AI and cognitive psychology rant (getting more and more OT - tell me if I should shut up)

[Michele Simionato]

jjl at pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87d6cio0v5.fsf at pobox.com>...
> <snip obversations about MWI>

I cannot let pass this thread without some personal observation.

1. First of all, let me point out that I have a background in Theoretical Physics 
   and I have done research for the last ten years in the fields of supergravity, 
   quantum field theory, cosmology and other more exoteric subjects. So, I do 
   think I qualify as a "theoretical enough" physicists.

2. Second, I do think I have an idea about what are the fields of interests in 
   Physics nowadays; I also know for sure that the idea I had when I was an outsider
   to Physics was completely wrong, so others may be in the same situation as I was.

3. Do you know how many research conferences are devolved to the
   Multi-World Interpretation of quantum mechanics with respect to the number 
   of conferences in other fields such as QCD, or neutrino Physics, or even 
   magnetic materials? 
   The answer is very few. Actually, if you skip the conferences organized by
   philosophers, the interdisciplinary conferences, the parallel sessions on
   bigger workshops and you concentrate only on research conferences, the
   answer will be *very very* few. 

4. If I ask to virtually every theoretical physicist I know (and I know a
   lot of physicists) about the MWI, they say "Come on, let's do real Physics".

5. I never had a course on MWI; no university I know about teach it to students.
   Students are always (and often only) taught the standard interpretation; and
   in any case nobody would ever think to teach it "instead of" the standard
   interpretation. It could be taught as an alternative view, but in my
   experience (most or all) universities skip it completely.

6. If you ask why <exaggeration mode> nobody except dean professors near 
   retirement </exaggeration mode> is interested in MWI you will likely get 
   the following answers:

   1. it is an old business;
   2. it is only an interpretation, gives no new predictions, so why bother?
   3. cannot be generalized to relativity, so it is not relevant;
   4. there are much more interesting things to study.

   I admit that I am a bit exaggerating here, but let me do it. If there are
   physicists doing MWI reading this, please, you are free to flame me ;)
   Still all my experience in Physics tell me that MWI is dismissed by the
   vast majority of Physicists, not on the basis of philosophical reasons,
   but on the basis of pragmatical considerations such as "even if they are 
   right, I have something better to do".

7. The press has the ability of giving a completely false impressions about
   what physicists are doing: you find lots of general public books about
   MWI and philosophy of science, but very few about magnetic materials. 
   So, you have the impression that physicists prefer MWI over magnetic 
   materials, but actually the converse is much closer to the truth. Also, 
   I would bet that magnetic materials (which I do know a bit) are 
   mathematically much nicer than the MWI (which I don't really know, so 
   I may be wrong).

8. I do like philosophical questioning and I thing it is okay to ask 
   questions, but still people should be aware of the distinction 
   between speculations (something smart speculations, something 
   idiotic speculations) and scientifically relevant questions. 
   Now, smart speculations may turn out to become scientifically 
   relevant questions, but smart speculations are unfortunately so rare ... 

A good rule of the thumb is "never believe anything you read and you don't
understand". Sometimes, you should not believe even what you think you
understand ...


                        Michele

P.S. I really liked the joke about solipsism ;)

P.P.S. I don't blindly believe the standard interpretation. I think
it is a "wart" of Physics which will hopefully pass. I look 
with interest to the new ideas on decoherence, dunno if there 
are general public books on it yet, but I would read one if
I find it ;)