and that
they shared between this property of needing to be explained in terms of
eachother.

These really big scientific breakthroughs...the more big they are, the
more they weren't bold conjectures. More sort of 'grown' organically. By
the time, for example Special Relativity was published, Special
Revativity, almost in its entirety existed all around that space as a
set of constraints, convergent theories, problems, questions. So tight
was it, that arguably special relativity was pretty much discovered by
the constraints, since its outline and shape was clearly defined.

Don't you find that remarkable, and beautiful? But don't you also agree
that this is something completely other to that envisioned by
DeutschPopper. Also that their philosophy simply does not contain the
conceptual framework that would be necessary to even begin to....even
begin to see it even if it was right before your eyes.

The one exemption appears to be Einstein's General Relativity, which
would be crushingly notable if the case since that has got to be the
greatest most ingenious odessy of all time. But the problem is that it's
so hard to uncover what actually happened and who was involved, and what
other constrains and issues were materializing. This is partly because
this is one of those instances were priority has become a matter of
honour for the various warring factions. So it's sort of a no go area
for some.

But I am totally passionate that we *need* to be studying the history in
more detail, and we need to be ready to discovery things didn't happen
quite as we thought. For example, how much of Newton's gravity solution
was clarified and laid out by Hook? Hook was a remarkable genius and
Newton hated him, and when he was given the top post, he actually set
about destroying Hooks notes.

Then there is the matter of calculus. There is no way a conception like
that happens in two places independently. It can happen, but calculus is
too complex, and too goal oriented, and also too solvable by other forms
and means. They both came up with the same solution. It's pretty clear
to me that it wasn't Newton, and the way I deduce that is by simply
looking at the units. Liebnitz created something beautiful and deeply
relevant with great utility (for example you can derive a geometrical
formual for a shape, say, within a process whereby the dx of the dy/dx
is simply multipled across, so now to mean, literally dx, as some
infinesimal extent of x.

Back to General Revativity. Something that is widely said is that this
was invented by Einstein out of nowhere like a bolt, and thus if
Einstein had not existed the theory might still not be with us even now.

I mean, that is definitely bollocks, because we know for a fact that
Hilbert independently published the comprehensive, completed, field
equations a *week* before Einstein did. He just never botherd to argue
for priority. But...right there we have another person who independently
created General Revativity. As an aside, I think it's likely that this
is why Einstein never received a Nobel for General Relativity. The Nobel
committee were uncomfortable crediting Einstein when someone else had
clearly published first. There's at least a hint of this discomfort
nearly 100 years later still on the Nobel site. See the bottom comment
on this page describing the General Relativity timeline and I quote:

"1915 On November 25, nearly ten years after the foundation of special
relativity, Einstein submitted his paper The Field Equations of
Gravitation for publication, which gave the correct field equations for
the theory of general relativity (or general relativity for short).
Actually, the German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article
containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days
before Einstein. Hilbert never claimed priority for this theory."

And that's the official nobel site
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/history-1.html
<http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/history-1.html\
Plus there's more outside involvement. The conception of Spacetime as a
4D world was contributed by another party...though it's not clear
whether that included curvature. I should think not. But there are other
bits besides. So....what I would say is, yes GR could falsify a
consistent theoretical basis of larger theories being 'grown' by build
ups of problems and constrains. But the jury is still out. The fat lady
has not sung. My hunch is that all large theories see the same patterns
building up to them. The only exception that would be consistent, would
be where a mathematical genius produces something that is partially
physics inspired, but heavily influenced in formation by mathematical
beauties inherent to the formulation.

In that instance, it is conceivable a huge leap can take place out of
the blue. This is because when it happens the event always seems defined
by the mathematician not fully realizing himself the depth his equations
were going to (I forget the equation name but for example the discovery
of anti-matter as it just falling out of the equation invited) and also
the known (but unexplained) affinity mathematics has with nature and
physics.


Well so there you go. Not only does Science not agree that an
explanatory gap has to be filled as a top priority with whatever
material is to hand, but Science *profoundly* disagrees on this point,
and in fact, had Science gone about things that way, it is very
plausible that none of the major scientific breakthroughs would ever
have occurred. Because...those breakthroughs are inextricably linked to
a build up of problems and questions, all of which had been left CLEAN.

That's disjoint one.



Disjoint two, as said above, is that Deutschs C&R envisioning is
strangely incongruent with the characteristics of the most
groundbreaking scientific work, all of which adhered to strict rules
that appear aimed at *removing* loose text, and all them use the
explanatory language of mathematics almost exclusively.

Disjoint three brings us back to where I started which was with MWI.
Basically the whole way that theory comes about, the arguments for why
QM simply had to have an explanation as an immediate priority and so on.
All of this is totally at odds with Science. Basically, you saw a large
explanatory gap, and you threw an explanation at it. Not just you, but
the whole 'interpretation' movement. All of it was bad methodology in
terms of how the best science has come about. And....surprise
surprise...all of it has been TOTALLY STERILE in terms its productivity
seen from a historical context. Not only have we made no fundamental
progress in the last 50 years, but nor do we stand here now with a
really good set of problems, a single promising scientific avenue, nor
even a particularly clear agreement on what Science is.

Deutsch wants it to be philosophy again. Philosophy can never produce
beautiful predictions or mathematics, or technological revolutions or
industrial paradigm shifts, or radical explosive leaps in living
standards. Philosophy can never do that, because it simply lacks the
energy and conceptual frameworks, and methodological clarity, to ever
get things really tight and resolved. If Philosophy ever does, well then
it'll be Science. But as things stand, Philosophy can't have
babies....because Philosophy is a pre-scientific conception. It's
non-scientific. If Deutsch and others of his mind get their way, and
manage to make inroads into Science, then Science will die. Not because
Deutsch is bad, but because Deutsch is a philosopher, and philosophy
cannot produce scientific progress. All it can do is make Science back
into Philosophy.

And that is already a process well under way. Why do you all regard MWI
as so fundamental? You threw a freaking explanation at a huge hole and
then a bunch of philosophers showed up and said that to accept the best
current explanation as literally true was the true scientific way to do
things. This is one of the worst periods ever in the history of
science...at the fundamental frontier anyway. We've got a daft
explanation thrown at a huge hole, being nailed into place by
philosophers. We've got absolutely not one single sign of any
fundamental progress down the line. Increasingly we have no clue even
what the right direction to go in is. We've got enthuisiasts with
theories that have been running for 30 years and have never predicted a
single thing, and yet they seem to think they are going to get luck and
'bump into' objective reality as a kind of bizarre coincidence.

