sigmoid.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A social space for people researching, working with, or just interested in AI!

Server stats:

594
active users

#philosophyofscience

6 posts6 participants1 post today

The conference “Mathematics as an artistic experience”, organized by the Grothendieck Institute in collaboration with the Henri Poincaré Institute in Paris and the MICS Laboratory of Centrale Supélec (Paris-Saclay University), will be held on Friday 11 July 2025, at the Hermite Amphitheater of the Henri Poincaré Institute, 11 Rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75005 Paris, from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
The conference will feature talks by Charles Alunni, Coordinator of the Centre for Grothendieckian Studies (CSG), Olivia Caramello, President of the Institute, Mateo Carmona, Archivist of the CSG, and Francesco La Mantia, language philosopher at the University of Palermo.
On the occasion of the conference, an exhibition of mathematically inspired works by Dominique Lepetz, a former student of Alexander Grothendieck, will be inaugurated in the presence of the artist.

Book presentation at IHPST – June 19
On June 19 at 11:00 AM, the IHPST will host a presentation of the volume The Mathematical and Philosophical Legacy of Alexander Grothendieck (Birkhäuser, 2025), edited by Marco Panza, Jean-Jacques Szczeciniarz, and Daniele Struppa.
Location: IHPST, conference room (13 rue du Four, 75006 Paris, 2nd floor)
Programme:
– 11:00–11:15 – Marco Panza (IHPST, UMR 8590): General presentation of the volume
– 11:15–11:45 – Olivia Caramello (Università dell’Insubria & Institute Grothendieck): Topoi, from Grothendieck to the present
– 11:45–12:00 – Coffee break
– 12:00–12:45 – Jean-Jacques Szczeciniarz (SPHERE, UMR 7219): Presentation of three contributions:
 (i) Tohoku 45 years after
 (ii) My view on the experience with Grothendieck’s Anabelian Geometry (by Mohamed Saidi)
 (iii) Grothendieck’s use of equality (by Kevin Buzzard)
An occasion to revisit Grothendieck’s legacy from both mathematical and philosophical perspectives.
#Grothendieck #PhilosophyOfMathematics #HistoryOfMathematics #ToposTheory #AnabelianGeometry #Mathematics #PhilosophyOfScience #IHPST

Ever get the feeling, when learning about something really complex, that you're trying to reach an understand that it just beyond your grasp?

It is quite obvious that the human brain, if narrowly focused enough, and given good enough perceptions, could make sense of pretty much any natural or artificial system.

Not as conscious knowledge, but as instinctual understanding, getting the predictions as gut feelings rather than as analyzable information.

Visceral, not cerebral.

In this light, monotropism could be seen to be an evolutionary counterpart to science. A drive to focus on narrow topics, to build intuitive understanding by hooking the brain to the topic directly, at a much lower level than conscious thought.

@actuallyautistic @philosophy

Continued thread

Here's one way of expressing Illich and Latour's challenges to modernism, as interpreted by Cayley;

The Science(TM) is modernism's totalitarian claim of unchallengeable correctness. But the sciences are not so much bodies of certain knowledge, as ways of finding and mapping the limits to what we know, and what can be known. Undermining and eroding any and all systems of totalitarian certainty, in favour of contingent if/then claims.

Replied in thread
@tomcapuder @cbontenbal Interesting. I think science definitely has a chance of making up something useful but we need a huge leap of faith to think it arrives at the truth.

Science keeps discarding things that were thought to be real like electric, heat fluids, luminiferous ether etc. We can make an inductive argument that it'll continue - the world as described by science will keep changing and therefore it is not real.

Multiple (sometimes incompatible and infinite) theories and interpretations exist which give the exact same phenomenon. The one accepted by science is based on luck - the first to make novel predictions.

We are stepping into the realm of the unobservable in advanced physics like string theory. Should we discard these pieces or update the definition and methods of science?

Success of scientific investigation is based on luck too. For example, billions of years in the future the light from other galaxies will be undetectable. But human records from today will say they observed many galaxies. Which one should the future humans believe?

So I don't think it's just "mental masturbation" to open our minds to other (potential) sources of knowledge. That's how we progress and enjoy life. 😄

#science #philosophy #philosophyofscience #physics #metaphysics

Many-worlds without necessarily many worlds?

IAI has a brief interview of David Deutsch on his advocacy for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. (Warning: possible paywall.) Deutsch has a history of showing little patience with other interpretations, and this interview is no different. A lot of the discussion centers around his advocacy for scientific realism, the idea that science is actually telling us about the world, rather than just providing instrumental prediction frameworks.

Quick reminder. The central mystery of quantum mechanics is that quantum systems seem to evolve as waves, superpositions of many states, with the different states interfering with each other, all tracked by a mathematical model called the wave function. But when measured, these systems behave as localized particles, with the model only able to provide probabilities on the measurement result. Although the measurement results as a population show the interference patterns from the wave function. This is often called the “wave function collapse”.

Various interpretations attempt to make sense of this situation. Many deny the reality of what the wave function models. Others accept it, but posit the wave function collapse as a real objective event. Some posit both a wave and particle existing throughout. The Everett approach rejects wave function collapse and argues that if we just keep following the mathematical model, we get decoherence and eventually the same observations. But that implies that quantum physics apply at all scales, meaning that it’s not just particles in superpositions of many states, but measuring equipment, labs, people, planets, and the entire universe.

