Scientific Certainty?

[dennislmay]

Excerpted from the article below: Even if everyone had an IQ of 200, you'd have exactly the same range of personalities as you have now. End quote I don’t think that is true. What do you think? Peter Taylor What If Humans Were Twice as Intelligent? You might someday be much, much smarter than you are now. That's the hope of neuroscientists focused on understanding the basis of intelligence. They have discovered that the brains of people with high IQs tend to be highly integrated, with neural paths connecting distant brain regions, while less intelligent people's brains build simpler, shorter routes. But no one knows why some brains construct much longer-range connections than others. "When the brain mechanisms that underlie intelligence are understood, it is theoretically possible that those mechanisms can be tweaked to increase IQ," said Richard Haier, a neuroscientist and professor emeritus at the University of California, Irvine, who studies intelligence. For the first time in human history, he said, "the concept that intelligence can be increased is reasonable." It's a titillating thought but, considering the aphorism "ignorance is bliss," one might wonder: Would it really be better to be brainier? What would life and society be like if we all suddenly became, say, twice as intelligent? For simplicity, imagine that instead of our current mean IQ score of 100, humans had an average score of 200. (Experts say this isn't a true "doubling" of intelligence because the IQ scale doesn't start at zero and, furthermore, the test isn't actually designed to yield a score as high as 200 — but we will set aside these qualifications for the purpose of argument.) According to Earl Hunt, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington and president of the International Society for Intelligence Research, approximately one person in 10 billion would have an IQ of 200. With a current world population of 7 billion, there may or may not be one such person alive today and, in any case, his or her identity is unknown. However, the 17th-century genius Isaac Newton, discoverer of gravity, calculus and more, is sometimes estimated to have had an IQ of 200 (though he never took an IQ test). So, using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons? Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? Self-actualization Haier believes greater intelligence, which he defines as the ability to learn faster and remember more, would be highly advantageous on an individual scale. "Experiencing the world with a higher IQ might be more interesting for most people. They might enjoy reading more, might have a greater depth of appreciation for certain things and more insight into life," he told Life's Little Mysteries. Furthermore, IQs of 200 would allow us to pursue activities and careers that most interest us, not just those we're mentally capable of, Haier said. We could master new languages in a few weeks, for example, or become brain surgeons. Smarter humans would also be healthier and longer-living, the scientists said, because they'd have a better grasp of what behavior leads to these attributes. "Maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and even more, managing a chronic illness such as diabetes, can be quite cognitively challenging. That's the sort of challenge intelligent people can meet… by definition," Hunt wrote in an email. Social skills Society would not benefit quite as much as individuals from a mass intelligence boost. Although people like to blame social problems on human ignorance and stupidity the scientists say removing these factors would not lead to the emergence of a harmonious Utopia. Greater intelligence does not come hand-in-hand with a greater ability to cooperate. "Intelligence is independent of personality and emotion, so you can have very intelligent people who are also just kind of crazy people," Haier said. "Even if everyone had an IQ of 200, you'd have exactly the same range of personalities as you have now, and because that's a determining factor in how good your society is, you won't necessarily have a better society." Again, consider Isaac Newton: along with his off-the-charts smarts, he was also a notorious misanthrope. While petty crime rates would fall in a society of Newtons, Hunt speculated that white-collar crimes, such as banking scams and cover-ups by pharmaceutical companies, might increase and even grow more sophisticated. On the other hand, so would crime-fighting. "The evil corporate villains would be smarter than ever, but so would the government officials who were writing and enforcing the safety regulations! Who would win? Who knows?" he wrote. Despite these issues, there's a very good chance that higher-functioning brains would help us invent technologies to fix some of our bigger problems. Haier explained that just as a team of 100 engineers is more likely to come up with a remarkable innovation than a team of 10 engineers (because there's more total brainpower working on the job), having 7 billion "geniuses" on Earth would likely lead to solutions to some currently intractable issues. We might figure out a hyper-efficient way to desalinate saltwater, for example, or tap into a limitless alternative-energy source. Because both those advances would produce a greater abundance of resources, they would likely minimize societal conflict — despite some humans being just as nasty as ever. Loss of faith According to Hunt, there's evidence to suggest that many humans, if significantly smarter, would lose their belief in God. "There is a small tendency for people with high scores to be more liberal in their social attitudes and less likely to accept strong religious beliefs. This makes sense; we can know things by reasoning or we can accept something on faith. If we all became very good reasoners, there would probably be a small shift to preferring reasoned over faith-based explanations of the phenomenon of life," he wrote. Some people would undoubtedly continue to accept faith-based cosmologies, however, as there have been many examples in history of highly intelligent and religious people, Hunt noted. Looking smart Confounding the stereotype of the nerdy brainiac with suspenders and thick glasses, Hunt mentioned one other change that would be expected to occur if we all became smarter. "People would be better looking!" he wrote. A study from Harvard University found a significant correlation between peoples' test scores and how physically attractive other people rate them to be, he explained, and extrapolating the finding up to people with IQs of 200 implies that, in our world of super geniuses, an "average-looking person" would move up to the top 15th percentile on our current scale of looks. Even if the extrapolation isn't quite accurate — if the correlation between intelligence and attractiveness breaks down past a certain range —humanity might at least be better at things like exercising and grooming. "I think what would happen is that there would be fewer homely-looking people; especially people who are unattractive because they are slovenly," he explained. "Intelligent people are aware that looking badly is a handicap in getting jobs, being invited to parties, etc." One final thought: Even when scientists finally do discover the mechanism for ramping up intelligence, it is highly improbable that everyone would be given an immediate IQ boost. The "haves" would surely benefit from the neuroscience research more than the "have-nots," and this invites a further line of inquiry. As Hunt put it, "Suppose that in some future society, part of the population, say 10 percent, became hugely intelligent, while the rest stayed where we are now or even dropped behind a bit. What would that do to society?" This story was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover. Follow Life's Little Mysteries on Twitter @llmysteries, then join us on Facebook.