And worst of all we've got the line between philosophy and science now
so blurred for some people that half the time they are talking and
thinking clearly using philosophical - i.e. non-scientific,
pre-scientific asssumptions and conceptions. I mean shit, no progress,
so scientists are feeling a bit shitty. And yeah, if a philosopher comes
along and says "no progress......don't you worry my darling, we can
solve that just be redefining what progress actually is with this here
explanation". I mean, it's tempting I'm sure.

People don't see it because they are forgetting what science is at a
rate of knots. They don't see that philosophy, or any non-scientific
influence making inroads back into science as an influential force, is
TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED in the history of science,. They don't see that
Science cannot survive such an invasion, because you see, Science does
not define itself. Does not define many of the mysteries surrounding
itself. Science does not throw definitions at holes. Science is no good
at defining things, because Science knows instinctually that discovery
has to come a different way....and where it does successfully the
definitions will look after themselves. So people don't see that
philosophy coming into science will dominate science because philosophy
will define it. Will define the importance of things, define what a
theory should look like, define the way the method should happen, define
what is the measure of a great theory. And of course the philosophers
will define great theories to be objects that look rather like the
explanation they are just about to knock you out with.

The philosophers don't mean evil, but because deep down inside they feel
inferior to science, and feel like they can't earn a living outside, so
feel like they just have to own science.....by defining it as basically
philosophy..... they are entering into a process of destruction...of
science. Maybe the Enlightenment.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Brett Hall]

Post by hibbsa
I know it's good philosophy, the best explanation literally true and so
on, but I do have a lot of resistance to including MWI

(So just, for example, replace "MWI" above with the phrase "the external world, beyond my own mind" and see how the rest of what you have typed reads).

Post by hibbsa
with hard science
theories, as if it's actually out there. Where do you stand on this?
I actually think Deutsch's ideas around this are....fine if that's the
right way to go for the philosophy...but they do not reflect scientific
philosophy at all.
There's two components to this. First the popperdeutsch idea that if
there is an explanatory gap, the first thing to do is throw an
explanation into that gap.
There might be instances of that in scientific history, but if there is
it'll have to be in the weaker less productive threads. Certainly, where
science has been most productive, the really key arterial veins that
produced the enduring discoveries, explanatory gaps - gaping holes even
- were left, sometimes for hundreds of years.
This is because the history of those most productive threads, is where
we most clearly see the phenomenon whereby theoretical breakthroughs
both advanced and confused things at the same time.
Deutsch and Popper do talk about this effect - of good explanations also
creating new problems to solve - but neither of them get it quite right,
or not in terms of what actually happened.
Again where science was most productive, the breakthroughs didn't just
created new problems, but new problems with the distinct property of not
even being satisfyingly definable in terms of the background conceptual
framework to the theoretical breakthrough. In other words, the problems
were of such form, almost definitively they could not be solved on the
same terms as the breakthrough that created them.
It took time but this phenomenon consistently emerged where the science
being done was most productive and most robust. Most mathematical, the
researchers the most ingenious. As an aside, C another problem with the
DeutschPopper notion science as Explanatory - that being a verbal
arrangement within a discussional context generically with the structure
this might work for some threads of science, and perhaps to an extent
for all. But something neither Popper nor Deutsch explain, nor even
address, is the question of why, if they are correct, the most
productive, most revolutionary, most far reaching scientific threads,
are all at the other end of the spectrum. They are profoundly
mathematical, profoundly terse and profoundly predictive. I am speaking
of the theories that knocked on into technological and industrial
revolutions. The most influential, far reaching, world changing shit in
the box,.

But that's simply not true. Whilst some scientific theories are, for example, "profoundly mathematical" many of the "far reaching, world changing" are not. Consider evolution by natural selection, consider plate tectonics, or theories explaining human nutrition, etc, etc. Only in the rarefied field of physics are *almost all* theories expressed most clearly in mathematics. In other sciences although you might model some theory using maths to help, the theory is first and foremost not a mathematical one. I think this refutes what you say below.

