Microsoft Word - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesMindBodyProblem.doc - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesMindBodyProblem.pdf

Microsoft Word - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesMindBodyProblem.doc - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesMindBodyProblem.pdf



MARCELO GLEISER: Yeah, I always have a problem
with the idea of the supernatural interacting with the natural.
Because from a physicist's perspective, I mean if something's supernatural,
it by definition is beyond the laws of nature, so to speak.
But once you interact, you are exchanging energy.
You're exchanging information somehow.
So you're clearly being very physical about it.

 So as soon as the supernatural interacts with the natural, it becomes natural.





But what I can't seem to give you a story about
is why something experiences things visually
or why it is like anything to be the object that does these things.
So we can create computers that do various tasks,
but we don't think that computer has some experience of what it's doing.
It's just crunching numbers.
And so that's what people think of as the hard problem of consciousness.
So we can explain various kinds of cognitive abilities,
at least conceptually, without too much problem.
But really we have no idea how to explain
why it's like anything to be a cognitive agent
or which things have those properties of having consciousness.

Microsoft Word - BrainAndConsciousness.doc - BrainAndConsciousness.pdf

Microsoft Word - BrainAndConsciousness.doc - BrainAndConsciousness.pdf



Nowadays, the vast majority of scientists and philosophers
who study the brain agree that there is only matter
and that mind or consciousness is a property of our brains.
The challenge for modern science is to figure out
how the brain engenders or creates consciousness.
While the brain is easy to define as a soft tissue organ
that we have in our skulls made of about 85 billion neurons and their dendrites,
their connections to one another, consciousness
is one of those things that is much harder to define than to experience.

Is The Fear Of Intelligent Machines Justified? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Is The Fear Of Intelligent Machines Justified? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom
has been cautioning us about the dangers of a super-intelligence out in
the world. And billionaire Elon Musk, physicists Stephen Hawking and
Martin Rees, Bostrom himself — and more interestingly, Demis Hassabis,
Shane Legg, and Mustafa Suleyman, all co-founders of DeepMind — have
signed an open letter
where they "recommend expanded research aimed at ensuring that
increasingly capable AI systems are robust and beneficial: our AI
systems must do what we want them to do."

Free Will Is Not Going Away : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Free Will Is Not Going Away : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 Traditionally, it's been a topic for philosophers and theologians. But
recent work in neuroscience is forcing a reconsideration of free will,
to the point of questioning our freedom to choose. Many neuroscientists,
and some philosophers, consider free will to be an illusion. Sam
Harris, for example, wrote a short book arguing the case.

 It seems to me that the question of free will is not simply a
black-and-white or yes-no kind of question, but one that embraces the
full complexity of what it means to be human.

Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness

Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But
the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience
is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual
and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience:
the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain
why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience
an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical
basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why
should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems
objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. 

The Nature Of Consciousness : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

The Nature Of Consciousness : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 how does the brain, a network of some 90 billion neurons, generate the subjective experience you have of being you?

Microsoft Word - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesDoWeLiveInASimulation.doc - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesDoWeLiveInASimulation.pdf

Microsoft Word - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesDoWeLiveInASimulation.doc - ConversationWithAdinaRoskiesDoWeLiveInASimulation.pdf



But I would just say that what freedom is then
in this game is the ability to act on the basis of all the mental states
that you have and the knowledge that you have of the world.
And if the knowledge that you have of the world
is the knowledge of the world in this video game,
then you're free in this video game.

Microsoft Word - DoWeLiveInASimulation.doc - DoWeLiveInASimulation.pdf

Microsoft Word - DoWeLiveInASimulation.doc - DoWeLiveInASimulation.pdf



This problem speaks to the heart of the matter of interest
to us, the nature of reality.
To question reality is to ask questions about the world we live in,
including if the world we live in is not the real world, but a huge computer
game.
Could we ever know if we live in a simulation?





If we live in a simulation but we can't tell, does it matter?
Well, people react differently to this question.
Some would say that if we can't tell, it doesn't make a difference.
Others will say that if we can conceive of a different reality
where we are free, then we should go after it.
Most of us don't like to think that we are characters
in some sophisticated video game.
We like to think that we are free.
As a consolation, if we do live in a computer simulation,
perhaps the game players that play us may also
be in a computer simulation of an even more advanced civilization.
In the end, what matters is to ask questions about who we are
and how to live a life of freedom.
And that takes us to the origin of it all, to our brains,
to the nature of consciousness.
After all, it is in our heads that everything starts
and that all questions are asked.