A very interesting topic. There are many facets and compartmentalized aspects to intelligence. It is not static even within a single individual over long or short periods of time. Depending on the IQ test the upper range is 165-170 before the test becomes unreliable - even according to the makers. How do you differentiate two people with the same high score or 100% on a test? How do you rate someone who finds errors on an IQ test? The questions on IQ tests are balanced to approximate the same IQ for the different sexes. Verbal skills are weighed higher to give females the advantage in that area - analytical and visual reasoning skills weighed lowered to achieve balance. In any case intelligence in various areas can vary widely within an individual. Being twice as intelligent would not likely apply to all areas evenly - as it does not now. The range of personalities is likely to expand with increasing intelligence. What I have always found interesting is bursts of intelligence. A topic I've read almost nothing about but I personally know to exist.

Dennis May

[dennislmay]

Excerpted from the article below: Even if everyone had an IQ of 200, you'd have exactly the same range of personalities as you have now. End quote I don’t think that is true. What do you think? Peter Taylor What If Humans Were Twice as Intelligent? You might someday be much, much smarter than you are now. That's the hope of neuroscientists focused on understanding the basis of intelligence. They have discovered that the brains of people with high IQs tend to be highly integrated, with neural paths connecting distant brain regions, while less intelligent people's brains build simpler, shorter routes. But no one knows why some brains construct much longer-range connections than others. "When the brain mechanisms that underlie intelligence are understood, it is theoretically possible that those mechanisms can be tweaked to increase IQ," said Richard Haier, a neuroscientist and professor emeritus at the University of California, Irvine, who studies intelligence. For the first time in human history, he said, "the concept that intelligence can be increased is reasonable." It's a titillating thought but, considering the aphorism "ignorance is bliss," one might wonder: Would it really be better to be brainier? What would life and society be like if we all suddenly became, say, twice as intelligent? For simplicity, imagine that instead of our current mean IQ score of 100, humans had an average score of 200. (Experts say this isn't a true "doubling" of intelligence because the IQ scale doesn't start at zero and, furthermore, the test isn't actually designed to yield a score as high as 200 — but we will set aside these qualifications for the purpose of argument.) According to Earl Hunt, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington and president of the International Society for Intelligence Research, approximately one person in 10 billion would have an IQ of 200. With a current world population of 7 billion, there may or may not be one such person alive today and, in any case, his or her identity is unknown. However, the 17th-century genius Isaac Newton, discoverer of gravity, calculus and more, is sometimes estimated to have had an IQ of 200 (though he never took an IQ test). So, using him as an archetype, what if we were all a bunch of Newtons? Would the world be much more advanced than it is today? Self-actualization Haier believes greater intelligence, which he defines as the ability to learn faster and remember more, would be highly advantageous on an individual scale. "Experiencing the world with a higher IQ might be more interesting for most people. They might enjoy reading more, might have a greater depth of appreciation for certain things and more insight into life," he told Life's Little Mysteries. Furthermore, IQs of 200 would allow us to pursue activities and careers that most interest us, not just those we're mentally capable of, Haier said. We could master new languages in a few weeks, for example, or become brain surgeons. Smarter humans would also be healthier and longer-living, the scientists said, because they'd have a better grasp of what behavior leads to these attributes. "Maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and even more, managing a chronic illness such as diabetes, can be quite cognitively challenging. That's the sort of challenge intelligent people can meet… by definition," Hunt wrote in an email. Social skills Society would not benefit quite as much as individuals from a mass intelligence boost. Although people like to blame social problems on human ignorance and stupidity the scientists say removing these factors would not lead to the emergence of a harmonious Utopia. Greater intelligence does not come hand-in-hand with a greater ability to cooperate. "Intelligence is independent of personality and emotion, so you can have very intelligent people who are also just kind of crazy people," Haier said. "Even if everyone had an IQ of 200, you'd have