Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Of course by this definition of wrong, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, which didn't stop me from taking a 400 level course on it.

Roger Penrose has fundamental thoughts about the physics and AI, not simply callling them wrong wrong in the sense of falsifibility..Read his books.

I don't think the aidenn0 is talking about falsifiability, but accuracy. As in, Newtonian mechanics is not 100% accurate, but it works well enough for macro-level calculations.

Like Asimov said, "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

That is what aidenn0 seems to be talking about, but that's not what Penrose is talking about. Penrose is very clear that the predictions of QM are extremely accurate. His contention is that the implications of QM cannot be true (that there must be parallel worlds or "it doesn't matter what's really happening in a superposition of states, just that the predictions are accurate"), therefore QM as it is today cannot be a part of any single unified theory.

So basically equation helps you to make your measurement more accurate. (on some scales) what happens underneath is known but can't be accurately measured because it interferes with physical process. (wich comes to no suprise because the measurmenst are done from whitin the universe while it's "running", and that is why your measurment will have effect on future state of universe, )

Seems like Penrose is claiming that different interpretations of this measurement interference are not necessary. thats what i get from article. at least.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact