I would like to ask a followup question: since we don’t have a unified theory of physics yet, why isn’t adopting strongly any one of these nonpredictive interpretations premature? It seems like trying to “interpret” gravity without knowing about general relativity.
Standard model coupled to gravitons is already kind of a unified theory. There are phenomena at the edges (neutrino mass, dark matter, dark energy) which don’t have a consensus explanation, as well as unresolved theoretical issues (Higgs finetuning, quantum gravity at high energies), but a well-defined “theory of almost everything” does already exist for accessible energies.
In Engines of Creation (“Will physics again be upended?”), @Eric Drexler pointed out that prior to quantum mechanics, physics had no calculable explanations for the properties of atomic matter. “Physics was obviously and grossly incomplete… It was a gap not in the sixth place of decimals but in the first.”
That gap was filled, and it’s an open question whether the truth about the remaining phenomena can be known by experiment on Earth. I believe in trying to know, and it’s very possible that some breakthrough in e.g. the foundations of string theory or the hard problem of consciousness, will have decisive implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
If there’s an empirical breakthrough that could do it, my best guess is some quantum-gravitational explanation for the details of dark matter phenomenology. But until that happens, I think it’s legitimate to think deeply about “standard model plus gravitons” and ask what it implies for ontology.
There was a Yudkowski post that “I don’t know” is sometimes not an option. In some contexts we need to guide our decisions based on the interpretation of QM.
if small stuff:
do quantum
else if big stuff:
do relativity
else:
raise error "The two theories are never supposed to
make contradictory predictions in any physically possible
configuration of matter right? So the above code is fine?"
Furthermore, one cannot participate in the culture war in earnest if one does not strongly adopt one of these nonpredictive interpretations.
Furthermore, the interpretations do make some predictions at least about what kind of computer god is running. We may never find the right experiment...
I would like to ask a followup question: since we don’t have a unified theory of physics yet, why isn’t adopting strongly any one of these nonpredictive interpretations premature? It seems like trying to “interpret” gravity without knowing about general relativity.
Standard model coupled to gravitons is already kind of a unified theory. There are phenomena at the edges (neutrino mass, dark matter, dark energy) which don’t have a consensus explanation, as well as unresolved theoretical issues (Higgs finetuning, quantum gravity at high energies), but a well-defined “theory of almost everything” does already exist for accessible energies.
How is this different from the situation in the late 19th century when only a few things left seemed to need a “consensus explanation”?
In Engines of Creation (“Will physics again be upended?”), @Eric Drexler pointed out that prior to quantum mechanics, physics had no calculable explanations for the properties of atomic matter. “Physics was obviously and grossly incomplete… It was a gap not in the sixth place of decimals but in the first.”
That gap was filled, and it’s an open question whether the truth about the remaining phenomena can be known by experiment on Earth. I believe in trying to know, and it’s very possible that some breakthrough in e.g. the foundations of string theory or the hard problem of consciousness, will have decisive implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
If there’s an empirical breakthrough that could do it, my best guess is some quantum-gravitational explanation for the details of dark matter phenomenology. But until that happens, I think it’s legitimate to think deeply about “standard model plus gravitons” and ask what it implies for ontology.
There was a Yudkowski post that “I don’t know” is sometimes not an option. In some contexts we need to guide our decisions based on the interpretation of QM.
What do you think of my unified theory?
Furthermore, one cannot participate in the culture war in earnest if one does not strongly adopt one of these nonpredictive interpretations.
Furthermore, the interpretations do make some predictions at least about what kind of computer god is running. We may never find the right experiment...