Microsoft Word - IsMathematicsReallyPerfect.doc - IsMathematicsReallyPerfect.pdf

Microsoft Word - IsMathematicsReallyPerfect.doc - IsMathematicsReallyPerfect.pdf



This statement is false.
If you think a bit about this paradox, you get stuck in a loop.
The statement can't be true because if it is, it is saying that it's false.
But it can't be false either, since if it is, it's telling the truth.

Microsoft Word - IsMathReadingTheMindOfGod.doc - IsMathReadingTheMindOfGod.pdf

Microsoft Word - IsMathReadingTheMindOfGod.doc - IsMathReadingTheMindOfGod.pdf



After all, if nature is essentially a mathematical construction
then there is hope that we can crack the code and understand all that exists.
This is the hope of scientists and mathematicians
whom we can call Platonists, who believe that slowly but surely,
we can understand all the mathematical equations and relations in nature
to achieve a state of knowing everything, a totality of knowledge
or theory of everything.



Of course, if you believe instead that mathematics
is an invention of an intelligent mind, you
may wonder whether other potential intelligences, say smart aliens,
will have the same mathematics that we do.
If they did, then it would certainly support the idea
that mathematics is a kind of universal language
and that any sufficiently smart intelligence would end up.

Microsoft Word - IsMathematicsDiscoveredOrInvented.doc - IsMathematicsDiscoveredOrInvented.pdf

Microsoft Word - IsMathematicsDiscoveredOrInvented.doc - IsMathematicsDiscoveredOrInvented.pdf



Many pure mathematicians believe that mathematics
is the only absolute truth that exists and that the pursuit
of mathematical equations and proving theorems
is a way of connecting with the deepest essence of reality.





The linguist George Lakoff from the University of California Berkeley
would say that mathematics is embodied in the human brain,
that it really is dependent on how our brain evolved
from our primate ancestors to Homo sapiens.





This is the origin of the question, is mathematics invented or is it

discovered?
 
 
but one thing is certain, that without mathematics we couldn't
describe reality scientifically.
Mathematics may or may not be the language of nature,
but it is certainly the language we use to describe nature.
 

Why Math Rocks : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Why Math Rocks : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 At a deeper level, much of the natural sciences are about identifying
patterns in nature that we then call "laws." These laws usually have
some form of mathematical expression, as in Newton's laws of motion and
gravity, or the law of conservation of energy. In fact, such laws are so
essential to our understanding of the universe that many scientists
believe that math goes beyond human invention, being the fundamental
language of nature.



 Others are not so convinced and consider mathematics an invention of the
human mind and, to a certain extent, of the minds of the few animals
capable of performing basic mathematical operations. The question then,
and one that has been argued for millennia, is whether mathematics is
discovered (that is, part of a universal language out there) or invented
(that is, a language particular to the human mind).



 Whatever the answer, once we see math as a language of nature, the way
we perceive it should change completely. It's no longer about
multiplication tables or fractions, but about something bigger than
ourselves that we construct with our heads. What could be more amazing
than that?

Microsoft Word - ConversationWithDavidKaiserEinsteinAndQuantumMechanics.doc - ConversationWithDavidKaiserEinsteinAndQuantumMechanics.pdf

Microsoft Word - ConversationWithDavidKaiserEinsteinAndQuantumMechanics.doc - ConversationWithDavidKaiserEinsteinAndQuantumMechanics.pdf



So the standard interpretation or the common words to use
is that the wave function, this thing often symbolized
by the Greek letter PSI--
looks like a pitchfork--
that PSI is not necessarily a thing in the world,
but it's a statement about probabilities of what could happen in the world.
And even saying that sentence actually has now become a bit more controversial
than it was before too long ago.

Microsoft Word - QuantumVsClassicalBoundary.doc - QuantumVsClassicalBoundary.pdf

Microsoft Word - QuantumVsClassicalBoundary.doc - QuantumVsClassicalBoundary.pdf



Finally, we can ask the question: "What does quantum physics tell us
about the nature of Reality?
The most direct answer is that it is showing us
that, at the very core of matter of the particles that make up everything that
exists, there is an indeterminacy, a jittery behavior as described
by the uncertainty principle.
Because of this, we cannot know for sure which of the possible options or states
will be chosen by a quantum system.
All we can do is measure it and view the description of reality
based on the outcomes of those measurements.

