CeffTheCeph

I am also not a physicist nor a logician, just interested in the subject matter.

full of assertions not backed up by arguments

Can you provide some examples from the paper of assertions that aren’t being backed up by arguments so I might try and look further into it? Thanks!

We don’t understand gravity to the point where we have a consistent algorithmic explanation for it. As suggested, there are competing theories, all of which are algorithmically based. The holy grail of modern physics is to find the algorithm that explains gravity as that is the last missing piece to finalize the theory of everything.

The results of this research are implying that it is not possible to prove, algorithmically, that gravity is quantum but rather that quantum gravity as the foundation of the universe is non-algorithmic and therefore non-computational. And so a theory of everything is impossible, implying that the universe cannot be simulated by computing the theory of everything.

This research builds on a lot of the work that Roger Penrose did in the 90s in exploring the potential non-algorithmic nature of consciousness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness). If you read his book “Shadows of the Mind” published in 1993 you will find a prediction of future computational abilities that is a shockingly accurate description of AI deep fakes and the AI slop we see today with LLMs.

The no-simulated universe idea is one interesting conclusion of this research, but in my opinion, a more interesting conclusion of this research is that if you believe Penrose’s argument for consciousness being non-algorithmic, than this research is implying that AGI is also impossible.

That does help. Thanks.

These are all great questions we should be asking policy makers who cite ‘economic growth’ as justification for policy. In this context, ‘economic growth’ refers specifically to GDP growth. Who benefits most from GDP growth? Tobacco companies provide billions to GDP annually but also contribute to increased public health costs that everyone has to pay for in one way or an other. Growth for the sake of growth doesn’t necessarily lead to the best outcomes for all of society.

The rate of return on capital is a macroeconomic aggregate of the overall rate of return that capital generates. Capital is any asset, so the rate of return on capital is the average rate of return on all of the machines in factories, all of the money in government bonds, all investments in the stock market, literally all capital of any form in an economy that is used for production or savings.

Western economies operate in a form of capitalism, which by definition means to maximize capital. So realistically, all producers in capitalist economies are incentivized to maximizing returns on capital, that’s the goal.

But if we change the goal from maximizing capital to something else, like maximizing human well-being for example, than there would be less incentive for producers to constantly try to earn greater returns on capital and the growth rate of the economy could then surpass the rate of return on capital and inequality could decrease.

So in this case, investing money in libraries, schools, hospitals, transit, infrastructure etc. would generate growth without the expected rate of return on capital associated with that growth.

This is an other option to reduce the wealth gap, as was asked by OP.

Donate it to the library or a local food bank. Simple community building.

What are “the others”? Non-matter? Anti-matter? Non-Dark Matter? Matter is well defined by Einstein’s equivalence principle: E=Mc^2, but what are “the others” it is interacting with?

“Dark matter interacts through gravity but not light”? What is implied here?? I would argue that more accurately, dark matter is observable through gravitational anomalies, which has nothing to do with interacting with anything, including gravity or light.

Just because it is called “dark matter” doesn’t necessarily imply that it has anything at all to do with “matter”. Presuming that the term “dark matter” would be analogous to “matter” in some theoretical way, and therefore must exist in our universe in a corresponding “anti-dark matter” theoretical way, would be removed from the process of scientific exploration or critical thinking, since that is not how dark matter has been observed in our universe.

The descriptive words humans have devised to describe our reality are just that, human derived. Matter, anti-matter, and dark matter exist regardless of whatever names humans have assigned to them. Just because ‘anti-matter’ exists in our scientific lexicon (having observable traits) as a word implying the ‘opposite properties of matter’ means nothing about the observable properties of ‘anti-dark matter’ whether it exists or not. The fact that we do not even have any ability, scientifically, to observe the actual properties of dark matter within our scientific understanding of reality at this time implies that no, ‘anti-dark matter’ doesn’t exists, presumably only until someone observes or predicts it. Arguing that ‘anti-dark matter’ exists on the basis that ‘anti-matter’ exists simply ignores the scientific method.

If an electron were to become exposed to a positron in a manner within which they could become entangled, they would annihilate. The resultant photons would be entangled, but their respective energy/momentum values would depend on the incoming electron/positron momentum/energy values.

Air conditioners aren’t a source of energy because they don’t provide more energy to the system than they consume from the system in order to be operational.

There is no difference between a spatial dimension and a temporal one. In reality, there can be infinite spatial and infinite temporal dimensions. It just so happens that we live in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Doesn’t it male sense to engage with that physical reality?

It isn’t a medical issue, or a public health issue. It is an economic issue. Pollution is widely recognized in our capitalistic world as an externality that just is. In other words, a ‘public bad’. Mandatory vaccines are a public good, in the true sense of the word. Having a central government pay the cost of administering a vaccine that will improve public health and reduce risk/remediation costs will always be more efficient than if every individual in society had to pay those costs themselves. Economies of scale.

How do quantum computers compute? What computational processes, or algorithms, do they use that are different from our conventional computers? Do they take a binary input and split it into an infinite number of things? Or is it a statistical probability based on a superposition of an infinite number of possible outcomes?

If this were true, there would be no observable evidence that any entropic or thermodynamic law exists. How do you hold ‘higher energy particles you have in a separate place’? You would need energy to ‘hold’ those particles. Also, a phase change requires an activation energy, which is more than the ambient. It is admirable that you are trying to solve some serious problems human kind are facing, but if your solution is a perpetual motion machine, there is a mistake in your reasoning. As Homer Simpson has made abundantly clear, “in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics”.

Change the goal. The French economist Thomas Piketty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty) has demonstrated, using 250 years of historical data, that the wealth gap increases as long as the rate of return on capital is greater than the growth rate. Every institution in the western world (including governments who are trying to maximize tax income) are trying to maximize return on capital. Growth is good if it is in the public interest. If we only want growth because it increases our returns on capital, inequality is the result.