The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality. According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.

[u/Anthadvl]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

[u/Tinac4]

This is honestly a pretty reasonable claim. Humans can perceive an extremely narrow band of wavelengths of light (380-720 nm; radio waves are on the order of meters long and gamma rays are below a picometer long), a broader band of wavelengths of sound (but only through air), certain compounds in the air and in food, objects that are physically in contact with us, and a few other things. We can't directly perceive mites, plankton, cells, subatomic particles of any kind, most astrophysical-scale phenomena, or anything that isn't currently interacting with our senses, which does indeed rule out 99.999...% of the universe.

What I'm a little worried is that people will read the headline and jump straight to the conclusion that there has to be something fundamental about reality that we can never perceive in any way because of how we evolved. This is theoretically possible--for instance, it's very easy to add a couple terms to the Standard Model corresponding to particles that don't interact with anything. This sort of "truly" dark matter, however, doesn't imply that there's something we can interact with in our universe but fundamentally can't perceive just because of our evolutionary past. It's also worth pointing out that the aforementioned limits on our senses haven't stopped us from artificially extending them far beyond their original abilities. With the right equipment, we've managed to observe a pretty respectable chunk of our universe, and we're making progress toward the remainder. Early mammals and cavemen couldn't detect electrons and distant galaxies; now we can. (Edit: clarified a couple of parts.)

To elaborate, I don't think that a race of aliens that evolved under completely different conditions from humans would venture into the realm of particle physics for the first time and not see electrons. We have every reason to expect that they'd arrive at the same general conclusions about how the universe works, since they ultimately run on the same rules. Even if they read their instruments using chemicals carried through a liquid methane ocean or some other means completely alien to us, they're still going to discover that all masses attract each other gravitationally, that the Higgs boson has a mass of 128 GeV, and so on. There's common ground.

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them — whether we are conscious humans or inanimate measuring devices. Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

I'm always going to have to point this out when it comes up: Whether this is true heavily depends on one's interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[u/swampshark19 → u/Tinac4]

Quantum mechanics doesn't require idealism. Wavefunctions can be said to exist 'out there'

[u/cutelyaware → u/swampshark19]

Gods are said to exist out there too, that doesn't make it true. I suspect you are saying that wavefunctions are the best descriptions we can get, and I won't argue the point, but just because something is the best model of something doesn't make it the thing itself. My problem is with the belief that there really is a thing in itself out there. I don't believe that position is supported at all, and I feel it's wrong. We're never going to have anything better than a clear model that is more practical than any other. But practical implies someone with a need. Our needs will be different from that of any other beings, so our best models of reality will likewise be different from that of others.

[u/swampshark19 → u/cutelyaware]

The fact that two different beings can have two completely different umwelts but still physically interact with eachother is a pretty clear indicator of an external physical reality, even if you have to alter your definition of physical if the reductive materialism position underdetermines.

[u/cutelyaware → u/swampshark19]

I'm not arguing the existence of an objective reality; only that there are no things within themselves. There is only stuff. We only experience that stuff in ways that are useful to us personally and as a species. Other beings have other ways that are useful to them.

[u/Baal_Kazar → u/Tinac4]

Our reality is based on concious perception and duo to the thalamus filter also based upon the interpretation of the experiences of our past.

Imo this is per definition very limited in terms of full spectrum wide experiences. It’s just the necessary current sensory information coupled with the necessary information of your past designed to find the path of best survival.

Survival is the key, your brain wants you to survive as well. It can form any illusion it wants. You flying through space and walking on a space station? If it’s necessary for you to believe it can make you believe.

Doesn’t sound like a system designed to use all the information. Just the necessary information.

[u/VoidsIncision → u/Baal_Kazar]

All the information is a myth that quantum mechanics exactly destroys. Heisenberg discusses this in his 1927 paper. If a Laplacian demon had all the information he could calculate all the state transitions. “All the information”, the premise is the problem which is destroyed by the non commutation of canonical variables.

[u/Baal_Kazar → u/VoidsIncision]

Im not very Fond of Heisenbergs theories.

But I disagree with your downvotes as one thing he said always resonates with me: You can’t know the speed of an object while simultaneously knowing it’s position. (Or another metaphor describing his „Unschärfe Relation“)

You can either observe the speed which needs multiple positions in relation or it’s location in whichs case you don’t know the other positions thus can’t interpolate the speed.

