OK, I googled the podcast, here it is:
The conversation starts out interesting, but rooted in speculation. Their description of the evolution of mind is hard to swallow. They keep stipulating that modern humans are somehow Darwinistically inclined to ponder the nature of reality, while "our ancestors" were somehow NOT so motivated.
"If we use technology to explore physics in in areas that were inaccessible to our ancestors, then we should be skeptical of any intuitive results." -not a direct quote, but I hope I captured the essence of the statement
I could probably write a page or two essay exploring the pros and cons of this sentiment.
***
I love the conversation about math - what it is and why we bother.
I'm loving this podcast so far.
***
Around 40:00 they start on multiverse.
The first description seems flawed in that it says that other universes exist outside of our own. Accepting the description that our universe is the sphere around us from which light has had time to reach:
an observer a significant distance from us shares almost entirely the same sphere, but not exactly. The separation in spacetime means they have different observation boundaries. This means that every particle is ultimately in it's own universe, which just happens to overlap almost perfectly with all the nearby particles. Which is - I guess - still fine, but it is definitely NOT the case that other universes are "far away."
The critique of my earlier definition is odd. There is no stipulation that if it can't be observed, then it doesn't exist. That is not a position that physics takes. Physics codifies the properties of observables. Physics is mute as to whether something which cannot be measured exists.
I'm not saying that there is NOTHING outside of what we can observe. I'm saying that there is nothing INTELLIGENT to say about a thing which we cannot observe.
"If you go a googolplex meters away..."
...
Oh, they kinda debunked that one a minute later.
***
Level 2 multiverse
It's still hypothesis, and it's rooted inside the hand waving that "inflation is totes violent." It doesn't serve him well that he earlier said that inflation is hypothesis and not theory.
It seems like it's all hand waving to justify the anthropic principle.
That said - even with all the ambiguity - it strikes me as plausible.
"In case you're still worried about living in a simulation, I'll just give you some advice. Live a really interesting life; do interesting things - so that whoever's running it doesn't get bored and shut you down."
Reply With Quote
