daiaomori

OK, I’m more and more puzzled about this AMA, and about how Scientific American picks their authors these days.

You seriously claim to have knowledge about quantum mechanics but you say you are trying to learn calculus and linear algebra?

I mean I really don’t want to be mean or disrespectful or anything, and nobody can know everything by birth - but seriously, calculus and linear algebra? That’s kind of the basics of math! What else is there before that? Addition and multiplication?

In addition, the required math for quantum mechanics is not that complex; what is complex are the concepts expressed in that math, and how the math progresses into the deeper and derived concepts that follow. It’s less math, but more application of math. That’s also where most of the stuff looses me, and why I try to not get involved too much with interpretations of quantum physics. There are some intriguing aspects from the philosophical perspective, I‘ll agree to that; but interpreting purely mathematically derived concepts that one has not even fully grasped mathematically is a dangerous field.

We don’t have proper linguistic concepts to express the world of quantum physics; that’s why we struggle with concepts like „spin“; it behaves like something spinning, it can be well described like something spinning, but there is nothing there to spin. How do we deal with that? We can’t, until we try to rework our linguistic abilities. Not that I have any idea what that would specifically encompass; I can only describe the limits, not a solution. I believe that speculation, based on those non-fitting concepts, regarding „minds“ won’t lead us anywhere. We first need to make our minds up for the task to do so, and I believe we dramatically lack that ability by now.

Anyhow. I am really really confused by this AMA.

There is an official government document (mentioned in the article) that is, if I remember correctly, a few hundred pages long, very detailed, and can be read by everybody.

It is super creepy. It is “deep state” as deep as it can get.

That does not mean that every article about this is to the point/not exaggeration/truthful - and as always nowadays media should be handled with care.

But I don’t think the system is “debunked”, nor in any way compatible with one might call freedom.

I have to confess, when I read your introduction, I was intrigued, and my initial thought was „Oh my, I’m not sure if he knows what kind of people roam this place“.

I have tackled my own philosophical questions on Reddit before, and it is … a minefield. At best. There are a lot of people who „know things“, and most of them know them best. And it’s not a place to really discuss things; most of the time, it’s like people beating each other with pool noodles until someone bleeds, which can take pretty long.

I saw many of your replies getting downvoted, and was kind of angry - because that’s kind of disheartening - and sympathetic, and thought „A well this is reddit“.

My sympathy waned a bit when I figured that many of your replies were kind of lacking on the theoretical end, and indeed at the same time my confusion about your self-representation grew; that was when part of me began to understood the downvoted. I even felt the urge to chime in and ring the bell everybody else already rang - hive mind, someone else wrote down below. That’s an aspect of social structures in the internet that needs to be better understood, but I’m deviating.

Again, I don’t try to be harmful here, I hope that I am successful in ensuring that. May be it’s because I have been a reader of the German branch of Scientific America for most of my life - or over thirty years - and it’s really that what implanted in my mind that one who writes for them has a more serious (gosh what do I mean by that?) scientific background.

I urge you not to read my prior post as dismay; as I said, I am puzzled. Your self-description implied - not necessarily willfully - something else for me, but that doesn’t mean you are not justified to think or write or openly discuss philosophy and quantum physics here or anywhere.

But maybe, just maybe, a little bit more care might be in place when looking at quantum physics and it’s concepts when not really understanding those concepts deeply. I know it’s a typical philosophical issue; in the end philosophy is thinking about the unthinkable, it is pushing the boundaries of thought beyond its own means; otherwise, it would just be empirical science and thus, physics, not metaphysics.

I myself (try to) work in the field of epistemology, and that also often encompasses philosophy of mind and at least some notions of physics when we think about embodiment and all.

I also happen to have some understanding about physics, as that has been a key interest in my whole life. Furthermore, to me it’s key and in the end a necessity to overstep boundaries to get anywhere with philosophy.

So I believe I clearly understand where you are coming from, but… well what I try to do to avoid misunderstandings (especially my own), I treat concepts of quantum physics with utmost care. Just because something presents itself as an analogy of a problem I try to tackle in the world of philosophy doesn’t mean it is, and usually it isn’t; there are connections between physics and the mind, quite naturally, but the theory of those is like… like brittle glass. Grasp it to hard, yank on it, and everything carefully build up before shatters - and one cuts themselves.

Sure we still need to try, but… hm. Hope this helps a bit to ensure I am not dismayed or anything. Mostly puzzled.

I can’t think of a question. Still wanted to get in touch, as an internet stranger who believes he feels for you.

I have no personal experience, but there once was a time I was afraid to possible loose my eye sight (didn’t happen). I looked at tactile options to interact with computers/the internet. If you hoped to go to New York, I hope there would be some way to cover the expenses for such a device, too. An interactive Braille display might at least enable you to continue reading text, e.g. englisch websites. May be there are national groups who support blind people that can help with technical advice, like which devices work? I don’t even know how kana/kanji and Braille interact, is there anything like Japanese Braille? I can hardly remember 100 kanji. 私は日本語が好きだ - I’m not good at it, though ;)

今後の幸運を祈ります