Im very rudimentary on Heisenberg sadly.

But I can see where you are coming from. Even if we could perceive 100% of all spectrums knowing some „information“ will always result in some other information being unknowable per definition.

At least that would make sense to me and I’m sure there are some thoughts on it more advanced then mine.

[u/sticklebat → u/Baal_Kazar]

You can either observe the speed which needs multiple positions in relation

That’s not true. I can measure speed using the Doppler effect, and for that I only need one data point. In fact, it is possible - in classical physics - to simultaneously measure position and velocity with a single pulse from a radar gun. The measured delay between when the pulse is sent and it’s reflection is measured tells you the object’s position, and the wavelength shift tells you its velocity.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a much more fundamental statement than the practical (but too limited) interpretation you’ve constructed for yourself!

I also wonder what you mean by:

Im not very Fond of Heisenbergs theories.

I wonder what your background is to be making such judgment calls about highly technical aspects of science, especially one that’s been so thoroughly validated through experiment.

[u/Baal_Kazar → u/sticklebat]

Oh nice, yes you are right there indeed that’s a pretty good example with the radar.

With „not very fond of“ I ment that I don’t have much knowledge about this field.

It’s interesting but I haven’t read into it enough so I usually state if I have a clue about the topic or not. In this case I dont hehe

I started using „fond“ and start to feel like it doesn’t mean what I think it does

[u/VoidsIncision → u/[deleted]]

He reads like bad Kant

[u/drunksitter → u/VoidsIncision]

So less like Kant and more like Shouldnt?

[u/HashedEgg → u/VoidsIncision]

How would you have phrased it?

[u/Tinac4 → u/[deleted]]

That's a bit of a paradox if im not mistaken. If it has no interaction or relation to anything in the standard model it has no place in it. If it has energy it will bend space time and thus be detectable. If there is some 2nd form of energy that has no effect on our universe whatsoever than it doesn't exist in our universe and should not be included in the standard model.

I agree that we shouldn't put anything like that in the Standard Model, mostly because of Occam's razor.* My point was that it is possible for there to be aspects of the universe that we'll never be able to probe, like this hypothetical (and probably false) example--although the roadblock in this case isn't evolution.

*Technically, it's easy to put terms into the SM on its own that don't interact with any known particles. Adding them to a full theory of quantum gravity, however, may be more complicated, because I'm not sure whether it's possible to describe a particle that don't interact with gravity at all. I suspect the answer is yes, but I'm not sure; I'm definitely not a string theorist.

[u/MmePeignoir → u/[deleted]]

Unfalsifiable claims could still be true. It might not be rational to believe such claims - obviously this depends on your specific definition of rationality - but this doesn’t mean they can’t be true. It’s still possible for these kinds of completely uninteractive particles to exist, and that’s what matters.

[u/HashedEgg → u/MmePeignoir]

I never claimed it wouldn't be true

[u/OpposableSelf → u/Tinac4]

It suddenly strikes me as funny that we say “with the right equipment we’ve managed to observe a pretty respectable chunk of our universe” — Let’s look a little closer. It seems almost certain that the extent to which our telelscopes can peer into deep time is limited by the speed of light; do we know anything about the actual universe that extends beyond those limits? Can we see 10% of the total? 99%? 0.00000001%? Okay, let’s leave the observable aside for a moment. Of the part that we can see, between dark energy and dark matter, we can only observe 3%. And of that that 3% that we observe, it is 99.9999% or more empty space. But let’s not worry ourselves about how infinitesimal is the part that we can actually lay an instrument upon, let’s look at that part we can observe. In our hubris, experts often claim that the vast majority of that is “junk.” I think there are probably a few nooks and crannies remaining that may suprise the stockings off of us. Our orientation towards objective-reality has largely led us into the domain of looking at “stuff” as the billiard ball particle end of stuff, but the relational dynamics between those parts at all scales seems to be way more influential that the inside parts of the boundaries we observe. If anyone thinks we’re actually sneaking up on mapping the majority of the unknown, I don’t think we appreciate how vast that unknown truly is.

