Logic Chopraing

In the context of a multiverse, I could certainly see how the term "subjective reality" might be used. "Multiverse" is certainly a controversial concept but it hasn't been ruled out, as long as the possibilities of a quantum universe comprised of information are still in play.

Ummm...did he mention any names or cite any references so we may read them for ourselves?

a quantum universe comprised of information

Yes, yes, Chopra isn't the only one who can spout irrelevant quantum woo as if it meant something. Information is simply a measure of channel data carrying capacity, multiverses are generic solutions to some plausible physical theories like eternal inflation and brane theory. It doesn't mean belief is reality.

Multiverse, subjective reality, probability, quantum, information,... Hey, you forgot to deepack relativity and consciousness into your two sentences!

Oh, Torbjörn! Thank you, thank you for helping me see the light! I will now go and change my mind, because you so skillfully refuted my thoughts. Thanks, man!

...wtf? I'm not a scientist; I'm a humanist. I haven't read Everything There Is To Read on the subject. I've read some things that have made me think, though, and thought I'd throw it out there. And you go destroying it without counter-data, and furthermore claiming that it is a *belief* of mine? Please. There's a difference between being interested in a subject and being a crackpot about it. Did you miss the bit where I say (based on what I've read, mind) that it's a controversial subject?

If you've got something I can learn from, bring it on. Otherwise git out of my face and stop randomly insulting strangers.

I Am Not Chopra. Nor do you have ANY reason to believe I'm a doofus.

vika:

I think you are reading a lot into my comment that wasn't there.

I'm not sure what exactly was insulting, since you did spout an amazing concentrations of woo words. (Right after Wilkins commented on Chopra's use of the same, BTW.) And I didn't say you were a doofus. For example Chopak earns money on his quantum woo, so he isn't totally incompetent.

I also didn't refer to any controversial status of multiverses. (Or probability, quantum mechanics, information, relativity and consciousness.) Instead I noted that they are generic features. If any of these theories (inflation, strings) become verified it will be an indication of a natural (generic) possibility. And inflation seems to be rather verified.

without counter-data

This is what humanists probably call "making shit up". I did suggest two reasons why you were stringing words together haphazardly. And I will gladly point to references. Come back if you note anything wrong, this isn't my field either.

A starter for information as quantification of data and not a fundamental object is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory . Note: maybe some day another understanding of information may become relevant. But it isn't today and AFAIK there is no plausible reason. Thus: woo.

A starter for multiverses as generic solutions of diverse theories, even semiclassical ones without basis in quantum properties as such but (quantum) field theory, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation and especially eternal inflation. "Alan Guth has described the inflationary universe as the "ultimate free lunch":[63] new universes, similar to our own, are continually produced in a vast inflating background."

"Right after Wilkins commented on Chopra's use of the same, BTW."

I forgot to note that this is also going against your characterization of "randomly". There was a certain correlation. ;-)

Torbjörn,

Thanks for your reply, and the links.

"I'm not sure what exactly was insulting..." -- your response to my comment seems to have been a knee-jerk (=dismissive and rude) reaction against what you perceived to be an over-concentration of "woo words." Given my non-formally-scientific context, I hope it's clearer now that these words have still retained some meaning in my world, and aren't necessarily burdened with *all* the quackery you may associate with them. (Some, though, sure. :) )

Maybe if I use different terms I can put it in a way that won't cause such grief? Here's my try:

I don't see any reason to rule out the possibility that the universe isn't comprised of a series of discrete data points.

This takes care of the "information" problem you rightly pointed out -- data is much more like what I was trying to get at -- and leaves be the cursèd Q-word. It also leaves multiverse entirely out of it, because the existence or not of a multiverse doesn't have any effect on the above.

That's the best I can put it, and hopefully it's better than my original bleary-eyed 4am comment.

But my original comment missed the point that I was trying to get at: "reality" is only subjective. Here I take "reality" to mean our observable surroundings, going right up to the end of observability. It's not quite the same as "universe" but close.

Being part of the *verse with agency in it, I don't see how we can observe it objectively.

vika:

your response to my comment seems to have been a knee-jerk (=dismissive and rude) reaction

There isn't anything wrong with snap decisions as such. It can seem rude, I agree.

But what I was really reacting to was that it didn't mean anything. That is why it is "woo" - the words have meaning, but you can take that out of them by combining them in a haphazard manner.

Apparently your theory of meaning isn't as mine. :-)

I don't see any reason to rule out the possibility that the universe isn't comprised of a series of discrete data points.

OK, that makes sense.

Well, while most physicists believe physics is continous and without any minimal length, there is the fundamental length scale set by the Planck scale. It sets a data or information limit connected to the minimum entropy it gives.

The current best contender to a fundamental theory, string/M theory, is continous like this. And it seems impossible to construct discrete theories without violating special relativity's requirement. Discreteness picks a prefered frame, but that isn't compatible with relativity.

So it is probably not correct and somewhat naive (since continuity and discreteness are dual properties of confined or quantum systems) to think that spacetime is made of discrete objects.

I don't see how we can observe it objectively.

Philosophically, this is apparently a problem. (Stating that on a science philosophers blog with such a countenance is risky, but I have to. I hope the Yule spirit has set in. :-)

Scientifically, not really since we rely on repeatable observations (which also seems to take agency out of it).

What you are referring to is the problem of regress when we improve and extend theories. Yes, our knowledge isn't fixed and irreversible. IMO that isn't as much subjectivity as contingency.

Partly a semantic argument. One person is assuming something like:

"Physical cosmos" = "objective reality",
and thus
"subjective reality" = "not in the Physical cosmos."

Someone else is making the leap:

"not in the Physical cosmos" = "objectively real but in an alternate universe in a multiverse"

Our language gets in the way here. As an ex-Astronomy professor, I belive more in what we see through scientific instruments than I believed in the twisted logic of my 5% of students who insisted that humans never really went to the moon, but that Apollo was a massive conspiracy.

As a professional author, including poetry, fiction, songs, teleplays, and the like, I most assuredly take "subjective reality" seriously -- it is the basis of Art.

As a mathematician, I waver between competing metaphysics of mathematics as reality (Platonism), social construct about marks made on paper for the sake of money and power, or pragmatism in mathematical representation of physical phenomena.

Torbjorn Larsson makes more sense to me than Depak Chopra on most science blogs.

I am also in the odd position of living a few blocks from my late coauthor Richard Feynman, and also a few blocks from the man whose being beaten up on video sparked the Rodney King riots, the worst civil unrest in the USA since the Civil War (if we don't count the rebellion of the White House against New Orleans regarding Katrina). In Rodney King's words:

"Can't we all get along?"

Happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas, Kool Kwanza, Bubbly Buddha's Birthday, whatever, have a great holiday.

-- Jonathan Vos Post

Torbjorn Larsson makes more sense to me than Depak Chopra on most science blogs.

Thank you. I think. :-~

Regarding the semantic argument, you are of course correct both in that I dismissed vika's assumption and that subjectivity is still in play anyway. I hope I'm not seen as too intolerant when I happen to kick subjectivity into some corner - it can take up too much space in some views on science and even mathematics.

So I believe if tolerance (but not necessarily respect) is a tolerable view, we can all get along.

Gott Nytt/Happy New (Year) !