Microsoft Word - QuantumMechanicsII.doc - QuantumMechanicsII.pdf

Microsoft Word - QuantumMechanicsII.doc - QuantumMechanicsII.pdf



For example, if the observer is determining the physical nature of what
he or she is measuring, does that mean that we, humans,
are interfering or even creating physical reality
as we interact with the world?
There is something weird about saying that we create physical reality as we
or our devices interact with it.
After all, the universe has been here for much longer than we have.
However, without a mind to think about it, what is reality?
And if an observer is connected or, sometimes we say,
entangled with what he or she measures, then there
is no such thing as objectivity.

Microsoft Word - QuantumMechanicsI.doc - QuantumMechanicsI.pdf

Microsoft Word - QuantumMechanicsI.doc - QuantumMechanicsI.pdf



In 1927, Heisenberg proposes uncertainty principle
to describe precisely the indeterminacy that exists at the very core of nature,
whereby you could never know with absolute precision both the position
and the velocity of a particle.
If you try to make a mental picture of this,
Heisenberg is saying that everything in nature is jittery
and that this inherent agitation is at the very core of matter
and will not go away.
The new quantum physics opened the door to a very, very different
physical reality.

God, Einstein And Games Of Chance : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

God, Einstein And Games Of Chance : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 But in Schrödinger's wave equation, the waves were not real
things. After some trial and error by Schrödinger, Born came up with the
strange idea that the wave was a wave of potentialities which, once
squared properly (for the experts, by taking the absolute value as the
wave function is a complex quantity) would produce the probability that
the electron be found at this or that orbit around the nucleus. The same
for other situations where the equation is applied: the result is
always some kind of probability.

In other words, the fundamental equation of matter didn't describe matter!

The
essence of Nature was not some concrete material realm but a
mathematical abstraction. The theory worked beautifully, producing
efficient descriptions of countless experiments. Quantum physics
revolutionized the world. But its interpretation, if you so choose to
think about it, remains mysterious.

Pushing The Boundaries Of Quantum Reality : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Pushing The Boundaries Of Quantum Reality : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 In 1989, Akira Tonomura from Hitachi in Japan managed to make single electrons interfere,
bringing the notion that matter particles behave like waves to
unprecedented clarity. A single electron passes through two slits at the
same time in order to create an interference pattern; this is why
people say that in the quantum world things can be in two places at
once.

 The next step is to attempt interference experiments with viruses; and
then with actual living things. How does life respond to quantum
interference? Can something interfere with itself and remain alive? It's
a long shot from "beam me up, Scotty"; but we will only manage to do
that in 2260 if scientists keep pushing the boundaries now.

Quantum Physics Has Brought The Ability To See Into Atoms And Molecules : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Quantum Physics Has Brought The Ability To See Into Atoms And Molecules : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR



In 2013, a team of Dutch physicists led by Aneta Stodolna was able to visualize the elusive wave function
of the electron in a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen, being the simplest
chemical element, has only a single electron orbiting a single proton in
the nucleus. The theory of quantum mechanics predicts that the electron
should occupy "orbitals," sort of spherical shells around the proton
where it can be found with a certain probability. The wave function is
the mathematical object we use to compute this probability of finding
the electron here or there when we measure its position.

As it turns out, the theory predicts that the orbitals
have a beautiful and convoluted onion-like structure with gaps in
between the shells, places where the electron can't be found. Stodolna's
images, using a technique called photoionization microscopy, were able
to construct a visual map of such orbitals that match the theory quite
accurately. No one doubted that quantum physics was right, but seeing is
believing, as they say.

Equally amazing, and at around the same time, a group of scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, visualized a chemical reaction
atom-by-atom, showing not only how the atoms rearranged after the
reaction but also the chemical bonds between them, the bridges that
connect them together, a bit like Erector sets.

The
visualization of such reactions allows scientists a much more hands-on
control of the dynamics of chemical reactions, something crucial in
applications where new molecules and materials are being designed.

