Quantum know-how
Recent work (1) has further demonstrated the futility of attempting to mechanistically explain the universe, replete with the inexplicable in the context of accepted theories. The theoretical work exposes the possibility of hiding quantum ignorance in the presence of quantified information. That is to say, if somebody is ignorant of certain parts of the information set, in the quantum world, such ignorance can be hidden and the incomplete information can proxy for the whole information.
This is an extremely interesting finding, with significant implications. It may point to the idea that we have an incorrect definition of information itself. The mechanistic formulations drive us to think of information in a certain way, which may be incorrect. It is not that we do not have good answers to what we find, it is that we do not really know how the answers can be expressed. It is not just lack of knowledge itself but the definition of what can be known. Thus, the core of the status-quo framework, has to be challenged and rethought. It has been corroding for nearly a century with no end in sight.
Let’s visualize this in a different way. Suppose a colony of intelligent ants have figured out that if they stack up mud beyond certain level, it may be unstable. Based on this, they formulated a “theory of everything,” that explains most of what they see and act on. Often, they will be surprised by water flowing up from the ground and bits of leaves flying up in the air. Items may show up at their doorstep for no apparent reason and from nowhere. The ants have two choices – they could take the existing framework and attempt to explain the weird observations or they can think about inventing a new framework.
Contemporary Physics is in a similar spot. They have problems explaining phenomena at any scale – at large scale, it is unclear why the universe is behaving the way it is and at small scale, observations defy explanations. Much effort has been spent on “bending,” status-quo to fit the observations. An easier and more productive path forward could be starting over.
(1) Journal reference: T. Vidick and S. Wehner, “Does Ignorance of the Whole Imply Ignorance of the Parts? Large Violations of Noncontextuality in Quantum Theory”, Physical Review Letters 107, 030402 (2011); http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v107/i3/e030402. A free preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6448.
Hi geapen,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be implying that the way scientists process information (and by that I mean the scientific method) may be incorrect, they are “bending” the status-quo to fit observations, and that perhaps “an easier and more productive path forward could be starting over.”
How could this be appropriate? Starting over would imply a reassessment of the assumptions of the scientific method. And which ones would you modify? That Nature is *not* consistent? Abandon Occam’s Razor? The sole test of knowledge is *not* experiment? Abandon independent verification and validation (peer review, repeat experiments)? Those are basically the only assumptions made.
How could this be efficient? Why start over when all the data gathered from all scientific observations and experiments are still valid? For example, every observation that confirms Newtonian mechanics confirms relativistic mechanics. Of course, the opposite experimental observations are not true. But, I am not talking theory. The data from both sets of experiments are all still valid. It is up to theory to adapt to the facts.
Secondly, I gather from some of your other posts that you object to a mechanistic explanation of the universe in part because it eliminates the notion of free-will. This referenced work should be good news. It seems to imply that an effect can be somewhat ignorant of its cause. Isn’t that free will at its best? Not completely random (how can I exercise free will if I can’t predict consequences) but just somewhat unpredictable.
Thanks for the post!
George
George:
Thanks for your thoughtful note.
What I suggest are the following (and I am not sure if I am right):
(a) Incremental improvements to a framework in an effort to explain known disparities may not be an efficient process. This is because it will perpetuate status quo longer than it should be as most participants will feel incrementally happier as small advancements happen and will continue to do this.
(b) It is possible to imagine a framework gathering enough momentum that it cannot be rejected even if it is wrong. For example, if the status-quo expects research to be done certain way and papers to be published certain way, most participants will do that as it is much less costly. Data fits here as well – people will not filling to throw out they have collected. If the collected information is either wrong or not useful, it will continue to create noise within the system.
(c) What I mean by mechanistic explanation has more to do with a deterministic framework – If X then Y. For the past 10,000 years, we have built up a logic system that takes pride in such explanations. This is why quantum mechanics is a very disturbing area for most scientists. It is just a window into possibly another logic system that we are currently unfamiliar with. Consistent with (b) above, one could argue that there is a certain event horizon beyond which the established logic system cannot be changed. After certain time of certain number of participants, the status-quo will get unchangeable. This is why 99.9% of energy is currently spent on either making slight modifications to existing framework or creating plugs (dark matter, dark energy, dark flow….) for the inexplicable.
Again, I am not sure I am right. What I am arguing is that a larger percentage of the mind share has to be deployed in rejecting the status-quo so that the system does not get stuck.
Hi geapen,
In response to (a): You have a point. The scientific method is an error management process much more than a process for the efficient advancement of knowledge. That is, the method will be much better at identifying errors in theories and experiments than identifying promising new scientific paradigms or frameworks. For a lot of reasons, I personally believe that error management should remain paramount. But I agree with you that we need an emphasis on finding meta-frameworks for making sure the existing (status-quo) frameworks do not get stuck. And we need something practical.
In response to (b): I do not disagree, but I can’t imagine any process better than the scientific method. It focuses on error by demanding verifiable predictability. What better way to overturn frameworks based too much on authority or consensus? It’s when the scientific process is short-circuited that things go bad. We need authority and consensus (e.g., peer review) for verification and validation of theories and experiments/observations. But I agree you that it is a big problem when used as a replacement for the entire method.
In response to (c): I don’t know what you mean. Quantum mechanics is intensely mathematical — i.e., logical. How is it “a window into possibly another logic system”? One of the criticisms of quantum string theory is that it allows for “too many” models of reality. Also, at a minimum, we need to assume Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction (consistency) so you have a basis to complain when I start to babble.
My point is that logic doesn’t put a constraint on Nature, it just allows us to have rational discussions about Her. So I don’t understand why would we ever need another logic system? Some application of Occam’s Razor?
George
George:
I think this is a conceptual challenge – I argue that a process of support and testability is intrinsic to the status-quo system. I further argue that the scientific process with these characteristics may be faulty and that other processes may exist. However, one cannot prove (or disprove) such processes using status-quo framework.
In other words, what we consider to be “logical,” is a property of the status-quo framework. It does not have to exist in this form or any other form, with other frameworks. Rationality and reality – purely subjective terms, are secondary issues, as they do not even qualify as property of status-quo.
Consistency is also edogenous to the framework – something participants may use to prove or disprove and that may or may not have relevance for another framework.
Obviously, these are not “practical.” However, the thought experiment of complete replacements are useful and instructive.
Gill