Round Table Talk: Dialogue Between a Philosopher and Physicists
Markus Gabriel Professor, Director of the International Center for Philosophy, Bonn University Hitoshi Murayama Kavli IPMU Principal Investigator, and Professor, UC Berkeley Yasunori Nomura Kavli IPMU Principal Investigator, and Professor, UC Berkeley
Physicists Talk about What Science Is Murayama: I would like to thank Markus for joining us for this conversation shortly after your lecture.＊1 In our earlier conversation you pointed out that, precisely Markus Gabriel Hitoshi Murayama Yasunori Nomura speaking, what people usually attribute to Popper is not what he attribute to Popper and which science is about trying to understand actually said. So, one thing we can go scientists agree, is not really what we the phenomena around us. To for is to repeat my understanding of would like to do sometimes, especially understand this, of course we need how science is de ned according to when we talk about big questions to take quantitative data on what is Popper, though it might not be what about the universe and so on. So, happening around us, and once we Popper actually said. Then, we can that’s why I would like to get your have quantitative data, you come up discuss what is your real response input on what we think the de nition with a theory that tries to explain is on this de nition. Is that the right of science is in a traditional sense and those data. thing to talk about? what kind of other thinking is going Once you have a theory that is Gabriel: Why not? That makes sense. on in the philosophy of science in the successful enough to explain all Murayama: So, rst of all, we are past and what your take is on this the data you’ve got, then you start scientists and we have been taught question. So, that’s one thing we can making further predictions out of the in a speci c way what science is talk about. theory and then confront new set of about, how it should be conducted, Nomura: In fact, Hitoshi, do you and data to see if those predictions will and sometimes we nd it very me completely agree? Maybe not. agree with the new set of data, and if constraining. That sort of the narrow Murayama: Yeah, we’ll see. they don’t, you say“, Aha, I falsify this de nition, which we normally Gabriel: Maybe both of you try to just theory,” and this is the process, which state what you think science is, and we were taught, I thought by Popper, ＊1 On June 11, 2018, Markus Gabriel gave a then I map this onto a philosophical as the de nition of science. talk entitled“ Science and Metaphysics” at conceptual space. Now, if it does succeed to explain Kavli IPMU and IRCN joint seminar held at the Faculty of Medicine Experimental Research Murayama: Okay. Here is, I think, the new set of data, then you say, Bldg., on the University of Tokyo’s Hongo what I was taught in elementary “Okay, my theory is consistent with campus. This round table discussion was held after the joint seminar. school what science is about. The data.” I would never say my theory
12 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019 is true. Then, you repeat the process Anyway, I think the basic attitude years. until you hit the point that is again of science is always like that. We Nomura: I totally agree with the basic falsi ed. Then, you change your don’t care any language issues, as attitude, but the question is that of theory and then try to, again, address long as we understand what we are time scale. This is, for example, an all the data we have explained before talking about. In this case I don’t care origin of the statement that string to see if that success is still retained, if you say the theory is true or wrong. theory is not science. I do not agree and if it is, then you make further The fact is only that the theory that the de nition of science includes prediction and then start taking applies in a certain regime in the condition that all these cycles data again and compare that to the certain precision. In some extreme must be completed within a certain data to see the theory is still right or cases, however, it may become time. Falsi ability we talk about wrong. Again, you never say it’s right obvious that the theory is simply an should not be like this. Whether even if it is consistent with the data. approximation of another theory̶ a theory is science or not should You only say it’s wrong if it does not in the case of Newtonian dynamics be determined if it is in principle explain the data, and then you try the special relativity̶and then we falsi able̶especially if the theory to expand the theory further. This is must consider this new theory if we has a reasonable chance to be“ true” the process we are taught of what want to describe these cases. To me, ̶though we should of course keep science is about. this way of thinking is one way to trying to see if there are predictions Nomura: I think that’s agreeable. de ne science. In this sense, science that can be tested in shorter time I think no scientist can say that“ I is very operational. Having said that, scales. disagree.” the de nition of science, at least Gabriel: That indeed seems to be a Murayama: Okay. Maybe some twist? natural science, also includes the deep disagreement, and that’s very Nomura: Yeah, small ones. One process of trying to explain the same interesting but it’s a difference. thing is that you said we never say set of data by the smallest number of Nomura: Yeah, the difference is even something is true. Indeed, people assumptions. In fact, this last point is among scientists. sometimes make a statement like important because otherwise you can Of course, if someone says that “Newtonian Dynamics is wrong” just list all the data to describe Nature I don’t want to invest my time for because of the fact that the and call the list a“ theory.” something whose con rmation time real dynamics is, at least, special Murayama: That’s right. You can have scale could be 100 years, that’s ne. relativity. I think such a statement is one theory for every single data. It’s their decision, and I don’t have any misleading. Of course, this is a kind Nomura: Yes, that is the worst form objection. But I strongly disagree with of language issue and in scientist’s of“ theory.” Then you try to minimize the statement that people working approach, it doesn’t matter. I mean, the number of assumptions from on things that might take long time we don’t care if someone wants there, and then your theory will to con rm are not scientists, the to say that Newtonian dynamics is have an explanatory power. Such statement that some people actually wrong because of special relativity, a theory usually makes predictions, make. The statement is, in fact, or if someone says that Newtonian namely it does not only reproduce dangerous because no one really mechanics is true because it explains what you already observed but also knows future technical advancement phenomena very well in a certain something else̶as Hitoshi said; I’m and also some other predictions may regime. The fact is that you must rst just repeating it here̶and then you be found which can be con rmed at de ne the word“ true.” We can use do experiments and con rm these a shorter time scale. this word to mean“ contemporary predictions. Murayama: As you know, I truth,” and then Newtonian dynamics A problem is that some people sometimes made such a criticism Round was certainly true, at least in the have gone too far. They say that only myself but that was not about string Table 19th century. Similarly, we can use if all these processes are completed, theory itself but more about the the word to mean“ true in a certain say within the time scale of 10 or 20 people who were doing it because regime for all practical purposes.” In years, then the theory can be called they have the attitude that they don’t this sense Newtonian dynamics is still science. need to bother making predictions true now. Murayama: Hopefully, within 10 or test them, and that’s the attitude I
13 was deadly against because then that’s complicated. At this point we are mind of an immaterial demon, this not a scienti c attitude. It’s not the not precisely de ning science in such hypothesis would easily explain all same thing as calling string theory a way that Markus can comment the data. However, there are in nitely not science but rather calling certain precisely, but this may be the nature many other hypotheses which explain attitude of people doing string theory of the issue̶I mean, it may have a all the data in one fell swoop. nonscienti c. I made that distinction. lot of aspects like Hitoshi mentioned. Nomura: Yeah, and this is the theory Nomura: Okay, good. Then I might And some of these aspects are no one can… have misunderstood you at some different from what we were talking Gabriel: It’s a very simple theory. It’s point. But I would still say that even about when we discussed falsi ability extremely elegant. It’s very universal. things people whom you criticize etc. But anyway, listening to all these But there must be a little bit more are doing are not worthless efforts things what would you say? action here because there are some as human’s activity̶it is, at least, non-falsi able things that are kosher. mathematics. In general, I believe What Science is–Philosopher’s For instance, if I’m conscious and I we must be extremely careful in View think I’m conscious, then that is not dismissing others or what others are Gabriel: I think that you are falsi able. To be conscious and to doing. highlighting an important part of think that one is conscious means Murayama: Another thing about̶ the scienti c activity. So clearly, that one is right. Not everything that I think what we are taught not in there is a success criterion as well as is not falsi able is problematic and sort of the textbook way but on the an overall legitimacy criterion. The unscienti c. Otherwise, we could not way we are doing research̶is about overall legitimacy criterion is what formulate the criterion of falsi ability the quality of theory, namely, that you call falsi ability in principle or itself. we highly value theories, which are testability in principle, right? Science So, I can be wrong about the state more universally applicable, a broader proceeds by making claims about that I am in. I can be wrong about range of applicability. the universe that can be tested. If we the neural support of consciousness, We value theories that look more assert something that is in principle, but not about the fact that I am beautiful and, of course, we can’t or in virtue of the meaning of the conscious right now. Being aware and really de ne what we mean by terms employed in the statement, being aware of being aware are the beautiful, but there is some aesthetic beyond the reach of any instrument same thing, so there is no falsi ability sense of it, and we also value theories we use for measurements, we simply gap, but that is alright. Therefore not that are useful, and in the case of make no statement at all about the everything which exists is the object string theory, it had not been veri ed universe. of a falsi able investigation. experimentally in a way we normally Nomura“: God exists” is a good Nomura: Okay, there may be speak of but has been incredibly example. something more here. useful in spawning new ideas and Gabriel: There are other things too, Murayama: But when you talk to me, that also created a new connection such as“ life is a dream.” The idea if I respond, then you can tell I am to mathematics and so on. that reality might not be at all what conscious. So academically, there was a