The Problem With A Clockwork Universe : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

The Problem With A Clockwork Universe : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 Fortunately, this kind of determinism is impossible, at least within the
current scientific framework. We can't know the positions and velocity
of all particles in the same instant: how could you measure them, if
particles are separated by billions of light-years across the universe?
(And which particles are these anyway? How can one attempt to
reconstruct physical reality from quarks and electrons to brains and
galaxies?) Furthermore, the behavior of systems with complex
interactions (from the solar system to a cell in the brain) is sensitive
to the precision that we know the positions of its various components.
Since no measurement is absolutely precise, we simply can't predict the
faraway future. To nail the deterministic coffin shut, quantum physics
also imposes limits on the position and velocity of a particle. At least
according to the way we do science now, determinism is unviable.

A Crisis at the Edge of Physics - The New York Times

A Crisis at the Edge of Physics - The New York Times

Today,
the favored theory for the next step beyond the standard model is
called supersymmetry (which is also the basis for string theory).
Supersymmetry predicts the existence of a “partner” particle for every
particle that we currently know. It doubles the number of elementary
particles of matter in nature. The theory is elegant mathematically, and
the particles whose existence it predicts might also explain the
universe’s unaccounted-for “dark matter.”
As a result, many researchers were confident that supersymmetry would
be experimentally validated soon after the Large Hadron Collider became
operational.

That’s
not how things worked out, however. To date, no supersymmetric
particles have been found. If the Large Hadron Collider cannot detect
these particles, many physicists will declare supersymmetry — and, by
extension, string theory — just another beautiful idea in physics that
didn’t pan out.

 Recall the epicycles, the imaginary circles that Ptolemy used and
formalized around A.D. 150 to describe the motions of planets. Although
Ptolemy had no evidence for their existence, epicycles successfully
explained what the ancients could see in the night sky, so they were
accepted as real. But they were eventually shown to be a fiction, more
than 1,500 years later. Are superstrings and the multiverse,
painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything
more than modern-day epicycles?

Microsoft Word - ConversationWithChrisQuiggWhatIsParticlePhysics.doc - ConversationWithChrisQuiggWhatIsParticlePhysics.pdf

Microsoft Word - ConversationWithChrisQuiggWhatIsParticlePhysics.doc - ConversationWithChrisQuiggWhatIsParticlePhysics.pdf



Well, I can tell you some of the possibilities that excite me.
One that could happen any day is to find a new force of nature
for which the evidence would be a new particle that
is the mediator of that force.
So that could happen in the strong interactions
or in the weakened electromagnetic interactions.
We know how you look at that.
It's one of the first things people do.
And to find a fifth force of nature or a sixth
or seventh, that would be pretty special.
It would change the way we think about the world.
And the way we understand the forces of nature
is that they're all related to symmetries
that we have recognized in experiment.
So that would be a new symmetry.
And we'd try to put that together with the other symmetries.
There are other symmetries that might just come on their own.
So there's a famous one that's occupied many
of my contemporaries for longer than they would like to admit.
And that's a theory called supersymmetry.
It's a really wonderful idea and sort of the maximal kind of symmetry
that you can imagine mathematically that would
relate different kinds of particles, things
like the electrons and the quarks, to the force particles
or particles like them.
No evidence for it in experiment, but it would be really sweet
if it were to happen.
It might give us a path toward incorporating gravitation
with the other forces.
So those are two things.
We hope very much--
so it's not out of the question, it may even
be possible, for us to find candidates for the dark matter in the universe.
In our experiments here, as big as they are, they will never establish--
because the flight path is limited to tens of meters,
they'll never establish that a dark matter
particle has a cosmological lifetime.
But they might give us something that looks like it could be.
And then if we discover it in another way,
in direct detection or indirect detection,
maybe we can put the pieces together and know a little more
about what the whole world is made of.
So those are just a few things that would be extremely exciting.
You could find compositeness of the quarks and leptons.

Microsoft Word - AVisitToCERN.doc - AVisitToCERN.pdf

Microsoft Word - AVisitToCERN.doc - AVisitToCERN.pdf



So this is a good example of what's going on underground at CERN.
Basically, you have this big tunnel, the one
that is about 17 miles in circumference, about 100 yards deep underground.
And the particles go inside these tubes.
The protons go both ways inside these tubes.
And they travel almost at the speed of light.
And you can see there is a curve.
And so this is where the magnets are important.
They basically band the protons so that they
can stay on track so that when they get to the detectors, they can collide.