exactly the same range of personalities as you have now, and because that's a determining factor in how good your society is, you won't necessarily have a better society." Again, consider Isaac Newton: along with his off-the-charts smarts, he was also a notorious misanthrope. While petty crime rates would fall in a society of Newtons, Hunt speculated that white-collar crimes, such as banking scams and cover-ups by pharmaceutical companies, might increase and even grow more sophisticated. On the other hand, so would crime-fighting. "The evil corporate villains would be smarter than ever, but so would the government officials who were writing and enforcing the safety regulations! Who would win? Who knows?" he wrote. Despite these issues, there's a very good chance that higher-functioning brains would help us invent technologies to fix some of our bigger problems. Haier explained that just as a team of 100 engineers is more likely to come up with a remarkable innovation than a team of 10 engineers (because there's more total brainpower working on the job), having 7 billion "geniuses" on Earth would likely lead to solutions to some currently intractable issues. We might figure out a hyper-efficient way to desalinate saltwater, for example, or tap into a limitless alternative-energy source. Because both those advances would produce a greater abundance of resources, they would likely minimize societal conflict — despite some humans being just as nasty as ever. Loss of faith According to Hunt, there's evidence to suggest that many humans, if significantly smarter, would lose their belief in God. "There is a small tendency for people with high scores to be more liberal in their social attitudes and less likely to accept strong religious beliefs. This makes sense; we can know things by reasoning or we can accept something on faith. If we all became very good reasoners, there would probably be a small shift to preferring reasoned over faith-based explanations of the phenomenon of life," he wrote. Some people would undoubtedly continue to accept faith-based cosmologies, however, as there have been many examples in history of highly intelligent and religious people, Hunt noted. Looking smart Confounding the stereotype of the nerdy brainiac with suspenders and thick glasses, Hunt mentioned one other change that would be expected to occur if we all became smarter. "People would be better looking!" he wrote. A study from Harvard University found a significant correlation between peoples' test scores and how physically attractive other people rate them to be, he explained, and extrapolating the finding up to people with IQs of 200 implies that, in our world of super geniuses, an "average-looking person" would move up to the top 15th percentile on our current scale of looks. Even if the extrapolation isn't quite accurate — if the correlation between intelligence and attractiveness breaks down past a certain range —humanity might at least be better at things like exercising and grooming. "I think what would happen is that there would be fewer homely-looking people; especially people who are unattractive because they are slovenly," he explained. "Intelligent people are aware that looking badly is a handicap in getting jobs, being invited to parties, etc." One final thought: Even when scientists finally do discover the mechanism for ramping up intelligence, it is highly improbable that everyone would be given an immediate IQ boost. The "haves" would surely benefit from the neuroscience research more than the "have-nots," and this invites a further line of inquiry. As Hunt put it, "Suppose that in some future society, part of the population, say 10 percent, became hugely intelligent, while the rest stayed where we are now or even dropped behind a bit. What would that do to society?" This story was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover. Follow Life's Little Mysteries on Twitter @llmysteries, then join us on Facebook.

A very interesting topic. There are many facets and compartmentalized aspects to intelligence. It is not static even within a single individual over long or short periods of time. Depending on the IQ test the upper range is 165-170 before the test becomes unreliable - even according to the makers. How do you differentiate two people with the same high score or 100% on a test? How do you rate someone who finds errors on an IQ test? The questions on IQ tests are balanced to approximate the same IQ for the different sexes. Verbal skills are weighed higher to give females the advantage in that area - analytical and visual reasoning skills weighed lowered to achieve balance. In any case intelligence in various areas can vary widely within an individual. Being twice as intelligent would not likely apply to all areas evenly - as it does not now. The range of personalities is likely to expand with increasing intelligence. What I have always found interesting is bursts of intelligence. A topic I've read almost nothing about but I personally know to exist.