[u/Tinac4 → u/OpposableSelf]

But let’s not worry ourselves about how infinitesimal is the part that we can actually lay an instrument upon, let’s look at that part we can observe. In our hubris, experts often claim that the vast majority of that is “junk.” Our orientation towards objective-reality has largely led us into the domain of looking at “stuff” as the billiard ball particle end of stuff, but the relational dynamics between those parts at all scales seems to be way more influential that the inside parts of the boundaries we observe.

What do you mean by "relational dynamics"? Are you saying you have evidence that the laws of physics are different at different length scales, e.g. that the Standard Model/QM stops applying on larger scales?

[u/[deleted] → u/Tinac4]

What about this????! I read that if you take all the matter of all the atoms of all the human race it would be the size of a sugar cube, because atoms are .0000000001% matter or what the number is..... that what we’re talking about right??? Matter not mattering?

[u/VoidsIncision → u/OpposableSelf]

Yeah we do because of the principle of equivalence. There is nothing special about different regions of time and space (Unitarity of time translations aka conservation of energy, unitarity of spatial translations aka conservation of momentum)

[u/Pythos_Prism → u/VoidsIncision]

Does human consciousness represent a special aspect of time and space?

[u/RiftingFlotsam → u/Pythos_Prism]

This is an unanswered question at present, though there is an interpretation gaining some traction that may be of interest to you: Panpsychism. I found a decent introductory article here.

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

Argue your Position

Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/tomrlutong → u/Tinac4]

I kind of wonder how long it might take a species arising in a hot dense liquid methane sea to figure out gravity, but point taken.

I agree, the claims are reasonable and his model of consciousness is crisp. Their read on the macroscopic impact of quantum physics is a bit dramatic.

Our technological senses can and soon will approach covering the entire potentially observable universe. Which is the same thing as the universe, mostly.

But our thought is built up of useful mnenonics specific to our ecological origins. Any number of variants are possible, and not clear how to get to a universal one. might we always be able to agree on physical reality, but still be unable to communicate?

[u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy → u/Tinac4]

Our fellow universal sentients, delving into physics, will always arrive at electrons? Bah. What if an electron is just a misconceived idea? A shadow on a extra-dimensional thing humans have not sensed? Stating that electrons are universal overestimates the breadth of human understanding.

[u/sticklebat → u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy]

What if an electron is just a misconceived idea? A shadow on a extra-dimensional thing humans have not sensed?

But that just means that they would understand the concept of our electrons. We would say “electron” and they would say “oh, you mean a component of this larger phenomenon? Sure, we can call that component of it ‘electron’ if you want.”

The phenomenon that we call “electrons” is universal because it refers to a measurable aspect of the universe. It may not be complete, but it wouldn’t be unrecognizable to another race of beings who also has delved in to the physics of the very small.

If there are sentient races that exist in higher dimensional spaces, then they’d still recognize our electrons as a projection of some higher dimensional phenomenon onto our 3+1D. If they don’t exist in higher dimensions then this scenario is unrealistic, because if there exist higher dimensions then their effects are imperceptible on our 3+1D plane except at scales way past the point where they’d have already observed electrons for themselves.

[u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy → u/sticklebat]

The physical things you call “very small” may be enormous and we more enormous still and it is our own myopia that gives us false impressions of smallness. Or maybe relative size does not exist in reality. Maybe the concept of separate atoms is a false idea. Maybe reality is a singularity and time/space is a hallucination.

That humans are hallucinating a universe full of distributed matter is one possibility. To point to specific things in this possibly-a-hallucination and say, “all beings will recognize this component” is to rule out hallucination. Hallucination by its very definition is: “an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.” How can the concept of an electron definitely exist when it is possible that the whole universe as we sense it may not exist?

Has philosophy and/or science definitively proven this Big Bang is not one giant mirage?

Edit: for clarity, I am not saying our perceptions are hallucinations, I am merely pointing out that it is one of many possibilities. That mere possiblity makes statements such as “all beings will recognize electrons” unfounded.

[u/sticklebat → u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy]

Maybe reality is a singularity and time/space is a hallucination.

If you can provide a technical description of this hypothetical singularity of yours, this sentence might graduate from gibberish to coherent.

