kristalris Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Physics: QBism puts the scientist back into science N. David Mermin 26 March 2014 A participatory view of science resolves quantum paradoxes and finds room in classical physics for 'the Now', says N. David Mermin.http://www.nature.com/news/physics-qbism-puts-the-scientist-back-into-science-1.14912 Now in Nature: Quantum Bayes in the Brain: enjoy. Article tools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristalris Posted April 12, 2014 Author Share Posted April 12, 2014 Hundred and four views and a roaring silence! Very probably a retired nuclear physicist that finely feels free enough to state what he actually thinks. In a discussion elsewhere it was noted that the article did't convince on Qbism being the merger between QM and Bayes. Nauseating as it me be to some: current science thinks that Bayes is in the brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_approaches_to_brain_function Well if so and given that QM stems from the brain then we already have that merger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genecks Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) Part of me is wondering if the reason I'm studying physics as of late is because there is going to be a paradigm shift. I mean, I can teleologically see the reasons for why I'm studying physics as of late, from my own memories and perspective. However, it appears that there is a trend about where people are not too sure where to go in physics. Yeah, I can perceive "the measurement problem." What's whacky is that from a block universe view, it's not a problem: It is. The Daoists had it down: Reality is what it is. All of that sounds pretty circular. Einstein did not seem to have cognitive dissonance with the block universe theory. And it makes me wonder if "science" really exists at all. If there is no free will, then everything science attempts to do is an illusion: Everything is predetermined, even scientific results. It's weird, because the results would have never been obtained if the subject was never there: At least from block universe theory. General relativity had to be found by Einstein by necessity. The praise my be unwarranted, but then the praise was all part of the block universe: It was predetermined. If all is predetermined, then it could be argued that giving up on science, be that a person perceives everything as fatalistic, is "predetermined." I'm sure people want to generate alternative theories to the block universe. This looks like one of them. It lacks substance. Edited April 13, 2014 by Genecks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristalris Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Part of me is wondering if the reason I'm studying physics as of late is because there is going to be a paradigm shift. I mean, I can teleologically see the reasons for why I'm studying physics as of late, from my own memories and perspective. However, it appears that there is a trend about where people are not too sure where to go in physics. Yeah, I can perceive "the measurement problem." What's whacky is that from a block universe view, it's not a problem: It is. The Daoists had it down: Reality is what it is. All of that sounds pretty circular. Einstein did not seem to have cognitive dissonance with the block universe theory. And it makes me wonder if "science" really exists at all. If there is no free will, then everything science attempts to do is an illusion: Everything is predetermined, even scientific results. It's weird, because the results would have never been obtained if the subject was never there: At least from block universe theory. General relativity had to be found by Einstein by necessity. The praise my be unwarranted, but then the praise was all part of the block universe: It was predetermined. If all is predetermined, then it could be argued that giving up on science, be that a person perceives everything as fatalistic, is "predetermined." I'm sure people want to generate alternative theories to the block universe. This looks like one of them. It lacks substance. It doesn't need to be a deterministic block universe. It probably does need deterministic boundaries and can be dicey for all possible scenario's for the rest. No problem with the now for it is meaning less if you assume moving mass = the paradigm shift you need to marry QM to GR. Only when you have the slightest possible time-frame between any interaction of mass do you have meaning. I.e. a probable game that ensues. Free will doesn't need to exist in a predefined way that doesn't fit, Yet you can have a meaningful definition of it that does fit the observations. I.e. free will is probably an essential algorithm for the socio-bots who we are to achieve a pareto optimum on the goal of getting as long and happy lives as possible. I.e. getting our fair share of dopa-mine or whatever that makes anyone happy over long periods. Infringing on that goal of others can be deemed as done by free will, in order to warrant a negative reaction so that every socio-bot behaves on the common goal. You are the neuro-scientist. All you need for logic in the brain is a Bayesian logarithmic algorithm. Set on different goals: authority, relationship, or stated goal. The latter is where the problem between science and the scientific method stems from. The instrument between the ears, requires a different organisation for it not to become more and more backward as a function of acquiring more science. As we historically observe as well, and as we observe in physics in getting more and more wacky data that is inconsistent with the current paradigm What this Qbism lacks IMO is that it is not integral. It doesn't deal with all known observations and answer all questions, but it does finally acknowledge the trend towards Bayesian common sense inference on this evident issue concerning incomplete evidence. The only logical way forward. Edited April 14, 2014 by kristalris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts