SciPhysicsForums.com

[quote="RArvay"

[quote]All of science is predicated on unprovable assumptions,
including that physical reality obeys natural laws which are discernible to the human brain.
Those assumptions may or may not be true, but one has to begin somewhere.[/quote]

Assumptions are irrelevant because science is predicated on models that have been demonstrated to reflect how the natural world functions, at least to the degree of being used for meaningful and sophisticated implementation. Although implicit assumptions may be entertained, they are not relevant to science nor does science depend on them. Science proceeds by demonstrated results regardless of whatever assumptions anyone holds. This was clearly demonstrated by the development of QM which defied all assumptions of the human mind that had been previously held about how the natural world was constituted. Science goes where the evidence leads whether or not this accords with prevailing assumptions. The starting point can either be evidence leading to explanatory theory or theory leading to supporting evidence. But the sine qua non is evidence, not assumption.

[quote]A natural rock formation may at first appear to be a manmade statue,
but upon closer examination, is found to be a peculiarity of coincidental
geological activities. It's not a statue.

On the other hand, natural rock formations do not rule out the existence of
manmade statues. When these are discovered in ruins on the ocean floor,
it would be futile to try to explain them in terms of geological peculiarities.
One has to begin with the assumption that they are statues, and work from
there to disprove that, if possible, based on evidence.[/quote]

Finding a statue on the ocean floor would be a curious but minor event since it would only be its location in need of explanation because there is nothing mysterious about statues per se as they abound elsewhere. That natural formations may be mistaken for man made artifacts just shows how we are naturally disposed and hence tend to invent explanations of our experiences and encounters in ways that make intuitive sense to us rather than recognize how things actually are.

[quote]Determinism is a concept that seems to be self-contradicting,
for if it is a fact, we could never deduce it by our own effort, but only
if we are forced to do so (or prevented from doing so) by forces
absolutely and forever beyond our control.[/quote]

Determinism and its alleged extrapolated implications are human invented constructs grounded within the foundations of our conceptual framework but there is nothing to justify conferring their relevance to the natural world. Our conceptual framework has necessarily evolved confined to be in accord within the domain of our environment but our environment does not reflect the underlying foundations of the natural world as revealed by QM and GR/SR. So there is no reason to believe that the natural world must or even does correspond with our conceptual constructions, no matter how convincing they may seem to us.

[quote]All of that, if true, seems to me to render science a futile endeavor.
Would it not be the height of irony if the greatest discovery in
science were that science is pointless?[/quote]

That comment seems to me egregiously ludicrous as it is patently and undeniably obvious that science has enabled advances in human life unimaginable in the world dominated by mythological beliefs that existed prior to the scientific revolution. There could be nothing more blatant than the fact that science is not pointless but possibly the greatest achievement of human kind. Whether or not we are capable of understanding the natural world in any ultimate sense (however that may be articulated) is an open question but wholly irrelevant as (long as) science continues to make advances.

[quote]Acceptance of futility is itself futile.
Science may indeed be a futile endeavor, forced upon us by a blind and
indifferent nature. If so, then what harm can be done
by exploring the alternative, based on the evidence of the existence of
conscious thought?[/quote]

I consider the assertion science is or may be futile as absurd because the innumerable benefits science has delivered directly or indirectly manifestly proves it to be otherwise. But science is not stagnant so not only is there no harm in exploring alternatives based on anything you like but such explorations should be welcomed. However, unless there is some credible evidence on which to base alternative explorations, then all there is to explore are any of the myriad speculative musings that human imaginations have concocted over the millennia. Indeed one of the tasks of science is to discriminate those musings which can be shown to have a basis in the natural world from those which cannot demonstrate any external correlates beyond the imagination. Science has repeatedly produced explanations for phenomena once regarded as unfathomable by the human mind and consciousness may eventually be added to the fold. On the other hand it may be that explaining consciousness will require a new or amended science but at present consciousness only constitutes evidence that scientific understanding of it is incomplete rather than impossible.

[quote]Are we characters in a story that nobody wrote?.[/quote]

We may be characters but there is no credible reason to believe we are anything other than characters of our own making and not ones participating in some externally plotted story. Story is a human invented and human-centered concept and as such has no relevance or application to the natural world. Even framing the question with that metaphor serves to emphasize your quest seems more about trying to make the natural world correspond with concepts compatible with the human mind rather than using the human mind to understand the natural world as it is found to be.

Tony R wrote:
[quote]Science . . . is not shackled by nor subservient to invented conclusions[/quote]

I agree with this and with most of the rest of the quoted post,
but it misses the point.

All of science is predicated on unprovable assumptions,
including that physical reality obeys natural laws which are discernible to the human brain.
Those assumptions may or may not be true, but one has to begin somewhere.

A natural rock formation may at first appear to be a manmade statue,
but upon closer examination, is found to be a peculiarity of coincidental
geological activities. It's not a statue.

On the other hand, natural rock formations do not rule out the existence of
manmade statues. When these are discovered in ruins on the ocean floor,
it would be futile to try to explain them in terms of geological peculiarities.
One has to begin with the assumption that they are statues, and work from
there to disprove that, if possible, based on evidence.

The unanswered questions of physics present many conundrums which
may be explainable as naturalistic phenomena-- but may not be
explainable in materialistic terms alone.

The fine tuning problem is one of them, and the hard question of consciousness
is another. Yet another is the fact that randomness can operate only within
nonrandom parameters. Can those nonrandom parameters arise randomly?

Determinism is a concept that seems to be self-contradicting,
for if it is a fact, we could never deduce it by our own effort, but only
if we are forced to do so (or prevented from doing so) by forces
absolutely and forever beyond our control.

All of that, if true, seems to me to render science a futile endeavor.
Would it not be the height of irony if the greatest discovery in
science were that science is pointless?

Acceptance of futility is itself futile.
Science may indeed be a futile endeavor, forced upon us by a blind and
indifferent nature. If so, then what harm can be done
by exploring the alternative, based on the evidence of the existence of
conscious thought?

Are we characters in a story that nobody wrote?
.

[quote="RArvay"]Tony R wrote:

Natural materialism may regard physical nature as nothing more than that,
but such a futile conclusion will get us nowhere.
If there is no purpose in science except to recite our pre-programmed lines,
then why bother?

Well, if we are pre-programmed to bother, that may be the answer,
but I see no utility in adopting it and abandoning the search for purpose.
The pot of gold may not exist, but if it does, and we never seek for it, what a tragedy!
.[/quote]

Science is predicated on discovering whatever it can discover and is not shackled by nor subservient to invented conclusions derived from baseless assumption or speculative imagination. It is evolution that has programmed us to bother by developing in us an innate curiosity whose sating has served as the platform and engine of discovery.

Discovery has been predicated on objective evaluation of credible evidence aligned with construction of models supported by evidence. As no objective evidence of any purpose has ever materialized searching for it would seem at best a wholly arbitrary if not actually futile exercise of interest primarily to those who want to live in a universe that panders to the existentially anchoring human psychological desire for purpose.

Of course if evidence appears some day that points towards purpose it would be a springboard for launching investigation. But unless and until such time, searching for purpose in the universe is simply retrograde nostalgic yearning for those ancient anthropocentric times when the universe was just a backdrop for human affairs and humans were its purpose.

[quote="minkwe"]Pure speculation, by mysterians.[/quote]
The abuse of terminology is forgiveable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism
What though makes you so sure those folks all have it so wrong?

[quote="Q-reeus"]
Given the relative newness of concept, it's currently a much debated area without real consensus, but 'mysterians' label is not apt.
The emphasis seems to be on superposition, but entanglement is also invoked:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363031/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3787
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/ [edit: replaces earlier link to woo site.][/quote]
Pure speculation, by mysterians.

Tony R wrote:
[quote]self-organization would constitute but a brief and ultimately irrelevant phase[/quote]

Not only irrelevant, but AFAIK, not definable.
I think that using the term, self-organizing, throws off the discussion.

The question IMO is, IF we WERE in a simulation, could we know that?
I proposed that we could not, not unless we were pre-programmed to discover it.

I am then extending the question to say that a deterministic universe is, in effect,
a pre-programmed system analogous to a computer program, (perhaps a clockwork universe?).
If so, then everything we think, say and do is predetermined, predestined, or whatever
term fits that bill.

JBS Haldane said something very similar, in that our science may be neurologically
correct, but may also be completely absurd otherwise.

This brings to mind a passage from Shakespeare,
the one that speaks of strutting our hour upon the stage, (reciting our lines),
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,
the end result being a tale told by an idiot.

Natural materialism may regard physical nature as nothing more than that,
but such a futile conclusion will get us nowhere.
If there is no purpose in science except to recite our pre-programmed lines,
then why bother?

Well, if we are pre-programmed to bother, that may be the answer,
but I see no utility in adopting it and abandoning the search for purpose.
The pot of gold may not exist, but if it does, and we never seek for it, what a tragedy!
.

[quote="RArvay"]Thray wrote:
[quote]In a self-organized universe, no Author -- Programmer or not -- is required.[/quote]

That is self-evident.
However, the concept of "self-organization" is vague at best.
Does self-organization have a goal? A preferred direction? Or is it chaotic?

.[/quote]

It seems that the, or at least our particular, universe does have a direction which is towards a featureless dead future in which the era of self-organization would constitute but a brief and ultimately irrelevant phase. Goal is a human invented concept and ascribing it to the universe is a naive mistake of anthropomorphizing.

Whether or not we are capable in practice or in principle of understanding reality at its deepest level is an open question. However what has been discovered so far as manifested by QM and GR/SR makes it clear that whatever underpins reality is fundamentally alien to human experience. Hence our intellectual and psychological intuitions about reality grounded in and founded from evolved human experience are irrelevant indeed if not actively misleading. Speculation that a deeper understanding of reality will or must align with intuitive human invented constructs is, as Haldane in essence mused, likely to be fundamentally misguided futility.

Thray wrote:
[quote]In a self-organized universe, no Author -- Programmer or not -- is required.[/quote]

That is self-evident.
However, the concept of "self-organization" is vague at best.
Does self-organization have a goal? A preferred direction? Or is it chaotic?