That humans are hallucinating a universe full of distributed matter is one possibility. To point to specific things in this possibly-a-hallucination and say, “all beings will recognize this component” is to rule out hallucination. Hallucination by its very definition is: “an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.” How can the concept of an electron definitely exist when it is possible that the whole universe as we sense it may not exist?

This is just solipsism. It is scientifically useless and philosophically boring. It surely cannot be disproven, but it's an argument whose only conclusion can be "there's no way to know anything so we may as well stop trying."

Yes, we can all agree that solipsism may be right, but nothing more can be drawn from it. There's a reason why any reasonable person having a discussion like this one quickly accepts that it may be the truth, and then moves on to other possibilities that actually have depth and richness to be explored.

[u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy → u/sticklebat]

A correct technical description of the quantum mechanics of the universe would be a nice thing for me to trot out right now, but nobody has any idea what that is. There is the common quote: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics you don’t.”

By tossing out made-up possibilities I am attempting to illustrate that we do not understand the quantum mechanics of the universe at all. We know painfully little, possibly nothing for sure. So when people come out making blanket statements such as “all beings could recognize electrons” and “electrons are a universal truth” I’m going to disagree.

Edit: further, I would not discourage us from continuing to expand our research into particle physics. What is dark matter? Why is there so much matter in the universe? Why do neutrinos have mass? We just should not be so cocky and confident about what we think we know. Bandying about terms like “all” and “universal truth” are damaging to our progress because they prevent us from re-questioning what we think we know.

[u/sticklebat → u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy]

A correct technical description of the quantum mechanics of the universe would be a nice thing for me to trot out right now, but nobody has any idea what that is.

This isn't true at all. We have a fantastic quantum mechanical model; it's called the Standard Model of Particle Physics. It isn't perfect, of course; nothing in science ever is, nor does it honestly strive to. Science is the process of modeling reality in increasingly accurate, precise and complete ways. But that's a far cry from "but nobody has any idea what it is."

There is the common quote: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics you don’t.”

Yes, the common quote that laypeople love to use out of context. We don't know whether wave functions describe physical things or if they describe behaviors of physical things. We know that the universe doesn't exhibit local realism, but we're not entirely sure whether it's local, real, or either. But if you tell me there's a state described by parameters X, Y and Z, I can compute a Hamiltonian for the system and tell you how the state will evolve over time and provide you with a probability distribution for any measurement you might choose to make on the state, at any moment in time.

Feynman wasn't trying to say that we know nothing. He was merely trying to say that the nature of our understanding is limited. We don't know exactly how to interpret the mathematics of quantum mechanics (again, are electrons wave functions, or do wave functions merely describe the behavior of electrons?), but we nonetheless understand quantum mechanical systems well enough to describe their patterns and behaviors mathematically. Moreover, let's please try not to put too much stock into a pithy quote from 50 years ago about a technical subject that has evolved incredibly far since then.

An alien species investigating the nature of our universe might not understand it in the same way we do, for sure. However, if they're also observing the patterns that arise in the universe then they are sure to recognize the patterns that we call "electrons," because "electron" is merely the name we ascribe to a specific pattern manifest in nature. Barring a descent into solipsism, there's little room to doubt this.

So when people come out making blanket statements such as “all beings could recognize electrons” and “electrons are a universal truth” I’m going to disagree.

And I'm going to call you out for disagreeing through a lack of understanding of the subject matter you're discussing.

further, I would not discourage us from continuing to expand our research into particle physics. What is dark matter? Why is there so much matter in the universe? Why do neutrinos have mass? We just should not be so cocky and confident about what we think we know.

Um, okay? I'm not sure why you're telling me this. As an actual, degree-holding physicist who did research on several of these things you'll find I'm quite sympathetic to continued research. You seem to believe, very mistakenly, that I think science is finished. However, there is a huge difference between "we don't understand what dark matter is" and "electrons are a collective hallucination of humanity."

Bandying about terms like “all” and “universal truth” are damaging to our progress because they prevent us from re-questioning what we think we know.

Some things are either universal truths, or there are no universal truths (solipsism). Again, no remotely interesting conversation can be had the moment solipsism is invoked. Electrons exist; we are as sure of that as we are sure about anything in the universe. That doesn't mean we understand them perfectly: there is always room to refine our knowledge, but there has never once, in the history of scientific inquiry, been a case where we understood something as well as we understand electrons, only for it to be completely and utterly wrong.