Dennis May

Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57358845/jake-math-prodigy-proud-of-his-autism/

Jake Barnett is an interesting example of where intelligence can take us. I'm glad to hear he

doesn't buy indeterministic QM.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism

http://www.cbsnews.c...-of-his-autism/

Jake Barnett is an interesting example of where intelligence can take us. I'm glad to hear he

doesn't buy indeterministic QM.

Dennis

What does he have to replace it? Keep in mind the indeterministic theory you dislike for philosophical reasons has yet to be falsified empirically. In the mean time you use a computer invented by physicists and engineers who buy quantum theory as it is.

Have you ever wondered why a theory so "wrong" produces so many "right" things rightly? It is a puzzlement.

I will give you a hint. Given a choice between facts and theory, choose facts. And never let philosophy get between you an physics that has consistently produced the right answers to definite questions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism http://www.cbsnews.c...-of-his-autism/ Jake Barnett is an interesting example of where intelligence can take us. I'm glad to hear he doesn't buy indeterministic QM. Dennis

What does he have to replace it? Keep in mind the indeterministic theory you dislike for philosophical reasons has yet to be falsified empirically. In the mean time you use a computer invented by physicists and engineers who buy quantum theory as it is. Have you ever wondered why a theory so "wrong" produces so many "right" things rightly? It is a puzzlement. I will give you a hint. Given a choice between facts and theory, choose facts. And never let philosophy get between you an physics that has consistently produced the right answers to definite questions. Ba'al Chatzaf

As has been discussed here several times before there is no priority in the claim of indeterminism in QM. Since 1964 it has been publicly known for all to read that deterministic quantum mechanics produces the same predictions as indeterministic QM. Granted in the relativistic domain the indeterministic version is more developed - but no theoretical development yet suggests a problem for deterministic QM in the relativistic domain. There is no reason to present this as a false choice - no one is suggesting abandoning QM - just the philosophical view that it is indeterministic.

Dennis May

[BaalChatzaf]

Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism http://www.cbsnews.c...-of-his-autism/ Jake Barnett is an interesting example of where intelligence can take us. I'm glad to hear he doesn't buy indeterministic QM. Dennis

What does he have to replace it? Keep in mind the indeterministic theory you dislike for philosophical reasons has yet to be falsified empirically. In the mean time you use a computer invented by physicists and engineers who buy quantum theory as it is. Have you ever wondered why a theory so "wrong" produces so many "right" things rightly? It is a puzzlement. I will give you a hint. Given a choice between facts and theory, choose facts. And never let philosophy get between you an physics that has consistently produced the right answers to definite questions. Ba'al Chatzaf

As has been discussed here several times before there is no priority in the claim of indeterminism in QM. Since 1964 it has been publicly known for all to read that deterministic quantum mechanics produces the same predictions as indeterministic QM. Granted in the relativistic domain the indeterministic version is more developed - but no theoretical development yet suggests a problem for deterministic QM in the relativistic domain. There is no reason to present this as a false choice - no one is suggesting abandoning QM - just the philosophical view that it is indeterministic.

Dennis May

Since the predictions are the same, why are you complaining. Only predictions matter.

And do you really believe the Nature gives a Flying F*ck what formal theories human beings cook up?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism http://www.cbsnews.c...-of-his-autism/ Jake Barnett is an interesting example of where intelligence can take us. I'm glad to hear he doesn't buy indeterministic QM. Dennis

What does he have to replace it? Keep in mind the indeterministic theory you dislike for philosophical reasons has yet to be falsified empirically. In the mean time you use a computer invented by physicists and engineers who buy quantum theory as it is. Have you ever wondered why a theory so "wrong" produces so many "right" things rightly? It is a puzzlement. I will give you a hint. Given a choice between facts and theory, choose facts. And never let philosophy get between you an physics that has consistently produced the right answers to definite questions. Ba'al Chatzaf

As has been discussed here several times before there is no priority in the claim of indeterminism in QM. Since 1964 it has been publicly known for all to read that deterministic quantum mechanics produces the same predictions as indeterministic QM. Granted in the relativistic domain the indeterministic version is more developed - but no theoretical development yet suggests a problem for deterministic QM in the relativistic domain. There is no reason to present this as a false choice - no one is suggesting abandoning QM - just the philosophical view that it is indeterministic.

Dennis May

Since the predictions are the same, why are you complaining. Only predictions matter.

