All of stochastic's Comments + Replies

Another great explanation. What you describe suggests that the fabric of the universe is not made of particulate stuff, but rather informational and/or computational. Or am I reading to much into this?

1bigjeff5
A lot of the dumbed down science I read/watch (documentaries, popular sciency magazines, sciency websites, etc) suggests that this is exactly how a number of physicists view the world these days. For example, often when there is debate about whether such and such theoretical effect breaks the conservation laws they speak in terms of information being conserved or destroyed, even though they are referring to things like photons and whatnot (e.g. the Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet concerning Hawking Radiation).

I thought that was a really good, logical, simple explanation. Looking forward to reading the next episode.

Thanks!

The post you're replying to is from April 2008; the next part is Joint Configurations and you can follow along by selecting "Article Navigation > by author" and clicking the right arrow, or follow the whole thing in a more organised way by following the Quantum Physics Sequence.

There are an awful lot of true things.

I think that many of the things that are commonly regarded as being "true" are socially constructed fictions, biases and fallacies. Moreover science can never attain absolute truth it can only strive for it.

5orthonormal
Hi stochastic, and welcome to Less Wrong! This is actually a really important topic. I agree that there are a lot of cultural and normative claims that don't deserve to be called "true" or "false", despite their common usage as such. I'd be cautious of using the phrase "absolute truth", since it conjures up false expectations compared to the actual process of increasing confidence in models of the world. Really relevant: The Simple Truth P.S. Introduce yourself on the welcome page when you have a moment!
3Emile
The quote syntax is > quote goes here Which becomes