On "poof magic": I agree, with a tiny minor reservation: when we say "mathematics did it", we stand a chance at speculating how.
---
> […] the entire idea of seeing our models of the universe as being somehow responsible for its creation runs the risk of being a huge category error […]
Oh yes. When you think of it, actual models are encoded in brains, paper, computers… Which aren't exactly responsible for the existence of the whole universe. So,
> I don't take it for granted that the universe actualizes mathematical rules in that sense.
Neither do I. I just give it enough credence to put it in a shelf, and look at it again once we know more.
---
> I distinguish between everyday claims, like someone telling me they went to a movie, and claims about new discoveries about the universe.
So do I. This is not a new discovery about our universe, however, not yet. This is a new discovery of a mathematical simplification. I wouldn't be surprised if this one yields no easily testable prediction, much like the Many Worlds Interpretation.
Anyway, I suspected for some time now that the fundamental laws of physics were simpler than they looked. I expected someone to eventually find simpler models. So, when some people claim they did, they at least get my attention. If you did not have the same expectation to begin with, then of course you would reach a different conclusion from seeing the claim.
That said, I do agree that
> such claims can and should be evaluated on the basis of whether they are supported sufficiently strongly.
---
> I disagree with using them to justify a conclusion about the validity of a scientific claim.
No no no, that's not what I was trying to convey. Actually, that's about exactly the reverse. First, I try to have correct beliefs about the world. Then I try and tailor my sense of surprise to those beliefs. That way, when I make an observation (such as reading about a claim), I can use my surprise (or lack thereof) as a hint (no more) about the credibility of this new information.
I won't try to use my sense of surprise to justify anything to anyone. It's only a descriptor of my own beliefs. It's a valid argument only to the extent you trust my beliefs. Which would be foolish: I'm just a random guy on the other side of the internet.
---
> […] the entire idea of seeing our models of the universe as being somehow responsible for its creation runs the risk of being a huge category error […]
Oh yes. When you think of it, actual models are encoded in brains, paper, computers… Which aren't exactly responsible for the existence of the whole universe. So,
> I don't take it for granted that the universe actualizes mathematical rules in that sense.
Neither do I. I just give it enough credence to put it in a shelf, and look at it again once we know more.
---
> I distinguish between everyday claims, like someone telling me they went to a movie, and claims about new discoveries about the universe.
So do I. This is not a new discovery about our universe, however, not yet. This is a new discovery of a mathematical simplification. I wouldn't be surprised if this one yields no easily testable prediction, much like the Many Worlds Interpretation.
Anyway, I suspected for some time now that the fundamental laws of physics were simpler than they looked. I expected someone to eventually find simpler models. So, when some people claim they did, they at least get my attention. If you did not have the same expectation to begin with, then of course you would reach a different conclusion from seeing the claim.
That said, I do agree that
> such claims can and should be evaluated on the basis of whether they are supported sufficiently strongly.
---
> I disagree with using them to justify a conclusion about the validity of a scientific claim.
No no no, that's not what I was trying to convey. Actually, that's about exactly the reverse. First, I try to have correct beliefs about the world. Then I try and tailor my sense of surprise to those beliefs. That way, when I make an observation (such as reading about a claim), I can use my surprise (or lack thereof) as a hint (no more) about the credibility of this new information.
I won't try to use my sense of surprise to justify anything to anyone. It's only a descriptor of my own beliefs. It's a valid argument only to the extent you trust my beliefs. Which would be foolish: I'm just a random guy on the other side of the internet.