> 1. what makes you confident that the rules of particle physics alone can lead to a perfect simulation of macroscopic phenomena? (as you call it "emergent behavior")

Given the general axiom of science that the same experiments under the same conditions will yield the same results, I do think we can trust the standard model because of how successful it has been at matching real world tests. That doesn't mean that the standard model is "correct" or complete--we know that we still don't have a quantum theory of gravity--only that model is amazingly predictive, which is all that we could ask of a mathematical model. There are also philosophical explanation of quantum physics that need to be factored in (Copenhagen, many-worlds, pilot wave).

All that said, I think your mixing up the need for a perfect simulation with the fact that the currently understood quantum level interactions of matter and space produce produce the lions share of influence at the larger macroscopic levels. The fact that medical science has been massively successful at using our understanding of chemistry and physics to explain so much of what we know about the details of the body is evidence of how amazing our understanding already it, even if it's not perfect.

> 2. what makes you confident that our universe is not "turtles all the way down", that as soon as we develop more precise and powerful instruments we will discover new "fundamental phenomena" that requires new theory? This has happened before where neat Newtonian physics was found to fail at edge cases detectable by more precise instruments.

All of physics is dying to be the one who discoveries the next level or foundation or theory of everything in physics. No disagreement there, but if that next level turns out to be indescribable with simple mathematical models as is the case with the currently understood quantum level, then that make the effectiveness of relatively simple mathematical models at the quantum level and in relativity/Newtonian physics all the more astounding. How amazing it would be that the complexity would produce such elegance. That would answer one of the whys that we wish to answer!

> 3. considering that we have no feasible way of snapshotting a 1 cubic inch of the world, and even if we have done that, no feasible way of simulating its dynamics at the qft level for one second, and yet we have "approximate" physical theories with less invasive instruments that can do that (for specific purposes), is the ideology of calling macroscopic phenomena an emergent behavior of particle physics still relevant? In a similar bent, there exists a Starbucks in certain places in the world, and there does not exist a Starbucks in other places. This is a fundamental truth of the present world, and many peoples' lives are oriented around that and affected by it. Nevertheless, it cannot be precisely predicted by mathematics where there exist Starbucks and where there does not exist Starbucks one year into the future.

"...is the ideology of calling macroscopic phenomena an emergent behavior of particle physics still relevant?" How did this become an ideology? That said, yes, even with all that said, the effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences is still amazing. How the universe came to have it's current arrangement is a fascinating question with it's own mysteries, but that doesn't take away from the points about the effectiveness of mathematics.

"Nevertheless, it cannot be precisely predicted by mathematics..." The ontological naturalists would push back on that claim. Although, I do my best to explore naturalism under it's own terms and conditions, I'm a theist who believes that humans have a soul. For that reason I would agree that we cannot predict such a scenario because there are inputs from outside the physical universe. That said, if we are just talking about physics only, it would be an assumption on your part that it cannot be precisely predicted by mathematics.

> 4. I hope you can see that just as Newtonian physics was useful for describing an approximation to the world but still fails at giving knowledge about sufficiently complex systems and sufficiently small scales, you now see that likewise particle physics is just an "effective lens" for a particular genre of human activity.

I think my other comments have addressed this. Thank you. I enjoy these discussions & debates.

It's not that we believe that we have a math mind. It's that we believe that we have logical minds. Math is just one part of the abstract domain of logic. I agree that there are limitations to our ability to observe and limitations with the capacity (storage depth and processing depth) of our brains. If our brains can be trusted then they are logical, and nothing illogical can exists. It seems to me like this is a very hard argument for you to make.

First, a disclaimer. I'm a theist. I like arguments like the so-called "modal ontological argument" and find them convincing. That said, I love explore philosophy especially non-theistic positions because I'm already convinced of theism.

Second, your arguing that there is a filter, and, yes, I agree that one of the possible explanations is a filter. But just asserting that filter with a simple claim as the original commenter did dismisses what is a fascinating exploration of why? How do we know that's a sufficient filter. How do we know that volatility prevents life from existing and asking the question? Is it not possible that there is a volatility that preserves our existence. When your dealing with infinite possible "worlds" this paper becomes more interesting.

Third, if I could put on my non-theist hat (and do it without my biases affecting me), it seems that discoveries such as those made in the paper require non-theist explanations to depend on the existence of a multiverse.

Fourth, there is something else that always get's missed. In a non-theist philosophical framework that forces us to consider all logical possible worlds and universes there is no restriction that a universe begin in a simple state such as a singularity that causes a big bang. A universe can logically begin to exists in an infinite set of states. And again, if every possible universe is equally probable. Why should we be in a universe where what we see can be logically extrapolated backwards to imply that there was a history that follows the mathematical models that we construct. Even a life filter like what you suggested is not capable of answering why we should end up in such a universe. That's a deep and fascinating mystery to be explored.

* Memorizing things often takes much more time than learning things naturally as you use them because it takes extra time out of your day. * I often lacked the associations that would normally help reinforce a concept or fact because I used brute force a-single-super-simple-concept-at-a-time memorization instead of more natural methods where context helped me gain a better understanding. * Breaking things down into very narrow, simple, one concept cards is more difficult than I imagined. * Creating mnemonics is really helpful but can be time consuming, and you don't know which cards where you will need them until you repeatedly forget those cards. Someone on HackerNews about a year or two ago recommended using AI and that did help a little, but it didn't take long before I realized that the AI created mnemonics feel so similar and less connected than time tested mnemonics that I find them less effective. * Since brute force memory is slower I often learn slower, which is less efficient than learning a groups of related things together at a pace where the concepts together give you a better understanding than learning one at a time. (Sometimes you need to slow down because your not getting the concept, but going too slow is less efficient also.)

I still use spaced repetition but I realized it's not the amazing revolution that I first imagined that it would be.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48789207

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

On the other hand, if we can't get private citizens to donate to science research, then they are not likely to vote for it either--polls don't register much of a concern from the average citizen*. I don't think most of us want to be under a dictator or go back to having a king.

That means the only practical option is to act of our own volition and support science through vocal advocacy and private money. In this way, we can each donate to the research we care about the most with maximum academic freedom.

* https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.asp...

A lot of the discussion talks about how China can just develop it's own. But there's more to it. Development isn't free. China has to expend lots of resources, resources that can't be used somewhere else. Maintaining a chip making sector comes with challenges and it's not clear whether China can maintain it competitively through the long haul without paying an outsized price.

Some people think that the US could have cut off China if and when they used the technology to wage war, thereby being "more strategic" about it. But that to can be a dangerous game, and that strategy might not accomplish what it's intended to accomplish.