I have decided to do a close reading of the Dust Theory page and analyze it more closely. The first part, "Simulation" contains a lot of quotation and babble that is really irrelevant, and only exists to attempt to support the final sentence in the section.
A possible world is as real, and only as real, as conscious observers, especially inside the world, think it is!
This is Solipsism. The fact that the entire hypothesis bases itself upon something so inane as Solipsism should be enough to make any serious person close the window, but as evidenced by the second post in the thread, I am not a serious person.
Rebuttal to the Simulation section:
It does not matter if we are brains in vats if we have no way to test the hypothesis. The idea is as useful as saying there is a giant pink invisible dragon hiding behind the Andromeda galaxy. Not only does it offer no observational clues as to it's existence, but it is entirely irrelevant to the simple fact that our senses say we are here, and since we have no other means of interpreting the world, we should behave as though our senses accurately describe reality, unless we have reason to suspect they are being fooled.
To put it simply, the claim that the universe is a simulation is neither provable, or falsifiable at this time, and is therefore utterly useless.
But let me pause for a moment and offer this instead. Suppose for a moment that there exists a universe, not dissimilar to our own, with stars, and planets, and nebulae. The only difference is that in this universe, no life exists. This universe remains real. Observations are being made all the time: Electrons observe the energy of other electrons, protons of other protons. Planets and stars observe eachothers gravity. Observation has nothing to do with consciousness.
Part two: Consciousness.
Again, the author prattles on without offering any premises or proofs of his ideas before reaching a conclusion of sorts.
On the one hand, our consciousness may be an evolutionary fluke, telling an unreliable story in a far-fetched interpretation of a pattern of tiny salty squirts. On the other, our consciousness is the only reason for thinking we exist (or for thinking we think). Without it there are no beliefs, no sensations, no experience of being, no universe.
Rebuttal:
Again, just no. As I showed in the above example, conscious thought has no bearing on the universe existing or not. Even our universe existed without any life at all for a quite some duration. Although we cannot say definitively that we are the first intelligent organisms in the universe, there was a time before stars, and planets, when the whole of the universe was a uniform fog of super hot subatomic gasses, without any cohesion or differentiation. It should be obvious that life, at least as we know it, could have existed at that point. Yet, it existed.
Part Three: Existance.
This guy seems to like repeating himself, as all three chapters so far seem to only make one point, again without offering premises or proofs; The universe is a simulation. Here, he dredges up the ancient idea of Platonic Realism as if it proves something. Modern realists however would not say that universals exist in the same way that Plato claimed that universals exist. To Plato, Universals exist in some ghostly realm, but modern realists simply say that to classify universals as existing in the same way that everyday objects exist is a category mistake. The problem is that such universals are demonstrable. I can demonstrate the universal concept of the number one without actually having the 'real' object number one.
I do believe that universal concepts are real; they must be for the universe to function at all in any logical way. We call these things transcendentals, things that exist without physical form. We know they exist because they are demonstrable, but nothing about the nature of their existence, or where they 'came from' can be derived from any observation or demonstration of these universals. The fact that these things can be simulated does not dictate that any instance of them must be simulated.
Part four: Universal Existence.
This segment is not about universals, or their existence. Here, the author compares our brains to rocks, because both are made of atoms.
Rebuttal: This is mind-bogglingly stupid for more reasons than I can list. Our brains, like computers, encode information by taking inputs and processing them into another form that is sensible to the processor. We know this, because we can observe this behavior in our brains, and in computers. This is not something that happens at the atomic scale, but by larger structures; transistors, and neurons.
When we observe rocks, what do we find? Atoms of various elements jostling against each other. Is information being transmitted across the rock?
Certainly. Electromagnetic and nuclear force interactions, and of course gravity all cause information of a kind to be transfered throughout the rock, in a predictable way that can be simulated with relative ease. While it may be possible to suppose that the rock may constitute a Turing Equivalent system meaning that it can theoretically calculate anything a universal computer can, this does not mean that it ever does.
Part five: Everything and nothing.
Here, the Author writes three paragraphs without actually saying anything. Quite ironic really.
No rebuttal is necessary since this segment is nothing but pseudo-philosophical babble.
Part Six: Universal Appreciation
This is the point where the thing turns from simply silly to outright laughable. I won't try to explain the Nonsense from this section, and will instead let it stand on it's own in part.
The universe mind will thrive in the collapse, perhaps by encoding itself into the cosmic background radiation. As the collapse proceeds, the radiation's temperature, and so its frequencies and the mind's speed, rise and there are ever more high-frequency wave modes to store information... ... As it contemplates, effects from the universe's past converge on it. There is information, time, and thought enough to recreate, savor, appreciate, and perfect each detail of each moment. Tipler and Barrow suggest that it is this final, subjectively eternal act of infinite self-interpretation that effectively creates our universe, distinguishing it from the others lost in the library of all possibilities. We truly exist because our actions lead ultimately to this ``Omega Point'' (a term borrowed from the Jesuit paleontologist and radical philosopher Tielhard de Chardin).
Aside from the simple fact that this ridiculous idea violates Zeno's Paradox, it is yet another unfounded hypothesis unsupported by any premises, without any proofs to support it. Only quotation and unquoted references.
Part Seven: Uncommon Sense. AKA: Quantumquantumquantumquantum.
Seriously, the word Quantum is tossed around in this section twelve times in nine paragraphs, and not once does he describe two particles interacting having just observed eachother. It's also another segment in which he says a lot without really saying anything.
In fact, Part Eight and Part Nine can basically be described in the same way. A lot of sophomoric prattle that does nothing to make a coherent point, ending with an implication of Quantum Immortality and a quotation of Shakespeare.
In short, the article offers nothing new; essentially everything within the article is derivative
Quantum Mysticism, and done poorly, relying heavily on unfounded assumptions and unproven concepts. Ironically, it's dependence upon the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is self-defeating. For all of the articles prattling about Wave Function Collapse and observer dependent quantum behavior, the Everett Many Worlds interpretation does away with both.
Hand this to anyone with a physics degree, and at best you'll get an eye roll, at worst, you'll be laughed out of the room. Much less anyone with a passing interest in studying Physics.
Author
Topic: Dust Theory (Read 6178 times)