Re:In the Beginning, There Was Computation
by Animats on Monday September 02, 2024 @03:48PM
(#41428258)
Although Smolin doesn't mention it, that may be part of his reaction to string theory. String theory was a mathematical edifice which purported to explain some major issues in physics, and, for a while, dominated the field. But it wasn't supported by experimental evidence.[1] Smolin argued against string theory for a long time.[2] This seems related.
The classic assumption of physics is that, at some level, things are simple. For a long time, that worked. From F=ma to Maxwell's equations, the basic rules were short, and most results corresponded to those rules. Engineering is based on those rules. Quantum mechanics had people upset for decades, but it was eventually understood reasonably well, and led to another generation of engineering that worked.
But basic physics has been somewhat stuck for decades now. There's still no unified field theory.
Smolin is suggesting that maybe there are no underlying simple rules.
The classic assumption of physics is that, at some level, things are simple. For a long time, that worked. From F=ma to Maxwell's equations, the basic rules were short, and most results corresponded to those rules. Engineering is based on those rules. Quantum mechanics had people upset for decades, but it was eventually understood reasonably well, and led to another generation of engineering that worked.
But basic physics has been somewhat stuck for decades now. There's still no unified field theory. Smolin is suggesting that maybe there are no underlying simple rules.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/requiem-for-a-string...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics