tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post8807772167666940160..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: The Nature of LawsSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21244697521625932692009-12-20T14:19:30.890-05:002009-12-20T14:19:30.890-05:00Hi Neil,
”BTW, one can't say that things happ...Hi Neil,<br /><br /><i>”BTW, one can't say that things happen "because of laws of physics". </i><br /><br />The way I see it the laws of nature are no different than those of man, except for one important thing. That being if we break a law of man we run only a risk of being held to account, while if we attempt to break one of nature’s and get off scot free, it means it was never a Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76498479289971645682009-12-20T11:40:51.286-05:002009-12-20T11:40:51.286-05:00Well finally! - I meant to put the below comment r...Well finally! - I meant to put the below comment right here, and it went to two other threads first:<br /><br />BTW, one can't say that things happen "because of laws of physics". As Hume pointed out, we see the regularities and call them "laws" - the laws aren't something that makes otherwise inert stuff do things (or are they?) We don't know why things do what Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61985621860688674222009-12-14T07:51:00.451-05:002009-12-14T07:51:00.451-05:00Hi Andrew,
It seems that Tegmark found a way to m...Hi Andrew,<br /><br />It seems that Tegmark found a way to make a lot of money, given the state-of-affairs in theoretical physics. As for the antonym's copyright, I'm not certain it would make so much money, but good luck. :)Christinehttp://egregium.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67288639785248781172009-12-14T06:58:11.187-05:002009-12-14T06:58:11.187-05:00Hi Christine, feel free to copyright "nullive...Hi Christine, feel free to copyright "nulliverse". I've already copyrighted "nulltiverse" and have T-shirts printed - you have to pay me 5 cents every time you say it. (In comparison, Tegmark gets 7 cents everytime you say "multiverse"). I don't know how much Bee charges for "noniverse" but I suspect she'll undercut me.<br /><br />(I first used Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32999648330892692612009-12-14T06:35:09.870-05:002009-12-14T06:35:09.870-05:00Hi Andrew,
What about:
nulltiverse -> nullive...Hi Andrew,<br /><br />What about:<br /><br />nulltiverse -> nulliverse<br /><br />It's a nice word too!Christinehttp://egregium.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38124064387200624282009-12-14T06:32:43.438-05:002009-12-14T06:32:43.438-05:00Hi Steven,
I'm sorry! It's Bee's faul...Hi Steven,<br /><br />I'm sorry! It's Bee's fault! She instigated me! :) :)<br /><br />Hi Bee,<br /><br />I hate the multiverse, but I love the noniverse! (including your nomenclature!)<br /><br />Best,<br />Christine<br />PS- The blog's "word verification" that come out right now is so funny in portuguese, but I'm ashamed to tell you!Christinehttp://egregium.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19403106218447397522009-12-14T04:21:23.780-05:002009-12-14T04:21:23.780-05:00Good point, Bee.
(As to the "noniverse"...Good point, Bee.<br /><br />(As to the "noniverse", I have already suggested "nulltiverse").Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27205194843547080772009-12-14T04:12:25.405-05:002009-12-14T04:12:25.405-05:00I doubt atoms would be stable in 83 dims. Arguably...I doubt atoms would be stable in 83 dims. Arguably, the simplest universe you could think of is one that's entirely empty, or better: not there at all, which is the point Christine was making. Best,<br /><br />B.<br /><br />PS: Should we call this the noniverse? I herewith conjecture an infinite number of non-existing universes, called the noniverses.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77571840508937928292009-12-14T04:08:13.501-05:002009-12-14T04:08:13.501-05:00I'm sure Steven is not too hurt.
I suspect th...I'm sure Steven is not too hurt.<br /><br />I suspect the most likely reason why these small numbers are preferred is just that nature appears to prefer simplicity, and an object that can be described using 3 numbers is simpler than an object which needs 4 numbers to describe it.<br /><br />But I don't think this question of why nature prefers small numbers is the same question as to why Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25864477598093285682009-12-14T03:19:57.867-05:002009-12-14T03:19:57.867-05:00Steven: Sorry for the sarcasm, I didn't mean t...Steven: Sorry for the sarcasm, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. You're neither the first nor the last to notice that there's a lot of 3s in the standard model. But please do ask yourself why do you "expect" the number 1 to appear more often than 2 etc, and does this "expectation" have anything to do with science? Best,<br /><br />BBBSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86071487439990212552009-12-14T00:59:50.528-05:002009-12-14T00:59:50.528-05:00Hi Andrew,
Without entering endless debate, all I...Hi Andrew,<br /><br />Without entering endless debate, all I can say is that when it comes to considering infinity it is definitely context sensitive. That’s to note there being a difference and yet a correlation between infinite knowledge and infinite possibility, as the first would enable one to definitely know , while the latter prevents, not the likelihood, yet rather the certainty of Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56689913540871683852009-12-13T22:35:28.856-05:002009-12-13T22:35:28.856-05:00Hi Bee,
Is there anything that deserves to be tak...Hi Bee,<br /><br /><i>Is there anything that deserves to be taken seriously? </i><br /><br />Of course there is. Cake is serious business and has to be baked correctly :)<br /><br />-ARunArunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7338639085210726502009-12-13T17:45:16.940-05:002009-12-13T17:45:16.940-05:00Oh, good grief, Bee and Christine! You didn't ...Oh, good grief, Bee and Christine! You didn't have to be sarcastic. Now my feelings are hurt. :-(<br /><br />Yes, I would expect 1 to occur more than 2, 2 more than 3, 3 more than 4, etc. My point was that the number 3 occurs more frequently than one would expect, nothing more. And I wouldn't have brought that up if Arun hadn't mentioned Numerology! <br /><br />(And as an aside to Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58146750124454404982009-12-13T15:58:43.447-05:002009-12-13T15:58:43.447-05:00It's interesting (and fun) that the most commo...It's interesting (and fun) that the most common selection of numbers selected by people in the UK National Lottery (out of 49 possible numbers) is 1,2,3,4,5,6.<br /><br /><em>"Apparently, at one stage, 10,000 people were selecting the numbers 1 to 6"</em> (<a href="http://plus.maths.org/issue29/features/haigh/" rel="nofollow">link</a>).Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35227930751646029742009-12-13T15:18:19.088-05:002009-12-13T15:18:19.088-05:00Hi Bee and Phil, yes, you're right Bee - I mea...Hi Bee and Phil, yes, you're right Bee - I meant stochastics, and the puzzle is indeed as to why the smaller numbers appear to be favoured. And, Phil, I suspect infinity does have something to do with the reason why the lower numbers appear to be favoured. Here's my nutty theory. Let's consider how these numbers which appear commonly in our laws might be selected. They might be Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48401161890869381092009-12-13T14:35:33.670-05:002009-12-13T14:35:33.670-05:00If one takes Cantors work to its limit, as to imag...If one takes Cantors work to its limit, as to imagine the random set being the one of greatest cardinality, then the infinite set of PI would be an infinite set found an infinite number of times within it as would any sequence imaginable. This has always had me to ask as Bohm before had wondered if random is actually a set counter to order or the one necessary to have any and all manifestationsPhil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74463453211656298232009-12-13T13:59:07.742-05:002009-12-13T13:59:07.742-05:00No, you don't expect that from statistics. I&#...No, you don't expect that from statistics. I'm not sure what statistics has to do with that, possibly you mean stochastics? But stochastics doesn't tell you anything without a measure. You're implicitly assuming there's some measure saying smaller numbers are "more natural" (more likely) and why that should be is exactly the question Arun was raising. Best,<br /><br Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43201988952515888672009-12-13T13:53:01.109-05:002009-12-13T13:53:01.109-05:00Steven said: "I find it odd how often the num...Steven said: <em>"I find it odd how often the number 3 comes up in Physics.</em><br /><br />Bee said: <em>"Isn't it amazing how often the number 1 appears? "</em><br /><br />Christine said: <em>"The number zero occurs more often than any other."</em><br /><br />Andrew said: <em>"The number 113,782 seems very rare."</em><br /><br />It would be interesting to Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56433973702918642152009-12-13T12:20:29.936-05:002009-12-13T12:20:29.936-05:00As I see it the most daunting problem regarding un...As I see it the most daunting problem regarding unification of the laws is not so much with gravity being a theory best describing vastness, while the quantum better to explain the minimum to be considered, yet rather how harmony can be made between the holistic certainty of nature and the randomness of its indeterminacy. It has often had me reminiscent of a ballad formed of harmony, which has Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7797885925012450022009-12-13T12:13:40.152-05:002009-12-13T12:13:40.152-05:00Dear Arun,
Is there anything that deserves to be ...Dear Arun,<br /><br />Is there anything that deserves to be taken seriously? As far as numerology is concerned, I count it among the things that could give us some guidance. If it doesn't seem to lead us anywhere, then maybe it was just fireflies misleading us. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88218106236587143372009-12-13T11:00:00.467-05:002009-12-13T11:00:00.467-05:00Hi Christine,
Yet it is also true that in terms o...Hi Christine,<br /><br />Yet it is also true that in terms of an equation, the difference between both sides must be always equal to zero and so it should be deemed the most important number in regards to nature considerations ,since it the only one able to hang all of reality in the balance.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />PhilPhil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69624913272881846932009-12-13T10:34:08.162-05:002009-12-13T10:34:08.162-05:00Hi Steve,
“It's downright spooky, as if SOME...Hi Steve,<br /><br /><i> “It's downright spooky, as if SOMEbody up there (or out there in the ana/keta direction) has a fetish with a certain number.”</i><br /><br />I don’t find it so surprising for nature to know that although it may only take two to tango it requires <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rock_and_Roll_Trio" rel="nofollow">at least three</a> to really <a href="http://Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90065860627081819532009-12-13T10:32:42.843-05:002009-12-13T10:32:42.843-05:00The number zero occurs more often than any other. ...The number zero occurs more often than any other. It is amazing, but there is an infinite number of things that do not exist in the universe, that is, they have zero occurrence. Must be some higher power involved here.Christinehttp://egregium.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9678663176159399652009-12-13T10:00:57.853-05:002009-12-13T10:00:57.853-05:00Isn't it amazing how often the number 1 appear...Isn't it amazing how often the number 1 appears? There's one photon, there's one graviton, there's one W-boson, and there's one blog called Backreaction. Must be some higher power involved here.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53257385646759975282009-12-13T09:51:15.943-05:002009-12-13T09:51:15.943-05:00Numerology, Arun? I find it odd how often the numb...Numerology, Arun? I find it odd how often the number 3 comes up in Physics.<br /><br />3 dimensions of space that we know of, 3 weak force bosons, 3 quarks in baryons, 3 colors of quarks, 3 generations of fermions, quark charges come in thirds, 3 points define a plane (OK, that's Math, so sue me), and there's probably more. <br /><br />It's downright spooky, as if SOMEbody up there (Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.com