HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Conscious realism and the cosmological polytope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.02813

According to Prof. Hoffman, this model of the universe is highly parsimonious in that it can model data from the Large Hadron Collider using a single parameter, while the best incumbent (Quantum Field Theory) needs millions.

The implication is that everything we see and experience are not fundamental, including space and time itself. The fundamental unit of reality is consciousness.

This has far reaching implications into every other scientific and non-scientific human endeavor, from neuroscience to philosophy. It's no exaggeration to say that if he's right (and he claims the math shows that he is) it may be the most important discovery in human history.

Even Albert Einstein appears to have intuited this when he wrote:

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."

⬐ nprateem

> The fundamental unit of reality is consciousness.

> from neuroscience to philosophy

> It's no exaggeration to say that if he's right (and he claims the math shows that he is) it may be the most important discovery in human history.

The Buddha, and every other enlightened person since, only beat him by ~5000 years

⬐ abrichr

Indeed! The difference this time is the weight of mathematical rigor.

⬐ katmannthree

That's a lot of words in those links. What falsifiable predictions does this make?

⬐ abrichr

It's a good question, and as a layman I don't have the answer. However, since it's able to model experiments in the Large Hadron Collider, I would assume that it makes predictions about the positions and velocities of high energy particles.

In any case, Dr. Hoffman's theories are mathematically rigorous. I think it's worth listening to the podcast before dismissing.

⬐ katmannthree

> In any case, Dr. Hoffman's theories are mathematically rigorous. I think it's worth listening to the podcast before dismissing.

I can't really comment on that as 1) I only skimmed a couple sections of the paper and 2) my field is more applied math than pure. I'm not attacking or dismissing anything, just asking how the claims made are substantiated.

> However, since it's able to model experiments in the Large Hadron Collider, I would assume that it makes predictions about the positions and velocities of high energy particles.

Do those models cover experiments which have yet to be run, and more importantly are they predictions which differ from those of the standard model?

There are a lot of neat theories which model experimental work we already have results for, the problem is using said theories to make falsifiable predictions which are both realistic in terms of actually finding a way to do experimental verification and are different from predictions made by the standard model. Nobody really loves the state of physics as-is, but moving on to something else requires meeting those two conditions which has been an insurmountable hurdle as of yet.

⬐ abrichr

> There are a lot of neat theories which model experimental work we already have results for, the problem is using said theories to make falsifiable predictions which are both realistic in terms of actually finding a way to do experimental verification and are different from predictions made by the standard model.

Ideally yes. But if you have two theories which make the same predictions, and one requires orders of magnitude fewer parameters than the other, then the former is, if nothing else, a valuable new perspective.

The analogy that comes to mind is the elaborate system of epicycles in the geocentric model of the solar system. These were quite accurate -- even more accurate than the first heliocentric model (if I recall correctly). But the heliocentric model was far simpler in that it required fewer parameters (and as we know it turned out to be the correct one).

It's still early days for the cosmological polytope. It's right to be skeptical, but the greatest scientific advances are usually considered ludicrous at first by the broader community. It's those who allow for the possibility that the new theory may be correct that will design and carry out experiments to provide evidence either way.

⬐ mrandish

Yes, that's exactly my question too. "Consciousness" is often ill-defined for experimental purposes and notorious for being abused through vague "deep-ities" to make unsupported assertions about "the meaning of everything."

⬐ uggahughuff

OT: Let me give you a guessing, maybe the Translation wasn' wrong at all, 'Watts per Pound as an Ratio' -calling the Movie Matrix to mind... ^^

⬐ O__________O

>> “That's a lot of words in those links.”

My favorite HN comment ever.

__

As for that lack of a falsifiable claim, agree, not only that, but one that would allow for a preponderance of evidence.

Donald Hoffman was interviewed and topic of falsifiable observations came up and as far as I am able to tell he avoided the topic; search for “falsifiable” in this link:

https://tim.blog/2022/04/18/donald-hoffman-transcript/amp/

___

On same topic, this paper provides overview of possible different approaches testing to quantum gravity with cosmology:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01597

Conscious realism and the cosmological polytope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.02813

According to Prof. Hoffman, this model of the universe is highly parsimonious in that it can model data from the Large Hadron Collider using a single parameter, while the best incumbent theory (quantum field theory) needs millions.

The implication is that everything we see and experience, including space and time itself, are not fundamental. The unit of reality is consciousness.

This has far reaching applications into every other scientific and non-scientific human endeavor, from neuroscience to philosophy. It's no exaggeration to say that if he's right (and he claims the math shows that he is) it may be the most important discovery in the history of humanity.

Even Albert Einstein appears to have intuited this when he wrote:

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."

⬐ Maursault

Not sure why this video needs to be 3 and a quarter hours, because it is mostly repetition and rehashing the same perspective that is summed up in a few minutes, which is basically the title, and that is how shallow this is.

The perspective is neither interesting nor rigorous, and I saw no attempt to define first principles, but just throwing around terms like "truth" and "objective reality" without any attempt to define these, when long before the field of neurology existed philosophers already determined there can be no truth and that objective reality does not exist.

Shocking... not. Sedative, yes.

⬐ mikewarot

>Not sure why this video needs to be 3 and a quarter hours

That's the nature of podcasts, long form, with plenty of give and take, and time to ramble around until getting to the point. It's how people talk naturally.

Could it be edited down? Of course it could. I'm not sure you could do that without bias, nor would it be worth the effort.

⬐ mikewarot

Reality is not as we perceive it at the quantum level, and there may be an even more fundamental understanding of physics soon... that I'll agree with.

The assertion that consciousness is the basis of reality is an interesting rabbit hole, but not, in my opinion, a productive theory of physics.

⬐ mikewarot

Reality is an illusion - He's right about that.

Consciousness as the foundational fabric of the universe - hard NO. He's building tools that might be useful in the study of how we think, but I don't buy the idea that the universe is just a dream.

David Hoffman, interviewed by Lex Fridman [1], where he insists that spacetime isn't the base reality in the universe, but consciousness is.

It took me a while to realize the first part was true, but the second part was an assertion that I strongly disagree with.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reYdQYZ9Rj4&t=2170s