fburnaby comments on Rationality Quotes June 2013 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Thomas 03 June 2013 03:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (778)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: sediment 02 June 2013 07:58:49PM *  64 points [-]

Hofstadter on the necessary strangeness of scientific explanations:

It is no accident, I would maintain, that quantum mechanics is so wildly counterintuitive. Part of the nature of explanation is that it must eventually hit some point where further probing only increases opacity rather than decreasing it. Consider the problem of understanding the nature of solids. You might wonder where solidity comes form. What if someone said to you, "The ultimate basis of this brick's solidity is that it is composed of a stupendous number of eensy weensy bricklike objects that themselves are rock-solid"? You might be interested to learn that bricks are composed of micro-bricks, but the initial question - "What accounts for solidity?" - has been thoroughly begged. What we ultimately want is for solidity to vanish, to dissolve, to disintegrate into some totally different kind of phenomenon with which we have no experience. Only then, when we have reached some completely novel, alien level will we feel that we have really made progress in explaining the top-level phenomenon.

[...]

I first saw this thought expressed in the stimulating book Patterns of Discovery by Norwood Russell Hanson. Hanson attributes it to a number of thinkers, such as Isaac Newton, who wrote, in his famous work Opticks: "The parts of all homogeneal hard Bodies which fully touch one another, stick together very strongly. And for explaining how this may be, some have invented hooked Atoms, which is begging the Question." Hanson also quotes James Clerk Maxwell (from an article entitled "Atom"): "We may indeed suppose the atom elastic, but this is to endow it with the very property for the explanation of which... the atomic constitution was originally assumed." Finally, here is a quote Hanson provides from Werner Heisenberg himself: "If atoms are really to explain the origin of color and smell of visible material bodies, then they cannot possess properties like color and smell." So, although it is not an original thought, it is useful to bear in mind that greeness disintegrates.

— from the postscript to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, in Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern (his lovely book of essays from his column in Scientific American)

Comment author: fburnaby 03 June 2013 11:22:10AM 11 points [-]

Why Opium produces sleep: ... Because there is in it a dormitive power.

Moliere, Le Malade Imaginere (1673), Act III, sc. iii.

Comment author: DysgraphicProgrammer 03 June 2013 02:20:29PM 10 points [-]

A lesson here is that if you ask "Why X?" then any answer of the form "Because <synonym of X>" is not actually progress toward understanding.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 04 June 2013 01:18:41PM 23 points [-]

Synonyms are not good for explaining... because there is no explanatory power in them.

Comment author: ZankerH 04 June 2013 07:50:43PM 10 points [-]

I found your post funny... because it amused me.

Comment author: DanArmak 08 June 2013 07:21:29PM *  0 points [-]

I upvoted your comment, because I wished for it to have more upvotes.