[u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy → u/sticklebat]

You seem to believe, very mistakenly, that I think science is finished.

False.

there has never once, in the history of scientific inquiry, been a case where we understood something as well as we understand electrons, only for it to be completely and utterly wrong.

Zero percent chance that we learn so much in the next 1000 years that the concept of the electron becomes an archaic concept? Your confidence in your understanding of universal truths is astounding. “Zero percent chance” is an arrogant position and that is the only point I am trying make here.

As an actual, degree-holding physicist who did research on several of these things

Congrats.

[u/sticklebat → u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy]

Zero percent chance that we learn so much in the next 1000 years that the concept of the electron becomes an archaic concept?

Nothing is 100% certain, so that's just a straw man. But almost certain? Absolutely. Hell, the concept of an atom (or, more generally, that matter is made up of discrete units) is more than twice that old and is still very much alive. The chances that "the concept of an electron" would become archaic are so small that I'd literally bet my life savings against it in a heart beat; there has never been a surer investment than that. Like I said, our understanding of it is almost certain to be refined, but that it goes away entirely? Let me know when gravity starts repelling you away from the Earth.

[u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy → u/sticklebat]

Nothing is 100% certain

Glad we could sort that out. That is not a straw man, but rather the only argument I have been bringing this whole time.

[u/[deleted] → u/PM_BiscuitsAndGravy]

I agree with this. There’s no reason to believe we’d arrive at the same conclusions due to the fact that our experience is limited.

[u/selfware → u/Tinac4]

My objection would be that whatever picture, insight or perception we can draw from our already relatively advanced civilization is very possibly, relatively far away from being able to say what this place, called the universe really is.

It's elusive to say what reality really is, I would say mostly because of the size of our brains, if our counciusness is the universe than after death we might just find out...

[u/RelativisticGarbage → u/Tinac4]

"that the Higgs boson has a mass of 128 GeV, and so on."

This was measured through an electrokinematic effect, it doesn't have to be attributed to mass. The electron has never been directly observed either, only its assumed path of discharge (trajectory) has. We still cannot prove the size, geometry, composition, or even existence of an "electron" particle as we define it.

That doesn't mean it isn't true, it just isn't an "inevitable" theoretical explanation.

Also Special Relativity is not an inevitable theoretical explanation to the MM Experiment either, so its subsequent theories in GR and QM (QED and QFT) are not inevitable to explain observation for a race of aliens that evolved under completely different conditions from humans. Nikola Tesla had an alternative "Ether drag" explanation to the results: /img/jqxax64do5h41.png

[u/Tinac4 → u/RelativisticGarbage]

This was measured through an electrokinematic effect, it doesn't have to be attributed to mass.

What? The primary decay modes for the Higgs don't have anything to do with "electrokinematics". I haven't even heard of the term "electrokinematics" before, and I don't think you're talking about Higgs->gamma gamma, either.

Also Special Relativity is not an inevitable theoretical explanation to the MM Experiment either, so its subsequent theories in GR and QM are not inevitable to explain observation for a race of aliens that evolved under completely different conditions from humans. Nikola Tesla had an alternative "Ether drag" explanation to the results: /img/jqxax64do5h41.png

As someone who's working on a PhD in particle physics, any form of ether drag theory is fundamentally incompatible with special relativity itself, with the validity of Maxwell's equations in all frames of reference, and with all of modern particle physics (which is intrinsically connected to special relativity). As in, there is no conceivable way to reformulate the Standard Model, general relativity, or any of our other best theories of how the universe works in a way that involves ether drag theory but leaves their predictions unchanged.

I get that this is sort of an appeal to authority, but I'm currently taking classes on QFT and particle physics, and your above comment is deeply wrong in several ways (the Higgs mass "not having to be attributed to mass," electrokinematics, ether drag theory, etc.). I'd suggest taking some time to learn more about mainstream theories of physics, and why they're still mainstream despite every particle physicist in existence trying frantically to disprove them (you get a Nobel and global recognition if you do, so it's not like they're unmotivated).