And do you really believe the Nature gives a Flying F*ck what formal theories human beings cook up?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If only the predictions mattered there would not be a concerted effort to prevent Bohmian

Mechanics from being taught and there would not be continual disinformation about the

status of indeterministic versus deterministic QM. Deterministic QM is a different approach

not only philosophically but eventually different mathematical approaches will develop and

different predictions will be generated in regimes not yet considered. Non-linear QM is

one such regime where deterministic QM can go if experiment and observation says there

is a reason to go there.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

If only the predictions mattered there would not be a concerted effort to prevent Bohmian

Mechanics from being taught and there would not be continual disinformation about the

status of indeterministic versus deterministic QM. Deterministic QM is a different approach

not only philosophically but eventually different mathematical approaches will develop and

different predictions will be generated in regimes not yet considered. Non-linear QM is

one such regime where deterministic QM can go if experiment and observation says there

is a reason to go there.

Dennis

First rate physicists go where the experiments point. Fact is King. Theory is Servant. And Philosophy is Impediment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

If only the predictions mattered there would not be a concerted effort to prevent Bohmian

Mechanics from being taught and there would not be continual disinformation about the

status of indeterministic versus deterministic QM. Deterministic QM is a different approach

not only philosophically but eventually different mathematical approaches will develop and

different predictions will be generated in regimes not yet considered. Non-linear QM is

one such regime where deterministic QM can go if experiment and observation says there

is a reason to go there.

Dennis

First rate physicists go where the experiments point. Fact is King. Theory is Servant. And Philosophy is Impediment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So I hope we can agree that disinformation concerning the status of deterministic QM for philosophical reasons has no place in the discussion. Mischaracterizing QM as necessarily indeterministic has been an impediment to progress since the beginning of QM. Even when the so called proof of indeterminism was overturned in 1964 [and before] - those pushing an indeterministic philosophical point of view continued a disinformation campaign [to this day] implying only indetermistic approaches are valid. This has led two generations of students [since the 1964 disproof] to generally misunderstand the foundations of quantum mechanics. J.S. Bell called this a scandal within physics and all these years after his death there is still little progress in confronting this scandal.

Dennis May

[BaalChatzaf]

So I hope we can agree that disinformation concerning the status of deterministic QM for philosophical reasons has no place in the discussion. Mischaracterizing QM as necessarily indeterministic has been an impediment to progress since the beginning of QM. Even when the so called proof of indeterminism was overturned in 1964 [and before] - those pushing an indeterministic philosophical point of view continued a disinformation campaign [to this day] implying only indetermistic approaches are valid. This has led two generations of students [since the 1964 disproof] to generally misunderstand the foundations of quantum mechanics. J.S. Bell called this a scandal within physics and all these years after his death there is still little progress in confronting this scandal.

Dennis May

The only things that are valid are consistent theories corroborated by multiple experiments. Anything else, is at best speculation and hypothesizing. J.S.Bell was entitled to his opinion. He was brilliant and he should be given serious consideration.

I am interested in Facts, first and foremost. Opinions are only interesting and relevant when they are aligned with facts.

Facts are Kings, Theories are Servants, Speculation is Hot Air and Word Salad.

The best thing that ever happened to Physics is when it parted company with Philosophy.

ruveyn

[dennislmay]

So I hope we can agree that disinformation concerning the status of deterministic QM for philosophical reasons has no place in the discussion. Mischaracterizing QM as necessarily indeterministic has been an impediment to progress since the beginning of QM. Even when the so called proof of indeterminism was overturned in 1964 [and before] - those pushing an indeterministic philosophical point of view continued a disinformation campaign [to this day] implying only indetermistic approaches are valid. This has led two generations of students [since the 1964 disproof] to generally misunderstand the foundations of quantum mechanics. J.S. Bell called this a scandal within physics and all these years after his death there is still little progress in confronting this scandal.

Dennis May

The only things that are valid are consistent theories corroborated by multiple experiments. Anything else, is at best speculation and hypothesizing. J.S.Bell was entitled to his opinion. He was brilliant and he should be given serious consideration.

I am interested in Facts, first and foremost. Opinions are only interesting and relevant when they are aligned with facts.

Facts are Kings, Theories are Servants, Speculation is Hot Air and Word Salad.

The best thing that ever happened to Physics is when it parted company with Philosophy.

ruveyn

Physics has not parted company with philosophy - far from it. Since the foundations of

QM influential physicists have pushed philosophy in a not so subtle manner - being quite

nasty about it at times. Many big names in physics have gone out of their way to steer

physics in particular directions to suit their philosophy. That legacy remains. Claims of

going where the physics leads them only masks the philosophy they were pushing. Such

claims are no more valid than "unbiased" news reporters claiming they only go where the

news takes them.

Dennis May

[anthony]

Dennis,

A strong argument for philosophy always being present, even when it is purported

to be absent. But I'm no physicist, I just enjoy your thinking.

Mainly I wanted to pick up on a passing reference you made:

"What I have always found interesting is bursts of intelligence."

I wonder if you are aware of Edward Hallowell's writing on ADD- ADHD, particularly in adults.

He calls it "hyperfocus", which he identifies as a bonus to having ADD. I am positive he is right.

He is quite brilliant, a leader in that field.

"Bursts of intelligence". Great title, I think you should copyright it!

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Physics has not parted company with philosophy - far from it. Since the foundations of

QM influential physicists have pushed philosophy in a not so subtle manner - being quite

nasty about it at times. Many big names in physics have gone out of their way to steer

physics in particular directions to suit their philosophy. That legacy remains. Claims of

going where the physics leads them only masks the philosophy they were pushing. Such

claims are no more valid than "unbiased" news reporters claiming they only go where the

news takes them.

Dennis May

Are you saying that Richard Feynman was only kidding when he crapped all over philosophy? He rather tart barbs about philosophy are priceless. If you want to count as philosophy the rather trivial observation that the world outside is real and little of what goes on there is either under our control or even known to us, I suppose you can say philosophy is with us. A reduced to the bone trivial version of philosophy. Hardly the stuff of Plato and Aristotle. Hume was closest. He had no illusions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Dennis May wrote:

Physics has not parted company with philosophy - far from it. Since the foundations of QM influential physicists have pushed philosophy in a not so subtle manner - being quite nasty about it at times.

End quote.

That Prodigy Jake on 60 Minutes that Dennis linked us to, utilizes the 4th dimension, which cancels out the other three, to solve math problems. At least that is the way he described the working of his mind if I heard him correctly. The video stopped and started over and over again.

When I utilize the term “Objectivist” below, I mean I prize reason, facts, science, inner certainty and conviction, and the ability to keep an open mind, as more facts become known.

For inner peace and solace an Objectivist and science layman like myself leans towards: Deterministic Quantum Mechanics rather than In-deterministic Quantum Mechanics. All the science shows airing seem to favor Indy QM.

And all the facts I know favor Determined Causality with a pinch of chaos except for human Volition which is indeterminate.

Could predetermined notions, even among those of us who think we are just considering the facts, be emotionally re-shaping our inner verification systems towards different theories, which I don’t understand like QM? Does that even make sense? But it won’t affect my rational notions that I WILL ACT UPON which I know are based on facts. And even then I hold on to a speck of skepticism. Twenty five years ago, back when Man-made Global Warming came out as a “political event,” my Uncle Pete who was a meteorologist told me it was BS. When it seemed the whole scientific community was promoting man made global warming I remained skeptical and now I find my uncles opinion bolstered by facts.

Would Dennis or Ba’al care to speak their wisdom about the man made global warming theory? Or is that not your tempest in a teacup?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[dennislmay]

Dennis,

A strong argument for philosophy always being present, even when it is purported

to be absent. But I'm no physicist, I just enjoy your thinking.

Mainly I wanted to pick up on a passing reference you made:

"What I have always found interesting is bursts of intelligence."

I wonder if you are aware of Edward Hallowell's writing on ADD- ADHD, particularly in adults.

He calls it "hyperfocus", which he identifies as a bonus to having ADD. I am positive he is right.

He is quite brilliant, a leader in that field.

"Bursts of intelligence". Great title, I think you should copyright it!

Tony

I'm sure varying degrees of ADD-ADHD with "hyperfocus" and autism are all important parts of creative intelligence. There is little question that high intelligence and creativity are closely linked to borderline and varying degrees of mental challenges - calling it mental illness ignoring the benefits.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Physics has not parted company with philosophy - far from it. Since the foundations of

QM influential physicists have pushed philosophy in a not so subtle manner - being quite

nasty about it at times. Many big names in physics have gone out of their way to steer

physics in particular directions to suit their philosophy. That legacy remains. Claims of

going where the physics leads them only masks the philosophy they were pushing. Such

claims are no more valid than "unbiased" news reporters claiming they only go where the

news takes them.

Dennis May

Are you saying that Richard Feynman was only kidding when he crapped all over philosophy? He rather tart barbs about philosophy are priceless. If you want to count as philosophy the rather trivial observation that the world outside is real and little of what goes on there is either under our control or even known to us, I suppose you can say philosophy is with us. A reduced to the bone trivial version of philosophy. Hardly the stuff of Plato and Aristotle. Hume was closest. He had no illusions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Feynman pushed Indeterministic QM and sleath philosophy by means that would make a Baptist Preacher blush. He was a leading strong advocate of a particular philosophical approach in the same way as Bohr. His dislike of philosophy only geared toward philsophical views he didn't like - while pushing his own.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Dennis May wrote:

Physics has not parted company with philosophy - far from it. Since the foundations of QM influential physicists have pushed philosophy in a not so subtle manner - being quite nasty about it at times.

End quote.

That Prodigy Jake on 60 Minutes that Dennis linked us to, utilizes the 4th dimension, which cancels out the other three, to solve math problems. At least that is the way he described the working of his mind if I heard him correctly. The video stopped and started over and over again.

When I utilize the term “Objectivist” below, I mean I prize reason, facts, science, inner certainty and conviction, and the ability to keep an open mind, as more facts become known.

For inner peace and solace an Objectivist and science layman like myself leans towards: Deterministic Quantum Mechanics rather than In-deterministic Quantum Mechanics. All the science shows airing seem to favor Indy QM.

And all the facts I know favor Determined Causality with a pinch of chaos except for human Volition which is indeterminate.

Could predetermined notions, even among those of us who think we are just considering the facts, be emotionally re-shaping our inner verification systems towards different theories, which I don’t understand like QM? Does that even make sense? But it won’t affect my rational notions that I WILL ACT UPON which I know are based on facts. And even then I hold on to a speck of skepticism. Twenty five years ago, back when Man-made Global Warming came out as a “political event,” my Uncle Pete who was a meteorologist told me it was BS. When it seemed the whole scientific community was promoting man made global warming I remained skeptical and now I find my uncles opinion bolstered by facts.

Would Dennis or Ba’al care to speak their wisdom about the man made global warming theory? Or is that not your tempest in a teacup?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Global warming advocates as with most environmental movements are where failed communists and socialists migrated to when their economic theories collapsed and they needed a new religion. If you follow the money the largest attempted fraud and redistribution scheme in the history of humanity revolves around global warming and the cap and trade schemes. There never was any real science behind it. Anyone experienced in hydrodynamic modeling knows their claims are entirely bogus and political in origin. That's what happens when collectivism and science meet to redistribute wealth.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Feynman pushed Indeterministic QM and sleath philosophy by means that would make a Baptist Preacher blush. He was a leading strong advocate of a particular philosophical approach in the same way as Bohr. His dislike of philosophy only geared toward philsophical views he didn't like - while pushing his own.

Dennis

Everything he published in the journals was science. He had many opinions, some of them quite witty, but I would hardly call that philosophy. Be that as it may, his theories stand or fall on one matter: do they or do they not predict outcomes of experiments correctly. That is ALL that matters. Opinions and philosophies may be safely forgotten or ignored. Only Facts count. Only experiments can tell us what is the case. R.P. Feynman did not get the Nobel Prize for his opinions.

Interpretations of theories are of little consequence unless the theories are sound and if they are sound and produce good predictions, what does it matter what the interpretations are?

When I read a book or journal article on scientific matters I turn on a mental filter the makes anything resembling philosophy disappear. That way my reading is not disturbed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Feynman pushed Indeterministic QM and sleath philosophy by means that would make a Baptist Preacher blush. He was a leading strong advocate of a particular philosophical approach in the same way as Bohr. His dislike of philosophy only geared toward philsophical views he didn't like - while pushing his own.

Dennis

Everything he published in the journals was science. He had many opinions, some of them quite witty, but I would hardly call that philosophy. Be that as it may, his theories stand or fall on one matter: do they or do they not predict outcomes of experiments correctly. That is ALL that matters. Opinions and philosophies may be safely forgotten or ignored. Only Facts count. Only experiments can tell us what is the case. R.P. Feynman did not get the Nobel Prize for his opinions.

Interpretations of theories are of little consequence unless the theories are sound and if they are sound and produce good predictions, what does it matter what the interpretations are?

When I read a book or journal article on scientific matters I turn on a mental filter the makes anything resembling philosophy disappear. That way my reading is not disturbed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Viewing Feynman only by his published papers would largely miss his pushing philosophy. His lectures, how he interacted with students and colleagues, the choice of the straw-man arguments he used to defeat theories that didn't match his philosophy, and choosing not to use his position to support J.S. Bell to correct the "Scandal within Physics" says a great deal. John G. Cramer mentioned in a book I read of his that Feynman considered fighting the scandal toward the end of his life but did nothing about it.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

When I read a book or journal article on scientific matters I turn on a mental filter the makes anything resembling philosophy disappear. That way my reading is not disturbed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Quite the opposite to the way I read science. I read it with philosophy BS meter on - when I read the mistakes I immediately consider what might be the alternative views of correct philosophy.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Viewing Feynman only by his published papers would largely miss his pushing philosophy. His lectures, how he interacted with students and colleagues, the choice of the straw-man arguments he used to defeat theories that didn't match his philosophy, and choosing not to use his position to support J.S. Bell to correct the "Scandal within Physics" says a great deal. John G. Cramer mentioned in a book I read of his that Feynman considered fighting the scandal toward the end of his life but did nothing about it.

Dennis

I had the good fortune of attending one of his lectures. I was totally entranced and captivated. I consider Feynman one of my mind-heroes. I only have a few heroes. One of the is Feynman because he was brilliant and one of the best teachers who ever lived.

Two of my other heroes were Warrior-Heroes. Curtis LeMay and Arthur "Bomber" Harris. They laid cities waste with nary a qualm. My kind of people.

My Philosopher-Heroes were Hume and Hobbes. Their day is passed unfortunately. Now we have post modernist drivel.

It is a damned good thing for the Universe that I am not God. But the job is already taken.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

When I read a book or journal article on scientific matters I turn on a mental filter the makes anything resembling philosophy disappear. That way my reading is not disturbed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Quite the opposite to the way I read science. I read it with philosophy BS meter on - when I read the mistakes I immediately consider what might be the alternative views of correct philosophy.

Dennis

There is only one mistake. A prediction that does not come out right when tested.

Philosophical mistakes are vapor ware. Who cares? Maybe you, certainly not me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] no theoretical development yet suggests a problem for deterministic QM in the relativistic domain.

I don't understand that statement. Doesn't the idea of non-local hidden variables imply faster-than-light signalling?

Deterministic QM is a different approach not only philosophically but eventually different mathematical approaches will develop and different predictions will be generated in regimes not yet considered. Non-linear QM is one such regime where deterministic QM can go if experiment and observation says there is a reason to go there.

Can you explain what "non-linear QM" is in terms a layman can understand?

Physics has not parted company with philosophy - far from it. Since the foundations of

QM influential physicists have pushed philosophy in a not so subtle manner - being quite

nasty about it at times. Many big names in physics have gone out of their way to steer

physics in particular directions to suit their philosophy. That legacy remains. Claims of

going where the physics leads them only masks the philosophy they were pushing. Such

claims are no more valid than "unbiased" news reporters claiming they only go where the

news takes them.

Agreed, including about Feynman (your post #265 and post #268). I know a number of AGW-skeptic physicists who have expressed the wish that Feynman were still here, since they think he'd be a helpful voice to have in their support, but I'm not so sanguine that Feynman wouldn't have let his political philosophy interfere with his science on that one, given the parallel to his closet philosophy interfering with his objectivity on QM.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Viewing Feynman only by his published papers would largely miss his pushing philosophy. His lectures, how he interacted with students and colleagues, the choice of the straw-man arguments he used to defeat theories that didn't match his philosophy, and choosing not to use his position to support J.S. Bell to correct the "Scandal within Physics" says a great deal. John G. Cramer mentioned in a book I read of his that Feynman considered fighting the scandal toward the end of his life but did nothing about it.

Dennis

I had the good fortune of attending one of his lectures. I was totally entranced and captivated. I consider Feynman one of my mind-heroes. I only have a few heroes. One of the is Feynman because he was brilliant and one of the best teachers who ever lived.

Two of my other heroes were Warrior-Heroes. Curtis LeMay and Arthur "Bomber" Harris. They laid cities waste with nary a qualm. My kind of people.

My Philosopher-Heroes were Hume and Hobbes. Their day is passed unfortunately. Now we have post modernist drivel.

It is a damned good thing for the Universe that I am not God. But the job is already taken.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bad for the Universe, but good for the Earth?

--Brant

bums away!

[dennislmay]

Doesn't the idea of non-local hidden variables imply faster-than-light signalling?

Faster-than-light interactions is what J.S. Bell showed [1964] were required for

deterministic QM [like Bohmian Mechanics 1952] to work. This does not imply

you can send a readable signal in the linear QM version since the signal is

only able to be read between entangled objects.

Can you explain what "non-linear QM" is in terms a layman can understand?

In this context non-linear QM means a great many processes that are presently

thought to be exact are in fact only very good approximations. It would be like

saying - gravity is inverse square more or less but slowly runs out of power at

distance. In QM it might take the form of wave functions running out of steam

at distance while in linear indeterministic QM probability functions can extend

indefinitely without losing their ability to act.

Dennis

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thanks, Dennis.

Further question: Would there be some possibility of sending a readable signal in the non-linear QM version?

Ellen