IniciGrupsConversesExploraTendències
Cerca al lloc
Aquest lloc utilitza galetes per a oferir els nostres serveis, millorar el desenvolupament, per a anàlisis i (si no has iniciat la sessió) per a publicitat. Utilitzant LibraryThing acceptes que has llegit i entès els nostres Termes de servei i política de privacitat. L'ús que facis del lloc i dels seus serveis està subjecte a aquestes polítiques i termes.
Hide this

Resultats de Google Books

Clica una miniatura per anar a Google Books.

The Science of Can and Can't: A Physicist's…
S'està carregant…

The Science of Can and Can't: A Physicist's Journey through the Land of… (edició 2021)

de Chiara Marletto (Autor)

MembresRessenyesPopularitatValoració mitjanaConverses
911,676,922 (2)Cap
Membre:RonGunsolus
Títol:The Science of Can and Can't: A Physicist's Journey through the Land of Counterfactuals
Autors:Chiara Marletto (Autor)
Informació:Viking (2021), 272 pages
Col·leccions:La teva biblioteca
Valoració:
Etiquetes:Cap

Informació de l'obra

The Science of Can and Can't: A Physicist's Journey through the Land of Counterfactuals de Chiara Marletto

Cap
S'està carregant…

Apunta't a LibraryThing per saber si aquest llibre et pot agradar.

No hi ha cap discussió a Converses sobre aquesta obra.

Cynic Alter-Ego: “Nice SF. So now we want to explain nature without equations of motion. I will go back to study my Aristotle book. Science fiction in academy goes on. After the multiverses we go for no equations... in addition to title "Beyond Quantum Computation"... still there no real quantum computer (apart from some big claims but nothing more than 50qubits doing little tasks) and very from a real one .... but they already speak about beyond quantum computing... how these people can have success , it is a shame.”

Constructor Theory Fan: The amount of comments like this is astounding. You know you can literally read the paper pre-prints on the website, right? Nobody is suggesting to do away with equations of motions - i.e. dynamics - as a fundamental tool in the physics arsenal. The point of this theory as far as I can see, on a very rough level, is to provide a mechanism for the introduction of counterfactual knowledge into physical theories. By doing so you can reduce the size of the admissible solution space when it comes to exploring those new theories. It's not that magical or complicated... but again understanding this would require approximately 30-40 seconds of googling followed by maybe 10-15 minutes of light reading, so it is understandable that people might struggle with that.”

Cynic Alter-Ego: Well, Deutsch and Marletto claim to have new physics . A new theory , deeper than quantum mechanics, that allow to deduce things like thermodynamics. From this new physics in their papers there is no trace how you deduce Schrödinger’s or Einstein’s equations from these new principles. Neither trace on how you are expected to solve the measurement problem, so mysterious what is deeper than quantum mechanics. Neither rigorous derivation of chaos, and this makes it quite mysterious how they can derive thermodynamics. You can all ignore me but I'll warn you all here: Constructor Theory is (another) dead end like String Theory. It is asking us to be Oracles. We just cannot know what is possible and what is impossible until we know the physical laws. Even if the laws are written in Holy Granite Marble in terms of "can" and "can't" we cannot discover them efficiently without a deeper theory that derives for us what is possible to construct and what cannot be constructed (a theory of the Marble Itself, so to speak). So at best, CT is like a symbiotic living off a deeper sort of theory of physics or metaphysics, so CT is not fundamental, it is post-fundamental. But that's just MHO. Seems to me, much like QIT, this bunch of principles of CT is useful as a window onto fundamental physics, a new way of seeing the world, and that's highly valuable, but in the end it will still lead to a dead end, much like the "It from Bit" meme. It is still not clear to anyone whether a physical theory of everything, or even a sweeping neo-positivist instrumentalist view (Sabine Hossenfelder), can do without some metaphysics. To me, just my opinion, a physics theory of everything is a misnomer, it can only ever be a theory of everything physical which will always beg the question, "are there realities which cannot be described by physics and require some sort of metaphysics?" And as Noam Chomsky would say, that means things that are not in-principle mathematically describable (because once you can mathematicize a phenomena it really "becomes physics" --- you tack it on to what you now redefine as "physics".) Consciousness (the Chalmers definition at least, not the Minsky-Dennett impoverished instrumentalist definition) is a candidate for a phenomenon we "detect" that is not in-principle mathematically describable.”

Constructor Theory Fan: “Seems to me it's not true that Constructor Theory has no dynamics. You cannot get any emergence of phenomena not implicit in the system from foundations. Principle 1 of Constructor Theory says ‘Laws of physics are expressible entirely in terms of statements about which physical transformations are possible and which are impossible, and why.’ Any transformation is dynamics. What would be ‘emergent’ in Constructor Theory is time & length scale and particular laws like causality (special relativity) and the like. All that has to be implicit though in the principles. Laws cannot emerge as novelties. People misunderstand the whole idea of emergent complexity in this way. What is genuine novel emergence cannot be physical law baked into the ‘marble’, it can only be a pattern that persists for limited time, and thus is merely an approximate high-level ’aw-like’ feature of certain constrained systems (e.g., the biological "laws" of genetics, or mitosis, etc --- they're not fundamental laws of physics nor Constructor Theory because if there were no biological entities (which is conceivable) then mitosis etc., would not exist).”

Cynic Alter-Ego: “It might not even be possible to ever "scientifically prove" that the Chalmers-Gödel idea of consciousness - if we suppose it's what our subjective consciousness instantiates - is mathematically describable or not. Note to prove it so, without circularity, requires you cannot assume consciousness emerges from just brain processes, nor can you assume it doesn't. In other words it cannot be accomplished by pure logic (logic can only ever tell you the consequences of your axioms, so your axioms implicitly include an assumption about the consequences of any derivation, if you overlay a phenomenal interpretation). That in turn means you need a theory along with empirical data for a "scientific proof." That's a touch of why such a "scientific proof" might be impossible: what empirical data is ever going to be able to "prove" (when attached to a theory) that a phenomenon is mathematically describable or not? For one thing, that presumes we know, or have a meta-theory, of what is "mathematically describable." At present we do not, and likely never will. We generally only find out a complex system is mathematically describable when we find an effective description/model. We’re really in a new dark age of Stupidity.”

Constructor Theory Fan: (*sigh*)

SF = Speculative Fiction. ( )
  antao | Oct 15, 2021 |
Sense ressenyes | afegeix-hi una ressenya
Has d'iniciar sessió per poder modificar les dades del coneixement compartit.
Si et cal més ajuda, mira la pàgina d'ajuda del coneixement compartit.
Títol normalitzat
Títol original
Títols alternatius
Data original de publicació
Gent/Personatges
Llocs importants
Esdeveniments importants
Pel·lícules relacionades
Premis i honors
Epígraf
Dedicatòria
Primeres paraules
Citacions
Darreres paraules
Nota de desambiguació
Editor de l'editorial
Creadors de notes promocionals a la coberta
Llengua original
CDD/SMD canònics
LCC canònic

Referències a aquesta obra en fonts externes.

Wikipedia en anglès

Cap

No s'han trobat descripcions de biblioteca.

Descripció del llibre
Sumari haiku

Cobertes populars

Dreceres

Valoració

Mitjana: (2)
0.5
1
1.5
2 1
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5

Ets tu?

Fes-te Autor del LibraryThing.

 

Quant a | Contacte | LibraryThing.com | Privadesa/Condicions | Ajuda/PMF | Blog | Botiga | APIs | TinyCat | Biblioteques llegades | Crítics Matiners | Coneixement comú | 166,344,581 llibres! | Barra superior: Sempre visible