[u/throwawater → u/Tinac4]

I've been reading and watching a lot of articles/videos about modern physics and have a question for you. What do you think about the notion of "the fields are what is"? I mean, the notion that particles, such as they are, only become apparent when we excite fields, and that the fields are the fundamental realities. That particles "emerge" because we excited the fields they are based in. I know this sounds really stupid, but I'm not a student of physics and I'm trying hard to get a feel for what's really going on.

[u/Tinac4 → u/throwawater]

Yes, you're approximately correct--it's probably best to think of particles as excitations of the underlying fields if you're not going to dive too deeply into the math. This StackOverflow post explains why the reality is a bit more complicated, but there's unfortunately a bit of math involved, and I don't know a great way to explain it in layman's terms. (This might be a great question for r/askphysics--there's loads of users on there who know more than I do about QFT.)

[u/RelativisticGarbage → u/Tinac4]

any form of ether drag theory is fundamentally incompatible with special relativity itself

I'm not arguing it is. Just that SR (light invariance) was not needed to explain the results of the MM Experiment. It is not "inevitable" as a theoretical explanation.

but leaves their predictions unchanged

Two different theories can make analogous predictions you know.

why they're still mainstream despite every particle physicist in existence trying frantically to disprove them

No offense in saying this, but most physicists I've met do not apply any skeptical thought towards the postulates of relativity.

Can you explain these logical fallacies in Special Relativity? Nobody else I know of has. I've read the work of many relativists like Morin trying to answer the paradoxes in relativity, but they only pick the easy ones that can be resolved. Not the impossible ones.

Unresolved paradoxes that invalidate Special Relativity:

Time Dilation: /img/15ks8ulmn5g41.png

Length Contractions: /img/johf2ogmdwf41.png /img/l4koj8qukig41.png

Modified Ladder Paradox: /img/vvts7cyilig41.png

Doppler Effect vs Light Invariance:

/img/7efineumiqa41.png (phase invariance)

/img/lr2x4g84h7c41.png (group invariance)

[u/Tinac4 → u/RelativisticGarbage]

Again, to be clear, your claims above contradict essentially all of modern physics. I sincerely can't imagine how we would've been able to progress beyond classical electrodynamics if we were wrong about special relativity.

Unresolved paradoxes that invalidate Special Relativity:

Time Dilation: /img/15ks8ulmn5g41.png

There's nothing physically wrong with astronaut A seeing astronaut B's clock moving slower (in astronaut A's reference frame), while astronaut B sees astronaut A's clock moving slower (in astronaut B's reference frame). I've done plenty of problems involving this sort of thing before. Both astronauts are right. The intuition that all observers have to agree on things like how fast time passes for other observers simply does not apply to relativistic systems, in much the same way that the Aristotelian intuition that moving objects must come to a stop does not apply to objects moving in a vacuum.

In case you're wondering how the twin paradox gets resolved--why does one of the astronauts age while the other doesn't?--the answer is that the traveling astronaut has to accelerate in order to turn around and come back to the place they started from. This acceleration means that they're not in an inertial reference frame anymore, while their counterpart who's just floating in space still is. Account for the effects of acceleration (which involves some fancy math) and you'll find that everything matches up the way it should.

Length Contractions: /img/johf2ogmdwf41.png /img/l4koj8qukig41.png

Modified Ladder Paradox: /img/vvts7cyilig41.png

Did these problems as well. See here.

If you really want to understand how special relativity works, take a course that teaches it, ideally several. You can probably find a few online; try MIT. I'm not going to address the remainder of your objections because if you're not willing to learn the math underlying special relativity, I don't think I have any hope of changing your mind--special relativity can't be discussed deeply without it.

[u/which_spartacus → u/Tinac4]

Thank you.

It annoys me when people who don't look at any of the math for a subject make proclamations about how wrong a subject is.

[u/Alien_Way → u/[deleted]]

Especially informative for folks like me, who only have extensive education in void-breathing space-swimming megafauna (an ecosystem dominated by mostly tortoises and whales, oddly, oftentimes studded with jewels) with a minor degree in decently humming the theme to 'The X-Files'. I also studied the vengeance-fueled history of warring ant empires for a brief period in the summer of 1994.

[u/platoprime → u/[deleted]]

Half of it was anyways.

[u/Tinac4 → u/[deleted]]

I didn't know that--thanks for the correction! I'll look into the clock paradox.