Reading Deutsch’s interview, it occurred to me that my own structural realist outlook, a more cautious take on scientific realism, is reflected in the more cautious acceptance I have of Everettian quantum mechanics. People like Deutsch are pretty confident that there is a quantum multiverse. I can see the reasoning steps that get them there, and I follow them, to a point. But my own view is that the other worlds remains a possibility, but far from a certainty.

I think this is because we can break apart the Everettian proposition into three questions.

  1. Does the mathematical structure of quantum theory provide everything necessary to fit the current data?
  2. If so, can we be confident that there won’t be new data in the future that drives theorists to make revisions or add additional variables?
  3. What effect would any additions or changes have on the broader predictions of the current bare theory?

My answer to 1 is yes, with a moderately high credence, maybe around 80%. I know people like Deutsch and Sean Carroll have this much higher. (I think Carroll says his is around 95% somewhere on his podcast.) And I think they have defendable reasons for it. Experimentalists have been stress testing bare quantum theory for decades, with no sign of a physical wave function collapse, or additional (hidden) variables. Quantum computing seems to have taken it to a new level.

But there remain doubts, notably about how to explain probabilities. I personally don’t see this as that big an issue. The probabilities reflect the proportion of outcomes in the wave function. But I acknowledge that lot of physicists do. I’m not a physicist, and very aware of the limitations of my very basic understanding of the math, so it’s entirely possible I’m missing something, which is why I’m only at 80%.

(Often when I make the point about the mathematical structures, it’s noted that there are multiple mathematical formalisms: wave mechanics, matrices, path integrals, etc. But while these are distinct mental frameworks, they reportedly always reconcile. These theories are equivalent, not just empirically, but mathematically. They always provide the same answer. If they didn’t, we’d see experimental physicists trying to test where they diverge. We don’t because there aren’t any divergences.)

If our answer to 1 is yes, it’s tempting to jump from that to the broader implications, the quantum multiverse. (Or one universe with a much larger ontology. Some people find that a less objectionable description.)

But then there are questions 2 and 3. I have to say no to 2. The history of science seems to show that any claims that we’ve found the final theory of anything is a dubious proposition, a point Deutsch acknowledges in the interview. All scientific theories are provisional. And we don’t know what we don’t know. And there are the gaps we do know about, such as how to bring gravity into the quantum paradigm. It seems rational to wonder what kind of revisions they may eventually require.

Of course 3 is difficult to answer until we get there. I do doubt any new discoveries would drive things toward the other interpretations people currently talk about, or overall be less bonkers than the current predictions. Again given the history of science, it seems more likely it would replace the other worlds with something even stranger and more disconcerting.

So as things stand, there’s no current evidence for adding anything to the structure of raw quantum theory. That does imply other worlds, but the worlds remain untestable for the foreseeable future.

To be clear, I don’t buy that they’re forever untestable. We can’t rule out that some clever experimentalist in the future won’t find a way to detect interference between decohered branches, to recohere them (which has been done but only very early in the process), or some other way we haven’t imagined yet.

My take is the untestability of the other worlds means that Everettian quantum mechanics, in the sense of pure wave mechanics, shouldn’t be accepted because we like the worlds, or rejected because we dislike them. For now, the worlds should be irrelevant for a scientific assessment. The only question is whether anything needs to be added to the bare theory, a question, it should be noted, we can ask regardless of whether we’re being realist or antirealist about any of this.

All of which means that while my credence in austere quantum mechanics is 80%, the credence for the other worlds vacillates somewhere around 50%. In other words I’m agnostic. This resonates with the views I’ve seen from a number of physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Sidney Coleman, John Preskill, and most recently, Brian Cox, which accept the Everett view but downplay the other worlds. Even Sean Carroll notes in one of his AMAs that he doesn’t really care so much about the other worlds, but the physics at the core of the theory.

But maybe I’m missing something. Are the questions I raised above as easy to separate as I’m thinking? Or are there problems with pure wave mechanics I’m overlooking?

IRIS Insights I Nico Formanek: Are hyperparameters vibes?
April 24, 2025, 2:00 p.m. (CEST)
Our second IRIS Insights talk will take place with Nico Formanek.
🟦
This talk will discuss the role of hyperparameters in optimization methods for model selection (currently often called ML) from a philosophy of science point of view. Special consideration is given to the question of whether there can be principled ways to fix hyperparameters in a maximally agnostic setting.
🟦
This is a WebEx talk to which everyone who is interested is cordially invited. It will take place in English. Our IRIS speaker, Jun.-Prof. Dr. Maria Wirzberger, will moderate it. Following Nico Formanek's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. We look forward to active participation.
🟦
Please join this Webex talk using the following link:
lnkd.in/eJNiUQKV
🟦
#Hyperparameters #ModelSelection #Optimization #MLMethods #PhilosophyOfScience #ScientificMethod #AgnosticLearning #MachineLearning #InterdisciplinaryResearch #AIandPhilosophy #EthicsInAI #ResponsibleAI #AITheory #WebTalk #OnlineLecture #ResearchTalk #ScienceEvents #OpenInvitation #AICommunity #LinkedInScience #TechPhilosophy #AIConversations