Brett

Post by hibbsa
How does that work? If Deutsch is right, why is all the greatest science
non-verbal. Sure, it's explanatory, but the language is maths. Surely if
Deutsch was right we'd see things in the other direction, with clear
evidence of intensive C&R.....I always think of those Victorian
gentlemen in smoking jackets, pipe smoke in the air, bitches in the
kitchen, awfully rational, one says in reply to the other, who had just
said "I have a conjecture.."
But seriously, don't you think this is an important question? I should
think Deutsch would seek to neuter the issue by indicating that all
these positive characteristics, most robust, most predictive, most far
reaching, most fundamental, most breaking through to technology; perhaps
all of that, he will say, is justificationalist. In that, surely I am
suggesting these theories are *more likely* to be true due to these
positive features.
But I actually think that's a load of crap (and note I'm not saying
Deutsch *would* say it). What about you Gary? For one thing, the context
is historical hindsight, and not a play off between two competing
explanations. And so there it still stands. Why, Deutsch, if you are
right, are all the most influential and important theories the least
like the sort of thing you envisage?
But anyway, back to the nature of the 'problems' that come out of the
best science. Yeah, so they cannot be solved in terms of the science
being done right there. Like, Newton's gravity - the conceptual
framework supporting it - couldn't do anything with the problem of
non-locality in the force of gravity. Everyone knew it at the time.
Newton knew it was a huge problem....basically he backed it off onto
God.
But they didn't try throwing explanations at the problem, because - I
think - their efforts in science had already garnered I them an
instinct....a scientific instinct...which allowed many of them to share
in the insight that although the problem would need to be solved
eventually, it was impossible for them to solve it now.....to a
scientific standard. I mean, they could throw an explanation at it. In
fact, do you know, I think it would be very feasible to explain that
force using a multiverse concept.
So, lucky you neo-scientist/philosopher types weren't the dominant force
back then eh? You might have discovered a multiverse there too, and we
would have spent the last 400 years throwing verbal explanations between
ourselves, and presumably science would have gone in another direction.
Gone back to where it came from: philosophy.
But anyway, back to the properties of such problems in general. You see,
Science was rewarded for keeping its powder dry and not throwing
explanations at everything. For what happened, was that over time
several of the hardest science threads were increasingly in the same
boat. They were all facing problems that could not be solved in terms of
themselves, and for a while things seemed to be grinding to a halt. A
bit like right now really.
But then it began to become clear these problems, did seem to become
defined when these previous separate threads were considered together.
Indeed also when the problems were considered together.
But a huge barrier was that each thread had defined different concepts
meaning different things. Now, what I think DeutschPopper would have
done, is kick off a round of explanations and criticisms seeking to
unifying these concepts. But that is actually totally anathema to the
'scientific instinct'...at least where things were most productive.
You just don't do that. After all the work they had done making
everything precise, and squeezing out all the subjectivit and ambiguity,
they just KNEW that some kind of conversational mashup of what were
already shaky concepts, would amount to throwing a huge shit pile of
subjectivity and misconception right into the middle of their beautiful
theories.
They knew, instinctually, that there was just no way to deal with those
concepts directly at all. Something that was much more practical and
empirical and objective was needed. And in my view this is an example of
one of the many overlooked or underappreciated moments of true genius.
What they did was set about revolutionizing the conceptual frameworks
defining units of measurement, ways of expressing measures, scales, and
so on.
Genius, because it was inherently friendly to mathematics.....,and the
power of mathematics is rigourous translations...from one form to
another. As such, the units revolutions naturally joined, translated
between and converted the previously separate threads, and wo and
behold, common conceptual frameworks arose naturally out of them.
And so the really big, even bigger, biggest yet revolutions then
occurred. Not as 'bold conjectures' - a conception which seems to amount
to simply standing on a rock and saying "I say, universalism!". Not as
that, but as the build up of convergent theories, and problems, and that
they shared between this property of needing to be explained in terms of
eachother.
These really big scientific breakthroughs...the more big they are, the
more they weren't bold conjectures. More sort of 'grown' organically. By
the time, for example Special Relativity was published, Special
Revativity, almost in its entirety existed all around that space as a
set of constraints, convergent theories, problems, questions. So tight
was it, that arguably special relativity was pretty much discovered by
the constraints, since its outline and shape was clearly defined.
Don't you find that remarkable, and beautiful? But don't you also agree
that this is something completely other to that envisioned by
DeutschPopper. Also that their philosophy simply does not contain the
conceptual framework that would be necessary to even begin to....even
begin to see it even if it was right before your eyes.
The one exemption appears to be Einstein's General Relativity, which
would be crushingly notable if the case since that has got to be the
greatest most ingenious odessy of all time. But the problem is that it's
so hard to uncover what actually happened and who was involved, and what
other constrains and issues were materializing. This is partly because
this is one of those instances were priority has become a matter of
honour for the various warring factions. So it's sort of a no go area
for some.
But I am totally passionate that we *need* to be studying the history in
more detail, and we need to be ready to discovery things didn't happen
quite as we thought. For example, how much of Newton's gravity solution
was clarified and laid out by Hook? Hook was a remarkable genius and
Newton hated him, and when he was given the top post, he actually set
about destroying Hooks notes.
Then there is the matter of calculus. There is no way a conception like
that happens in two places independently. It can happen, but calculus is
too complex, and too goal oriented, and also too solvable by other forms
and means. They both came up with the same solution. It's pretty clear
to me that it wasn't Newton, and the way I deduce that is by simply
looking at the units. Liebnitz created something beautiful and deeply
relevant with great utility (for example you can derive a geometrical
formual for a shape, say, within a process whereby the dx of the dy/dx
is simply multipled across, so now to mean, literally dx, as some
infinesimal extent of x.
Back to General Revativity. Something that is widely said is that this
was invented by Einstein out of nowhere like a bolt, and thus if
Einstein had not existed the theory might still not be with us even now.
I mean, that is definitely bollocks, because we know for a fact that
Hilbert independently published the comprehensive, completed, field
equations a *week* before Einstein did. He just never botherd to argue
for priority. But...right there we have another person who independently
created General Revativity. As an aside, I think it's likely that this
is why Einstein never received a Nobel for General Relativity. The Nobel
committee were uncomfortable crediting Einstein when someone else had
clearly published first. There's at least a hint of this discomfort
nearly 100 years later still on the Nobel site. See the bottom comment
"1915 On November 25, nearly ten years after the foundation of special
relativity, Einstein submitted his paper The Field Equations of
Gravitation for publication, which gave the correct field equations for
the theory of general relativity (or general relativity for short).
Actually, the German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article
containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days
before Einstein. Hilbert never claimed priority for this theory."
And that's the official nobel site
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/history-1.html
<http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/history-1.html\
Plus there's more outside involvement. The conception of Spacetime as a
4D world was contributed by another party...though it's not clear
whether that included curvature. I should think not. But there are other
bits besides. So....what I would say is, yes GR could falsify a
consistent theoretical basis of larger theories being 'grown' by build
ups of problems and constrains. But the jury is still out. The fat lady
has not sung. My hunch is that all large theories see the same patterns
building up to them. The only exception that would be consistent, would
be where a mathematical genius produces something that is partially
physics inspired, but heavily influenced in formation by mathematical
beauties inherent to the formulation.
In that instance, it is conceivable a huge leap can take place out of
the blue. This is because when it happens the event always seems defined
by the mathematician not fully realizing himself the depth his equations
were going to (I forget the equation name but for example the discovery
of anti-matter as it just falling out of the equation invited) and also
the known (but unexplained) affinity mathematics has with nature and
physics.
Well so there you go. Not only does Science not agree that an
explanatory gap has to be filled as a top priority with whatever
material is to hand, but Science *profoundly* disagrees on this point,
and in fact, had Science gone about things that way, it is very
plausible that none of the major scientific breakthroughs would ever
have occurred. Because...those breakthroughs are inextricably linked to
a build up of problems and questions, all of which had been left CLEAN.
That's disjoint one.
Disjoint two, as said above, is that Deutschs C&R envisioning is
strangely incongruent with the characteristics of the most
groundbreaking scientific work, all of which adhered to strict rules
that appear aimed at *removing* loose text, and all them use the
explanatory language of mathematics almost exclusively.
Disjoint three brings us back to where I started which was with MWI.
Basically the whole way that theory comes about, the arguments for why
QM simply had to have an explanation as an immediate priority and so on.
All of this is totally at odds with Science. Basically, you saw a large
explanatory gap, and you threw an explanation at it. Not just you, but
the whole 'interpretation' movement. All of it was bad methodology in
terms of how the best science has come about. And....surprise
surprise...all of it has been TOTALLY STERILE in terms its productivity
seen from a historical context. Not only have we made no fundamental
progress in the last 50 years, but nor do we stand here now with a
really good set of problems, a single promising scientific avenue, nor
even a particularly clear agreement on what Science is.
Deutsch wants it to be philosophy again. Philosophy can never produce
beautiful predictions or mathematics, or technological revolutions or
industrial paradigm shifts, or radical explosive leaps in living
standards. Philosophy can never do that, because it simply lacks the
energy and conceptual frameworks, and methodological clarity, to ever
get things really tight and resolved. If Philosophy ever does, well then
it'll be Science. But as things stand, Philosophy can't have
babies....because Philosophy is a pre-scientific conception. It's
non-scientific. If Deutsch and others of his mind get their way, and
manage to make inroads into Science, then Science will die. Not because
Deutsch is bad, but because Deutsch is a philosopher, and philosophy
cannot produce scientific progress. All it can do is make Science back
into Philosophy.
And that is already a process well under way. Why do you all regard MWI
as so fundamental? You threw a freaking explanation at a huge hole and
then a bunch of philosophers showed up and said that to accept the best
current explanation as literally true was the true scientific way to do
things. This is one of the worst periods ever in the history of
science...at the fundamental frontier anyway. We've got a daft
explanation thrown at a huge hole, being nailed into place by
philosophers. We've got absolutely not one single sign of any
fundamental progress down the line. Increasingly we have no clue even
what the right direction to go in is. We've got enthuisiasts with
theories that have been running for 30 years and have never predicted a
single thing, and yet they seem to think they are going to get luck and
'bump into' objective reality as a kind of bizarre coincidence.
And worst of all we've got the line between philosophy and science now
so blurred for some people that half the time they are talking and
thinking clearly using philosophical - i.e. non-scientific,
pre-scientific asssumptions and conceptions. I mean shit, no progress,
so scientists are feeling a bit shitty. And yeah, if a philosopher comes
along and says "no progress......don't you worry my darling, we can
solve that just be redefining what progress actually is with this here
explanation". I mean, it's tempting I'm sure.
People don't see it because they are forgetting what science is at a
rate of knots. They don't see that philosophy, or any non-scientific
influence making inroads back into science as an influential force, is
TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED in the history of science,. They don't see that
Science cannot survive such an invasion, because you see, Science does
not define itself. Does not define many of the mysteries surrounding
itself. Science does not throw definitions at holes. Science is no good
at defining things, because Science knows instinctually that discovery
has to come a different way....and where it does successfully the
definitions will look after themselves. So people don't see that
philosophy coming into science will dominate science because philosophy
will define it. Will define the importance of things, define what a
theory should look like, define the way the method should happen, define
what is the measure of a great theory. And of course the philosophers
will define great theories to be objects that look rather like the
explanation they are just about to knock you out with.
The philosophers don't mean evil, but because deep down inside they feel
inferior to science, and feel like they can't earn a living outside, so
feel like they just have to own science.....by defining it as basically
philosophy..... they are entering into a process of destruction...of
science. Maybe the Enlightenment.
,_._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Post by Brett Hall
**

Post by hibbsa
I know it's good philosophy, the best explanation literally true and so
on, but I do have a lot of resistance to including MWI

(So just, for example, replace "MWI" above with the phrase "the external
world, beyond my own mind" and see how the rest of what you have typed
reads).

And so? Is that a criticism, or are you just pointing out that you can
often replace an actual topic with something else and still have it come
out readable?

Post by Brett Hall
...

Post by hibbsa
this might work for some threads of science, and perhaps to an extent
for all. But something neither Popper nor Deutsch explain, nor even
address, is the question of why, if they are correct, the most
productive, most revolutionary, most far reaching scientific threads,
are all at the other end of the spectrum. They are profoundly
mathematical, profoundly terse and profoundly predictive. I am speaking
of the theories that knocked on into technological and industrial
revolutions. The most influential, far reaching, world changing shit in
the box,.

But that's simply not true. Whilst some scientific theories are, for
example, "profoundly mathematical" many of the "far reaching, world
changing" are not. Consider evolution by natural selection, consider plate
tectonics, or theories explaining human nutrition, etc, etc.

Evolution is all about math. Number of offspring, mutation rates, survival
rates, etc. Without math it would be empty theorizing. You might be
confusing how it was discovered with how it's used. I think this one's on
hibbsa's side. (I used to do some a-life stuff, so I know something about
it.) Plate tectonics is a meta-theory of physics (it's geography), but
without rates of motion, measurement and geometry (this bulge fits into
that hole) it would not have happened. Nutrition, maybe. I'm less
experienced in that so you could be right.

[Brett Hall]

Post by Brett Hall
**

Post by hibbsa
I know it's good philosophy, the best explanation literally true and so
on, but I do have a lot of resistance to including MWI

(So just, for example, replace "MWI" above with the phrase "the external
world, beyond my own mind" and see how the rest of what you have typed
reads).

And so? Is that a criticism, or are you just pointing out that you can
often replace an actual topic with something else and still have it come
out readable?

It's a criticism. Solipsism is refutable as a bad explanation. I'm comfortable with saying is it literally false, even if not provably so. I don't care if i'm not certain that the world isn't all just my dream. But I know it's not (know meaning, "my best theory").

In the same way, to want something out of MWI that is more than what is demanded of any other scientific theory amounts to a desire for the same level of "proof" as that demanded by those who are (they claim) solipsists. For example: the theory of dinosaurs. No one has seen a dinosaur - ever. People have collected *fossils*. That's all they have. Not dinosaurs. And they have a theory linking fossils and dinosaurs. And that theory is the best explanation. In the same way we don't have parallel universes to hold up and say "aha! Here is another universe! Proof!". No, instead we have interference phenomena with single particles like electrons and photons - or whole atoms, whatever and we say that this only makes sense in light of the MWI. All other "interpretations" have the onus on them to m
ake sense of it. And they don't. They wave their hands and talk about wave-particle duality or some other such nonsense.