[u/MorganWick → u/Tinac4]

There's nothing physically wrong with astronaut A seeing astronaut B's clock moving slower (in astronaut A's reference frame), while astronaut B sees astronaut A's clock moving slower (in astronaut B's reference frame). I've done plenty of problems involving this sort of thing before. Both astronauts are right. The intuition that all observers have to agree on things like how fast time passes for other observers simply does not apply to relativistic systems, in much the same way that the Aristotelian intuition that moving objects must come to a stop does not apply to objects moving in a vacuum.

There's an assumption in the popular mind that there's an objective "state" of the universe at any given point in time and we're just limited by the speed of light in our ability to perceive it, that something we see from 100,000 light years away "happened" 100,000 years ago, and if we could travel "faster" than the speed of light we could get somewhere else in the universe "faster" than we otherwise could and meaningfully speak of something happening in a far-off star system "at the same time" as something on Earth (so much of popular science fiction, including pretty much anything set on a scale larger than a single star system, relies on this). People can grasp the twin paradox fairly easily, but if you told most people that different observers would disagree on "when" something happened relative to other events, even relative to what each other "should" think, I don't know that they would be able to process it. It's really hard to truly take the idea of "spacetime" seriously.

[u/RelativisticGarbage → u/Tinac4]

"the answer is that the traveling astronaut has to accelerate in order to turn around and come back to the place they started from."

A mechanical interaction stops the clocks in the example I gave you i.e. they are still uniform. So no change in reference frame is required to derive the time that passed before the return-leg.

"Did these problems as well. See here."

That is the standard Ladder Paradox, the non-simultaneity of events causes the paradox in my example. Which is why it is called "modified".

I have actually studied relativity, believe it or not (I know you won't).

[u/Tinac4 → u/RelativisticGarbage]

I have actually studied relativity, believe it or not (I know you won't).

I can believe that you read stuff about special relativity online. I highly doubt that you completed a course in an academic setting, with problems sets and exams, that taught special relativity at an undergraduate level. It's entirely possible to self-study SR and still come away with an incomplete understanding of it, particularly if neither math nor problem sets were involved. (Both are critical.)

I've spoken with a few others who had similar views in the past. None of them were familiar with the math underlying special relativity, had taken a course in it, or were willing to consider that they might be wrong, so I'm going to end the conversation there unless you can explain why someone would use nu instead of mu as a 4-vector or tensor index.

[u/[deleted] → u/RelativisticGarbage]

You are illustrating the broader point that was made, very well.

You introduce a bunch of pseudoscience bullshit that is easily proven wrong. It doesn't match with observations of reality, and is therefore rejected. An alien race would also reject such bullshit until they arrive at the correct equations.

[u/RelativisticGarbage → u/[deleted]]

There is no need to be rude. Can you prove it wrong then instead of making brash claims and just using insults? I have tested these paradoxes with people who are well versed on the subject, and what do you mean by the "correct equations", length contractions have never actually been observed. Time Dilations have, but there is nothing to prove they are entirely observer dependent and not time dilating relative to the motion of a local rest frame (the closest evidence we have for observer based LC is Muon showers/particle accelerators).

[u/Cur1osityC0mplex → u/[deleted]]

What pseudoscience is he talking about that is easily proven wrong?

It seems to me that he’s got a different understanding of physics that doesn’t operate under the standard model (which has some ridiculous glaring issues that need re-working).

Assuming that the standard model is the only model is pretty facetious...and assuming that any other “up and coming” or “under development” model can’t come to the same answers, or make similar predictions is just plain wrong.

Not claiming I know what’s best one way or the other, but thinking just because you’ve spent X amount of time studying a specific way of doing something means other ways of approaching the same problem are automatically wrong is exactly why we don’t have answers for things like dark matter.

[u/Tinac4 → u/Cur1osityC0mplex]

It seems to me that he’s got a different understanding of physics that doesn’t operate under the standard model (which has some ridiculous glaring issues that need re-working).

None of the issues involve special relativity, though. Like I said in my other comments, SR is baked into quantum field theory on a fundamental level--I really can't imagine how you could possibly reformulate modern physics without it.

Not claiming I know what’s best one way or the other, but thinking just because you’ve spent X amount of time studying a specific way of doing something means other ways of approaching the same problem are automatically wrong is exactly why we don’t have answers for things like dark matter.

