You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

prase comments on Irrationality Game II - Less Wrong Discussion

13 [deleted] 03 July 2012 06:50PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (380)
Tags: irrationality contrarianism fun disagreement

Comments (380)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: prase 04 July 2012 10:25:55PM 6 points [-]

Irrationality game comment:

Imagine that we transformed the Universe using some elegant mathematical mapping (think about Fourier transform of the phase space) or that we were able to see the world through different quantum observables than we have today (seeing the world primarily in the momentum space, or even being able to experience "collapses" to eigenvectiors not of x or p, but of a different, for us unobservable, operator, e.g. xp). Then, we would observe complex structures, perhaps with their own evolution and life and intelligence. That is, aliens can be all around us but remain as invisible as Mona Lisa on a Fourier transformed picture from Louvre.

Probability : 15%.

Comment author: marchdown 07 July 2012 01:54:01AM 1 point [-]

This is an interesting way to look at things. I would assert a higher probability, so I'm voting up. Even a slight tweaking (x+ε, m-ε) is enough. I'm imagining a continuous family of mappings starting with identity. These would preserve the structures we already perceive while accentuating certain features.

Comment author: Manfred 05 July 2012 12:42:26AM 1 point [-]

Any blob (continuous, smooth, rapidly decreasing function) in momentum space corresponds to a blob in position space. That is, you can't get structure in one without structure in the other.

Comment author: prase 05 July 2012 01:05:16PM 4 points [-]
  1. The narrower blob, the wider its Fourier transform. To recognise a perfectly localised blob in the momentum space one would need to measure at every place over the whole Universe.
  2. Not every structure is recognisable as such by human eye.
Comment author: endoself 05 July 2012 12:33:03AM 1 point [-]

Upvoted for underconfidence; there are a lot of bases you can use.

Comment author: prase 05 July 2012 01:19:11PM 1 point [-]

Still, what you see in one basis is not independent on what you see in another one, and I expect elegant mapping between the bases. There is difference between

  • "there exist a basis in the Hilbert space in which some vaguely interesting phenomena could be observed, if we were able to perceive the associated operator the same way as we perceive position"

and

  • "there exist simple functions of observables such as momentum, particle number or field intensities defining observables which, if we could perceive them directly, would show us a world with life and civilisations and evolution"

My 15% belief is closer to the second version.

Comment author: endoself 06 July 2012 01:41:03AM 2 points [-]

Okay, that's less likely. I'd still give it higher than 15% though. The holographic principle is very suggestive of this, for instance.

It's hard to know exactly what would count in order to make an estimate, since we don't yet know the actual laws of physics. It's obvious that "position observables, but farther away" would encode the regular type of alien, but the boundary between regular aliens and weird quantum aliens could easily blur as we learn more physics.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit