Comment by planetguy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by planetguy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've skimmed one or two of his books. There's no doubt that he knows his physics better than most physicists.

However I'm not sure what you're saying he's saying differs from what I'm saying he's saying. In both cases, the basic argument is that since we don't understand physics and we don't understand quantum mechanics then they might be related.

Now, that's not a conclusive proof that they're related but it might be true. If you look around the office and note that everybody is here except Alice and Bob, then you could hypothesize that maybe Alice and Bob are off somewhere together in a stationery cupboard smooching. On the other hand, maybe they're independently missing for totally different reasons. Personally I think Bob is at home with a cold and Alice is visiting her grandmother in Keokuk, but if Penrose wants to start flinging stationery cupboard doors open to look for them then that's fine with me.

(I may have overdone this analogy.)

I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this?

I (and Penrose, I believe) like to think that there is a unified theory out there waiting to be found, because the alternative is that reality arbitrarily behaves in different ways in different situations. If that is the case, then fine, but we've made so much progress in science already by assuming that physical laws are universally applicable and not arbitrarily varying.

To put it another way, I reversed the premise and conclusion, Penrose think there is a unified theory, therefore there is a connection between consciousness and QM phenomenon that we don't understand. But you claim that Penrose doesn't understand A&B, therefore thinks there is a connecting universal theory.

Maybe it's a minor nitpick, but it caused me to question why I think there's a unified theory out there, which was good mental exercise.

I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this?

Well, a unified theory should "explain everything", but not necessarily on the right level. For instance, basic undergraduate-level physics and chemistry are sufficient to explain both "why is copper a conductor?" and "why do dogs like steak?" but this is not the correct level of explanation that you'd go to in order to understand both these phenomena. To explain the conductivity of copper, you'll want to go to crystal structures and electronic energy levels, whereas to explain why dogs like steak you'll want to bypass all the chemistry and go straight to the fact that dogs are omnivores, that fresh meat is a large portion of their ancestors' diets, that animals have nervous systems programmed to keep them alive, that eating is necessary to stay alive, and so forth. You could conceptually go all the way down to "this atom likes that atom" but these aren't the principles which you'd reach for.

Similarly, while everything should in theory be explicable by the fundamental physics of the universe, it may well be that consciousness can arise purely from classical physics.

Why do there need to be a unified theory?

That seems only the be necessary if you are looking for some sort of Truth which in itself is saying there must be a creator (i.e. someone must have defined the true way too look at this)

Science the way I understand it in its most postmodern interpretation isn't really about finding a unified theory but rather about finding the one thing that changes the paradigm and using that.

For instance beliving the world is flat might not be true, but it's true enough to get from one village to the next. The problem is when you want to travel further.

A unified theory doesn’t have to explain consciousness. Far from it. Why should it? That’s absurd.

+1 for hilarious analogy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com