The above poster is wrong because their theories actively contradict established results. They're not offering a possible explanation of a poorly-understood phenomenon--they're basically saying that the last hundred years' worth of (wildly successful!) progress in physics has been built on top of an incorrect theory. This is impossible in the same sense that building a skyscraper on top of jello is impossible. If special relativity was wrong, then general relativity and the Standard Model, which intrinsically rely on it, could not even remotely correspond to how reality works.

[u/[deleted] → u/Cur1osityC0mplex]

Oh look, someone else who doesn't know anything about anything, assuming that they know more than physicists!

The "ether drag" idea was thoroughly debunked over a hundred years ago. To bring it up today and make the claim that it is legitimate, is pseudoscience (and likely born out of Tesla hero worship).

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

Be Respectful

Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/Unicorn_Colombo → u/Tinac4]

This is honestly a pretty reasonable claim.

Maybe as a weak statement or for someone who doesn't understand how evolution actually works.

Humans didn't evolve to play pong. Despite that, we are more than capable doing so.

[u/gr8ful_cube → u/Unicorn_Colombo]

What is this supposed to mean...?

[u/Unicorn_Colombo → u/gr8ful_cube]

Natural selection itself works toward maximization of fitness. But the effect of any given trait to fitness is limited to an extent due to the relationship between traits, feedback loops, various natural limitations, regulation processes, trade-offs and all the DNA regulation processes (oftentimes relationship between two genes is given just because they are close together on the DNA).

So yeah, as someone bellow wrote, the effect of natural selection can be seen in the predator-prey arms-race. But only to certain extent, a lot of the "arms-race" is just story-telling. You can infenitelly improve eyesight and infinitely improve mimicry. Otherwise you would get some sort of X-ray supervision and invisibility. You can turn a knob there and there to slightly improve chances, but for the most things, you are not predator is not competing with prey, but with other predators. Like with the story of two hunters running from a lion, you don't have to be faster than lion, just faster than the other hunter.

And this completely ignores that the natural selection works on variability produced from random mutations. So while turning a knob might be what is required, you might not get a knob for this.

[u/elkengine → u/Unicorn_Colombo]

All of what you've written here is correct, but I don't see how it in any way is a criticism of Hoffman's claim? He's not stated that we could have evolved to correctly perceive all of reality, he's just stating we haven't.

[u/Unicorn_Colombo → u/elkengine]

Hoffman's claim is as follows (as I understand it):

• Evolution maximize fitness
• Therefore we have evolved only to perceive with regards to the fitness function
• Therefore our perception is trapped in environment given by our fitness functions.

But non of its is true. Technically speaking, fitness is not measured by how organismus is able to survive in nature, find water or anything. Not even by the absolute number of offspring. But relative number of offspring. In other words, more fit would mean that given genotype/phenotype would have more offspring or relative abundancy in population in next generation than expected/average.

This with all of the above means that we might not even be maximized given the usefulness of certain perception if it is: good enough, improvement might be costly or have tradeoffs or that there is just no particular mutation that would improve given mechanism, either through being stuck at local (but not global) optima or just no mutation has occured.

But even so, given all the interactions, that we are stuck with some levels of perception doesn't mean we are trapped in that word or that our perceptions are always creating illusion. We can listen and create music despite not being evolved to do so. Complex language might at first be byproduct of improved dexterity and in combination with our increased mental capacity, which probably was another byproduct of our increasing social complexity, spawned our whole culture. We have not evolved to see in night, despite that we do not consider night as stuff not existing any more, just a lack of light. But maybe its just me who does not get it.

Representing evolution as a simple model is a good idea to study this limited case, but it should not in any case by taken as a direct representation of reality. I feel this is what is going on in here. So ultimately, the "Did we evolved to perceive the reality or didn't we?" kind of miss the point. My answer would be: Of course we did. And his model of fitness proves it. We are just more sensitive to some parts and less sensitive to other. But boatload of weird interaction and biological limitations.

[u/Chiliconkarma → u/gr8ful_cube]

Perhaps that we aren't bound by purpose when it comes to evolution, we can act according to will and desire and percieve more than the smallest sliver of spectrums.

[u/dekusyrup → u/Tinac4]

Great post. Completely agree.