We know dinosaurs existed because the best theory we have explains just what fossils are, and how they are formed. We know parallel universes exist because the best theory we have explains how interference phenomena arise.

I was replying to a post that contained criticisms of the MWI as not being predictive or not being "profoundly mathematical". But as I am a mind with DD on this, I think such criticisms are unsuccessful as they miss the whole point: quantum theory *IS* MWI taken literally. So every prediction of quantum theory is one of MWI and every mathematical formulae of quantum theory is one of the MWI.

If it's not profoundly mathematical, then it's up to hibbsa to explain, for example this paper I link to below by David Deutsch: 'the structure of the multiverse': a "profoundly" (i'm not sure what bar needs to be crossed to reach that) mathematical paper:

Published 8 December 2002 doi:10.1098/rspa.2002.1015
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 8 December 2002 vol. 458no. 2028 2911-2923

Find it here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0104033v1.pdf

So my point about solipsism? Someone can always make noises of the sort that amount to
"you can't prove it's all not a dream" and they are right in the sense we cannot be certain. Criticisms of MWI,
to my mind often amount to this. It's nothing more than saying: the wave function is real. All possibilities really are
manifest. To demand ever higher standards - approaching (or even reaching) certainty, just miss the point
about what science is: the quest for best explanations.

Post by Brett Hall
...

Post by hibbsa
this might work for some threads of science, and perhaps to an extent
for all. But something neither Popper nor Deutsch explain, nor even
address, is the question of why, if they are correct, the most
productive, most revolutionary, most far reaching scientific threads,
are all at the other end of the spectrum. They are profoundly
mathematical, profoundly terse and profoundly predictive. I am speaking
of the theories that knocked on into technological and industrial
revolutions. The most influential, far reaching, world changing shit in
the box,.

But that's simply not true. Whilst some scientific theories are, for
example, "profoundly mathematical" many of the "far reaching, world
changing" are not. Consider evolution by natural selection, consider plate
tectonics, or theories explaining human nutrition, etc, etc.

Evolution is all about math. Number of offspring, mutation rates, survival
rates, etc. Without math it would be empty theorizing.

Empty? I do not understand this. Why does mathematics give it non-zero content. Evolution by
natural selection can be appreciated - and deeply - without any need to model it using partial differential
equations or whatever else one might choose to use. The mechanism of mutation and selection for
and against, given certain environments, are augmented by an understanding of mathematics. But they are
not essential for it.

You might be
confusing how it was discovered with how it's used. I think this one's on
hibbsa's side. (I used to do some a-life stuff, so I know something about
it.) Plate tectonics is a meta-theory of physics (it's geography), but
without rates of motion, measurement and geometry (this bulge fits into
that hole) it would not have happened. Nutrition, maybe. I'm less
experienced in that so you could be right.

Geography is not a science?

What is science?

Brett._,___

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Post by Brett Hall

Evolution is all about math. Number of offspring, mutation rates, survival
rates, etc. Without math it would be empty theorizing.

Empty? I do not understand this. Why does mathematics give it non-zero
content. Evolution by
natural selection can be appreciated - and deeply - without any need to
model it using partial differential
equations or whatever else one might choose to use. The mechanism of
mutation and selection for
and against, given certain environments, are augmented by an understanding
of mathematics. But they are
not essential for it.

By empty I mean that math is how we test it. Everything from Mendel
through modern A-life experiments (software, but still mathematical). It
can be _appreciated_ in words, sure, but to my mind the proof is in the
math. I take your point, though; really both are vital. The math without
the text would be just as empty.

Post by Brett Hall

You might be
confusing how it was discovered with how it's used. I think this one's on
hibbsa's side. (I used to do some a-life stuff, so I know something about
it.) Plate tectonics is a meta-theory of physics (it's geography), but
without rates of motion, measurement and geometry (this bulge fits into
that hole) it would not have happened. Nutrition, maybe. I'm less
experienced in that so you could be right.

Geography is not a science?

I guess I'm being controversial, but I see most geography as
categorization, like history. Such-and-such battle occurred on
such-and-such date. So-and-so begat him and her. This river is the
longest, that mountain is highest, this coastline is longest, and so on.
These are matters of fact on the ground, but there's no theory behind
them. So in my mind, they're not really sciences. Now when you start
moving from geography to geology, and talk about rock formation, lava
flows, and so on, then (again in my probably controversial ontology) you're
moving toward science. But again you're right that plate tectonics is more
properly geology than "just" geography.

[hibbsa]

You mean what I say right at the start about MWI? Well sure, but then I go onto to make an argument for [another] objection to MWI. The first comment wasn't meant to be taken in isolation.

But since you're on the line. You're an MWI guy, so would you answer me just one question. Why do you believe that QM strangeness and the 'big bang' event, are definitely NOT different faces of the same hidden explanation, such that neither one can be answered in isolation of the other, but can only be explained both together.

I'm playing a little, but it is reasonable enough to associate your acceptance of MWI with an implicit rejection of the QM-and-Big-Bang-together approach.

What's probably accurate is that you never considered that possibility in the first place. The pond that MWI people having been swimming in, only ever considered 'Interpretations' as legitimate competing explanations.

And the reason for that - I think - is because that was what all the great mid 20th century quantum geniuses were doing.l..back in the mid to late 20th century. A convention which the subsequent generations seem to have just carried on with, possibly as an implicit collective decision that never saw a forum of debate.

But all of that - this whole interpretation approach - came about within a historical context in which the Big Bang was barely more than a vague conception. There were a lot fewer options for something to explain QM in terms of. In fact it's possible there weren't any at all yet sufficiently non-vague to be a viable candidate.

I don't know for sure...I'll have to check the historical record. But certainly, that scenario would be where my bet would go. For me the reason is that, were there other huge mysteries that seemed to defy all sense, besides QM - and there's a lot about the Big Bang that would qualify for that - it would be utterly inconceivable that that generation of scientists, so many great geniuses among them, would overlook that other baffling mystery as a possible candidate for explaining QM.

It just wouldn't happen in my view, because that generation would have been extremely familiar with the idea that apparently separate problems in separate places, can turn out to be different faces of the same thing, and as such only explicable in terms of one to the other.

This may sound odd to you Brett, but it wouldn't have to them, because that is pretty much how all the major breakthroughs of the 100 years or so before their day, had come about. So this would have been extremely familiar to them, and any possibility of explaining QM like that would have automatically become the priority, because an arrangement like that would be consistent with several other breakthroughs.

So based on that, I reckon the interpretation thing came about because there were no such alternative means in place at that time.

Now..of course the Big Bang started becoming clear before these guys popped their clogs, but by that time, most of them were well past their prime and or (as in the case of Feynman) had ceased showing much interest in the interpretation scene, and moved onto other questions.

So something like all that, could explain why *they* - that mid 20th century generation, turned to or raised no objection to, an interpretative approach.

But the question is, why did Deutsch's generation carry that forward? Why has your generation? Why have you? I don't think any of you can hitch a ride with that old generation. You do need to have an explanation, why you have done everything exclusively within the 'interpretive' paradigm, to the exclusion of phenomena like the Big Bang. Why has Deutsch? And all of you.

Would it be reasonable to say that given you all made this exclusive choice, and if you still stand by that, that this translates into a belief that were everything that happened in the 50's to be happening now, and all those people alive now, that that generation would make the exact same choice, on the exact same terms, now....as they did in the 50's?

Is that what you believe? Does Deutsch believe that?

If you do go that way....then can you, or any of you, provide a good explanation why that generation would invent a wholly different approach involving 'interpretation', that was totally different to the way science had occurred to date, in a situation where there were clear and present avenues to explore, with very much the same sort of methodology, as was applied ubiquitously in science already.

How would that happen? What would prompt them to conclude that a new such approach was necessary. When old such approaches with great track records, were clear and present and available.

Do you know what I think? I think that none of you have ever begun to think about these questions at all. And the reason why I think that's a problem is because.....and this bit will be falsifiable.....I predict that none of you will be able to provide a plausible explanation how the interpretation approach would have come about in 2013 within a context of 2013 evels of knowledge.

And if I'm right about that, and if you agree that the fact that what all of you have done, is tantamount to YOU making the same decisions they made in the 1950's, in a process where you only considered 1950's scientific knowledge, then the fact you can't plausibly explain why that generation would have done the same thing if they were here now, is exactly the same as you can't plausibly explain why you made those decisions, with that filtering of knowledge.

Now look old chap...if you're going to come straight back saying I'm being incoherent, could you first read what I have said 5 times then try writing my points in your own words. I do appreciate some of this is unfamiliar or whatever, and also that I'm not great write. But make a mega effort.

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Post by hibbsa
Why do you believe that QM strangeness and the 'big bang' event, are
definitely NOT different faces of the same hidden explanation, such that
neither one can be answered in isolation of the other, but can only be
explained both together.
I'm playing a little, but it is reasonable enough to associate your
acceptance of MWI with an implicit rejection of the
QM-and-Big-Bang-together approach.

I must have missed something. What is this about QM (MWI or not)
"rejecting" some explanations of the Big Bang? String theory? LQG?

(And by the way, at the risk of repeating myself, MWI takes pretty much all
the strangeness out of QM - in exchange for the idea that the world is much
bigger than we thought.)

[hibbsa]

Post by Gary Oberbrunner

Post by hibbsa
Why do you believe that QM strangeness and the 'big bang' event, are
definitely NOT different faces of the same hidden explanation, such that
neither one can be answered in isolation of the other, but can only be
explained both together.
I'm playing a little, but it is reasonable enough to associate your
acceptance of MWI with an implicit rejection of the
QM-and-Big-Bang-together approach.

I must have missed something. What is this about QM (MWI or not)
"rejecting" some explanations of the Big Bang? String theory? LQG?
(And by the way, at the risk of repeating myself, MWI takes pretty much all
the strangeness out of QM - in exchange for the idea that the world is much
bigger than we thought.)
--
Gary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Gary - over the last few posts I sort of covered the main bases necessary - I think - for the points to Brett to be comprehensible. It is very difficult though, communicating across large divides. I mean, what I am saying is very self-evident, and I have even read over a couple of recent posts, and the truth is, I they are an acceptable standard.

The problem though, is that you and I have very different 'background conceptual framorks'. I think these background concepts are really important not just in shaping how we think, but also in shaping what we can think. If there's no conceptual support in our heads able to support that next thought, then that next thought probably doesn't get thought.

So, over in your head, your brain has been playing with MWI for years and all these concepts have steadily back to neaar the periphery of your consciousness. MWI feels like second nature to you...your brain strongly supportes that stance from me. It isn't all that likely from my perspective I will ever be driving your car again.

[Gary Oberbrunner]

Post by hibbsa
**
So, over in your head, your brain has been playing with MWI for years and
all these concepts have steadily back to neaar the periphery of your
consciousness. MWI feels like second nature to you...your brain strongly
supportes that stance from me. It isn't all that likely from my perspective
I will ever be driving your car again.

Fair enough -- you're certainly right that I have spent many years thinking
about QM, quantum computation, and MWI. I'll stay out of things for a
while and let Brett respond to your points.

[hibbsa]

Post by Gary Oberbrunner

Post by hibbsa
**
So, over in your head, your brain has been playing with MWI for years and
all these concepts have steadily back to neaar the periphery of your
consciousness. MWI feels like second nature to you...your brain strongly
supportes that stance from me. It isn't all that likely from my perspective
I will ever be driving your car again.

Fair enough -- you're certainly right that I have spent many years thinking
about QM, quantum computation, and MWI. I'll stay out of things for a
while and let Brett respond to your points.
--
Gary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gary I swear this is true....and actually it's really funny. I was so tired when I wrote that post....I fell asleep in that last sentence and jerked awake whacking the send button. That last sentence "I will never drive your car again" It was literally me asleep.

I recall it happening but had actually forgotten by this morning. I remember thinking, what the fuck did I just send?

I guess we should both be relieved that I didn't have weirder sub-conscious feelings. It might have been really embarrassing.
What if I signed of with "I want to have your baby, man" Just be thankful man, for small blessings

Also interesting though, I just sent you a reply, before being reminded by your response here, and in that reply the metaphor I am using is "trying on" ideas...I'm saying I need time to reflect and try on what you have said.

It seems plausible I was about to say that last night but for whatever reason I came out that I didn't want to drive your car anymore. Seems reasonable, I mean, who ever subconsciously wants to try on ideas that might refute their own ideas. That's a conscious discipline that we bring. Certainly I'm pleased to say that my actual consciously disciplined conclusion has been that I need to reflect and try on your ideas. I will be spending some time driving your car :o)

[Brett Hall]

Post by hibbsa
You mean what I say right at the start about MWI? Well sure, but then I go onto to make an argument for [another] objection to MWI. The first comment wasn't meant to be taken in isolation.
But since you're on the line. You're an MWI guy, so would you answer me just one question. Why do you believe that QM strangeness and the 'big bang' event, are definitely NOT different faces of the same hidden explanation, such that neither one can be answered in isolation of the other, but can only be explained both together.

I can honestly say, I no longer find QM all that 'strange'. I know that word is used so often when it comes to quantum theory - it's a cliche. It's a hackneyed meme that there exists QM "strangeness". It's a catch-all term for stuff that's not classical. But QM is no more strange to me than the theory that there exist other planets orbiting other stars. It just happens to contain some rather exciting, interesting predictions, observations and conclusions when encountered for the first time. But one can get used to such things and they became not all that strange anymore.

I am not "definite" that there is no deeper explanation than QM. Indeed the opposite. I am very confident there must be. But I do not think we will find that there are not other universes - as described by Everett and Deutsch - anymore than I think a discovery will be made that DNA is not involved in genetics. I think there is more to genetics than DNA...but I know DNA is essential. There is more to reality than other universes. But there are other universes.

This is my best attempt to answer your question as I'm not sure I understood it.

Post by hibbsa
I'm playing a little, but it is reasonable enough to associate your acceptance of MWI with an implicit rejection of the QM-and-Big-Bang-together approach.

No. I don't understand why you think QM and big bang can't be reconciled. That seems very odd to me. QM is true. And the big bang happened. Why is this a problem?

Post by hibbsa
What's probably accurate is that you never considered that possibility in the first place.

What possibility?

Post by hibbsa
The pond that MWI people having been swimming in, only ever considered 'Interpretations' as legitimate competing explanations.
And the reason for that - I think - is because that was what all the great mid 20th century quantum geniuses were doing.l..back in the mid to late 20th century. A convention which the subsequent generations seem to have just carried on with, possibly as an implicit collective decision that never saw a forum of debate.
But all of that - this whole interpretation approach - came about within a historical context in which the Big Bang was barely more than a vague conception. There were a lot fewer options for something to explain QM in terms of. In fact it's possible there weren't any at all yet sufficiently non-vague to be a viable candidate.

I don't understand. What is the "interpretation approach"?

All science is interpretation. Indeed all knowledge. We believe stars are hot furnaces of hydrogen fusion and not cold, dim holes on a celestial sphere because we interpret scant data in the form of a few photons arriving at our instruments then other photons falling on our retinas. Interpretation is the stuff knowledge is made of. We never have direct access to reality. We interpret observations. Our observations are interpretations. The MWI is on a par with the dinosaur interpretation of fossils, the tectonic plate interpretation of continental drift, the evolution by natural selection interpretation of the origin of species, the nuclear fusion interpretation of stars, etc, etc.

Post by hibbsa
I don't know for sure...I'll have to check the historical record. But certainly, that scenario would be where my bet would go. For me the reason is that, were there other huge mysteries that seemed to defy all sense, besides QM - and there's a lot about the Big Bang that would qualify for that - it would be utterly inconceivable that that generation of scientists, so many great geniuses among them, would overlook that other baffling mystery as a possible candidate for explaining QM.
It just wouldn't happen in my view, because that generation would have been extremely familiar with the idea that apparently separate problems in separate places, can turn out to be different faces of the same thing, and as such only explicable in terms of one to the other.
This may sound odd to you Brett, but it wouldn't have to them, because that is pretty much how all the major breakthroughs of the 100 years or so before their day, had come about. So this would have been extremely familiar to them, and any possibility of explaining QM like that would have automatically become the priority, because an arrangement like that would be consistent with several other breakthroughs.
So based on that, I reckon the interpretation thing came about because there were no such alternative means in place at that time.
Now..of course the Big Bang started becoming clear before these guys popped their clogs, but by that time, most of them were well past their prime and or (as in the case of Feynman) had ceased showing much interest in the interpretation scene, and moved onto other questions.

As Deutsch explains in BoI - one reason many physicists don't promote the MWI is because of some bad turns in philosophy. I commend chapter 12 of "The Beginning of Infinity" to you (Physicists history of Bad Philosophy). In the 20th century some of philosophy became obsessed with with language - and how it might constrain what we can know. This followed Ludwig Wittgenstein. Physicists became infected with a weakness avoiding the tendancy to say what sci
was "literally" true - perhaps it seemed to arrogant. They became afraid and relativism moved from the humanities into the hardest of all sciences. Some physicists retreated into wishy-washy things like "wave particle duality" (hippies?) and "shut up and calculate" (an incoherent cop-out). We are burdened with that heritage.

It's as if the Catholic Church was successful in arguing that heliocentrism was a useful mathematical device for predicting the position of planets: but as a literal explanation of reality, was nonsense. That there was "something deeper" and so for that reason we should hold out for another, truer, theory and not admit the Earth actually did orbit the Sun (obviously it does not. Anyone who thinks it does lacks the imagination to believe that there must be more to the universe than this). So in the meantime we must remain committed to geocentrism - it is literally true. But at the same time be committed to the idea there is something deeper - only it's not heliocentrism.

So MWI is not true some say. But something else is (what though?) We are not told. You have said there is a deeper theory. But you don't know what. We just have to wait for it to be fully formed. But what do we take seriously *now*?

We aren't told.

To borrow a quip from Sam Harris:

This is how you play tennis without the net.

Post by hibbsa
Do you know what I think? I think that none of you have ever begun to think about these questions at all. And the reason why I think that's a problem is because.....and this bit will be falsifiable.....I predict that none of you will be able to provide a plausible explanation how the interpretation approach would have come about in 2013 within a context of 2013 evels of knowledge.

Again, what is the "interpretation approach"?

Brett..




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[hibbsa]

Post by Brett Hall

Post by hibbsa
You mean what I say right at the start about MWI? Well sure, but then I go onto to make an argument for [another] objection to MWI. The first comment wasn't meant to be taken in isolation.
But since you're on the line. You're an MWI guy, so would you answer me just one question. Why do you believe that QM strangeness and the 'big bang' event, are definitely NOT different faces of the same hidden explanation, such that neither one can be answered in isolation of the other, but can only be explained both together.

I can honestly say, I no longer find QM all that 'strange'. I know that word is used so often when it comes to quantum theory - it's a cliche. It's a hackneyed meme that there exists QM "strangeness". It's a catch-all term for stuff that's not classical. But QM is no more strange to me than the theory that there exist other planets orbiting other stars. It just happens to contain some rather exciting, interesting predictions, observations and conclusions when encountered for the first time. But one can get used to such things and they became not all that strange anymore.
I am not "definite" that there is no deeper explanation than QM. Indeed the opposite. I am very confident there must be. But I do not think we will find that there are not other universes - as described by Everett and Deutsch - anymore than I think a discovery will be made that DNA is not involved in genetics. I think there is more to genetics than DNA...but I know DNA is essential. There is more to reality than other universes. But there are other universes.
This is my best attempt to answer your question as I'm not sure I understood it.

Post by hibbsa
I'm playing a little, but it is reasonable enough to associate your acceptance of MWI with an implicit rejection of the QM-and-Big-Bang-together approach.

No. I don't understand why you think QM and big bang can't be reconciled. That seems very odd to me. QM is true. And the big bang happened. Why is this a problem?

Post by hibbsa
What's probably accurate is that you never considered that possibility in the first place.

What possibility?

Post by hibbsa
The pond that MWI people having been swimming in, only ever considered 'Interpretations' as legitimate competing explanations.
And the reason for that - I think - is because that was what all the great mid 20th century quantum geniuses were doing.l..back in the mid to late 20th century. A convention which the subsequent generations seem to have just carried on with, possibly as an implicit collective decision that never saw a forum of debate.
But all of that - this whole interpretation approach - came about within a historical context in which the Big Bang was barely more than a vague conception. There were a lot fewer options for something to explain QM in terms of. In fact it's possible there weren't any at all yet sufficiently non-vague to be a viable candidate.

I don't understand. What is the "interpretation approach"?
All science is interpretation. Indeed all knowledge. We believe stars are hot furnaces of hydrogen fusion and not cold, dim holes on a celestial sphere because we interpret scant data in the form of a few photons arriving at our instruments then other photons falling on our retinas. Interpretation is the stuff knowledge is made of. We never have direct access to reality. We interpret observations. Our observations are interpretations. The MWI is on a par with the dinosaur interpretation of fossils, the tectonic plate interpretation of continental drift, the evolution by natural selection interpretation of the origin of species, the nuclear fusion interpretation of stars, etc, etc.

Post by hibbsa
I don't know for sure...I'll have to check the historical record. But certainly, that scenario would be where my bet would go. For me the reason is that, were there other huge mysteries that seemed to defy all sense, besides QM - and there's a lot about the Big Bang that would qualify for that - it would be utterly inconceivable that that generation of scientists, so many great geniuses among them, would overlook that other baffling mystery as a possible candidate for explaining QM.
It just wouldn't happen in my view, because that generation would have been extremely familiar with the idea that apparently separate problems in separate places, can turn out to be different faces of the same thing, and as such only explicable in terms of one to the other.
This may sound odd to you Brett, but it wouldn't have to them, because that is pretty much how all the major breakthroughs of the 100 years or so before their day, had come about. So this would have been extremely familiar to them, and any possibility of explaining QM like that would have automatically become the priority, because an arrangement like that would be consistent with several other breakthroughs.
So based on that, I reckon the interpretation thing came about because there were no such alternative means in place at that time.
Now..of course the Big Bang started becoming clear before these guys popped their clogs, but by that time, most of them were well past their prime and or (as in the case of Feynman) had ceased showing much interest in the interpretation scene, and moved onto other questions.

As Deutsch explains in BoI - one reason many physicists don't promote the MWI is because of some bad turns in philosophy. I commend chapter 12 of "The Beginning of Infinity" to you (Physicists history of Bad Philosophy). In the 20th century some of philosophy became obsessed with with language - and how it might constrain what we can know. This followed Ludwig Wittgenstein. Physicists became infected with a weakness avoiding the tendancy to say what sci
was "literally" true - perhaps it seemed to arrogant. They became afraid and relativism moved from the humanities into the hardest of all sciences. Some physicists retreated into wishy-washy things like "wave particle duality" (hippies?) and "shut up and calculate" (an incoherent cop-out). We are burdened with that heritage.
It's as if the Catholic Church was successful in arguing that heliocentrism was a useful mathematical device for predicting the position of planets: but as a literal explanation of reality, was nonsense. That there was "something deeper" and so for that reason we should hold out for another, truer, theory and not admit the Earth actually did orbit the Sun (obviously it does not. Anyone who thinks it does lacks the imagination to believe that there must be more to the universe than this). So in the meantime we must remain committed to geocentrism - it is literally true. But at the same time be committed to the idea there is something deeper - only it's not heliocentrism.
So MWI is not true some say. But something else is (what though?) We are not told. You have said there is a deeper theory. But you don't know what. We just have to wait for it to be fully formed. But what do we take seriously *now*?
We aren't told.
This is how you play tennis without the net.

Post by hibbsa
Do you know what I think? I think that none of you have ever begun to think about these questions at all. And the reason why I think that's a problem is because.....and this bit will be falsifiable.....I predict that none of you will be able to provide a plausible explanation how the interpretation approach would have come about in 2013 within a context of 2013 evels of knowledge.

Again, what is the "interpretation approach"?
Brett..
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Brett you have repeated the same old explanations for MWI, largely rooted in philosophy. But what you haven't done is address the actual question my post to you built up to.

If you didn't understand the question, is it possible that's because what you tend to do is hit the 'reply' button and then respond to each point inline, having never read the whole thing through first?

I've suggested this before: how about trying to do your inline responses AND at the bottom make a response to the holistic point that was made, as best you can understand it.

But I will try to highlight the main distinction of the Interpretation approach.

Whereas scientific theories have tended to come about as the convergence of multiple theoretical lines, as the problems thrown up by each one, the Interpretation approach is the proposition that QM...whatever...call it 'behaviour'...can be understood entirely in terms of itself.

If you want to point to another major theoretical advance that came about this way, go for it. I'll research your suggestion and get back to you.

Or in the absence of any suggestion...there you have your distinction what Interpretation means in this context