Until science answers David John Chalmers' "hard question of consciousness,"
or at least proposes a testable hypothesis, then in response to Joy Christian's observation
[quote]We cannot run without first learning how to walk. In physics we are still learning how to walk properly. But if you want to go ahead and run, then be my guest.[/quote]
we have not yet learned to crawl.

The responses to the story are thoughtful, and are appreciated,
and as with all such short stories, the goal is not to obtain a definitive answer,
but rather to step back, achieve perspective, and stimulate thought.

Somewhere there is an Einstein or a Newton who will benefit from that.
.

[quote="RArvay"]The point of the short story is to present a conundrum.
If we are living in something analogous to a computer simulation,
we could never discover that fact-- unless-- we are preprogrammed to discover it.
.[/quote]

Characters in a short story are also preprogrammed to discover their roles -- or not.

In a self-organized universe, no Author -- Programmer or not -- is required.

[quote]And how does randomness improve upon determinism?
Are we enslaved to chance?[/quote]

Or liberated by chance?

[quote="RArvay"]When dealing with the foundations of the physical cosmos,
some deeper thinking is required to achieve any semblance of understanding.
[/quote]
We cannot run without first learning how to walk. In physics we are still learning how to walk properly. But if you want to go ahead and run, then be my guest. :)

***

The point of the short story is to present a conundrum.
If we are living in something analogous to a computer simulation,
we could never discover that fact-- unless-- we are preprogrammed to discover it.
Even then, we would discover only what (and to what extent of accuracy)
the preprogramming dictates.

Is this situation so very different from a purely deterministic universe?
If the universe is deterministic, then every event in it was predetermined
from the very beginning. We have no choice in what we do.
We are like the scientists in the story.

And how does randomness improve upon determinism?
Are we enslaved to chance?

When dealing with the foundations of the physical cosmos,
some deeper thinking is required to achieve any semblance of understanding.
.

[quote="minkwe"]There is no entanglement in photosynthesis or DNA function. Claims to the contrary are pure speculation by mysterians.[/quote]
Given the relative newness of concept, it's currently a much debated area without real consensus, but 'mysterians' label is not apt.
The emphasis seems to be on superposition, but entanglement is also invoked:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363031/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3787
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/ [edit: replaces earlier link to woo site.]
[quote][b]Are We in a Simulation?[/b] No! Next question ...[/quote]
A relief to know someone for sure knows.... :D

There is no entanglement in photosynthesis or DNA function. Claims to the contrary are pure speculation by mysterians.

[b]Are We in a Simulation?[/b] No! Next question ...

Surely the sole legitimate reason for positing we are in some kind of simulated universe, is to 'explain' phenomena that are logically suspect. Some, including me, consider 'spooky action at a distance' or variant on that, logically suspect. I remain hopeful someone maybe here will gain traction to the point that non-locality becomes discredited by the scientific community at large.

Anyone here know of theoretical work showing that for any necessarily real progenitor universe capable of supporting life as we know it, QM entanglement is or isn't a necessary ingredient? For instance iirc recent studies have claimed photosynthesis requires entanglement in order to be reasonably efficient. And I think similar claims are made re the functioning of many if not all DNA level processes.

[quote="RArvay"]The meeting began with the usual rustling of papers as the scientists took their places at the conference table. Everyone was eagerly awaiting the announcement by cosmologist Dr. Frank Eidelman, who had promised a major discovery would be reported.

When he came into the room, all eyes were upon him, and everyone noted his somber appearance.

He took his place, glanced at each conferee in turn, and then began to speak.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “we have concluded our investigation into the simulation hypothesis. The good news is that we have discovered that we are not, repeat not, living in a computer simulation. The bad news, however, is very distressing. For we have discerned that although we are not programmed entities in a computer, we are in fact, fictional characters in a short story.”

--------------------

Dr. Henrik Ernst stood, and said, “I object! That statement is preposterous. How could any sane person propose that we are merely fictional characters in a story? Look around you. We are real. This is not a story.”

Dr. Eidelman responded. “Of course you must say that. You have no control over anything you say. The words are attributed to you by the author of this story.”

--------------------[/quote]

How does a short story differ from a computer simulation?

The meeting began with the usual rustling of papers as the scientists took their places at the conference table. Everyone was eagerly awaiting the announcement by cosmologist Dr. Frank Eidelman, who had promised a major discovery would be reported.

When he came into the room, all eyes were upon him, and everyone noted his somber appearance.

He took his place, glanced at each conferee in turn, and then began to speak.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “we have concluded our investigation into the simulation hypothesis. The good news is that we have discovered that we are not, repeat not, living in a computer simulation. The bad news, however, is very distressing. For we have discerned that although we are not programmed entities in a computer, we are in fact, fictional characters in a short story.”

--------------------

Dr. Henrik Ernst stood, and said, “I object! That statement is preposterous. How could any sane person propose that we are merely fictional characters in a story? Look around you. We are real. This is not a story.”

Dr. Eidelman responded. “Of course you must say that. You have no control over anything you say. The words are attributed to you by the author of this story.”

--------------------