very it seems to us is also not a scienti c Gabriel: Yes. Exactly! That can be fruitful ground to conduct research. hypothesis, as science minimally wrong. That’s another quality we value. So, relies on the availability of data. If Murayama: That is the external test. in addition to this narrow de nition data were not even data, we could Gabriel: Yes, that’s the external test. of science we were taught, there are not proceed scienti cally to establish There is an external test and it’s also these additional qualities. Somehow anything. very important that this fact about we got sort of engrained why we If I tell you that life is a dream, consciousness, which I mentioned, is actually keep doing research and there is of course a testable grounded in the brain. If there were what we aim for, and that’s a dif cult hypothesis available too: how long is no relations between consciousness aspect we can de ne in terms of the dream and so on. If I then reply and the brain, we should conclude what is science. that life might be something even that there is something wrong with Nomura: Yeah, this may be crazier, such as a nightmare in the thinking that we are conscious
14 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019 because then we would have talk. You, as a philosopher, in your talk – yeah. something that is not falsi able thought about this, but I was also Gabriel: I don’t think of truth as and not grounded in anything thinking something like that, like representational, so I don’t think that that is falsi able. Hence, there is a underdetermination. truth is a relation between a theory deeper relation between existence Gabriel: That is what we call and reality or a statement and a fact. and falsi ability, maybe even a very underdetermination… I think of a truth as just a fact. deep one. So, that’s the in-principle Nomura: For example, Hitoshi said Murayama: Okay, so that’s something criterion. I think that’s kind of ne. that“ I am conscious̶you must that exists. However, I will be careful as a know I am conscious, right?” But I Gabriel: Yes. Exactly! philosopher and let’s see how this don’t know! Why? Because I don’t Murayama: Whatever the de nition. maps onto science. Scientists are very have his consciousness. I don’t really Gabriel: Yes, exactly. That’s how I used to thinking of the in-principle know. think about a truth. For instance, criterion and the success criterion. Murayama: But you have seen my when I say it’s a truth that I’m here The one is dynamic, the other one function. I responded to your function and stuff like that, or it’s a truth that is more static. There is the dynamic … there are more than two people in side of theory change, the activity of Nomura: Oh, yeah, but that may this room, with everything“ ( people”, adjusting to incoming data and then only be a function, right? I could say “room”,“ in”, etc.) well de ned… changing the model where necessary, that only I am conscious and what Nomura: Yeah, you have to de ne and then there is a more general I see as Hitoshi is just a function. what the people and so on. criterion, the demarcation problem However, because similar responses Gabriel: Sure. But here’s a view that, as we call it in philosophy of science: are obtained from Hitoshi as those I think, cannot be correct. A view falsi ability as an answer to the from myself, the simplest assumption according to which once all the terms question what makes an investigation is that these two are both conscious. are well de ned, there is never a fact. a part of science. In fact, this is exactly how science That can’t be true, right? Because Nomura: Such in-principle falsi ability goes. Namely, although I cannot once your terms are well de ned, is, at least, necessary. exclude the possibility that only I either things are as presented or not. Gabriel: Yeah, necessary. Not am conscious and you’re like, for So, imagine I tell you exactly what suf cient. example, demons, … I mean by an elementary particle, Nomura: …to eliminate theories like Gabriel: Or everyone is zombie... which is hard enough but okay, then “God exists”… Nomura: … I cannot exclude such a there is going to be an answer to the Gabriel: Yeah, stuff like that. possibility, but I don’t need to think question whether in a well-delineated Nomura: …or like“ Fossils of dinosaurs about it in doing science. Making space-time region, there is an even or were made by UFO”. this kind of“ assumptions” is a very odd number of certain molecules, say. Gabriel: The demon stuff, yeah, stuff fundamental part of the“ de nition” Let’s take an even simpler question. like that, like demons. of science, which you probably agree. I mean that’s hard but I’ll make it Nomura: Yes, your demon is a good Gabriel: No doubt. But here’s simpler. Let’s take a random arm of example too. something where I would introduce the milky way, de ne a precise time Gabriel: There are in nitely many maybe a more cautionary way of slot for it, and now there is either an such examples. speaking and then let’s see what even or odd number of stars in that you have to say about this because part of the milky way. Discussion about we got into a discussion about. So, I Nomura: After you de ne the star. Underdetermination would stick to a picture where there Gabriel: We assume that we fully Round Nomura: Yeah. Using the falsi ability really are“ facts”. Now, here’s why. settled the meaning of“ star” on the Table criterion more than that, however, is Murayama: So, the“ fact” is the same basis of astrophysics. dangerous, which some people are thing as“ truth”? Murayama: Which is hard to answer doing and I’m against. I also want to Gabriel: Yes. Let me de ne this a bit but anyway. talk about your“ underdetermination” more. Gabriel: It’s super hard. which you mentioned in your Nomura: Yes, what you talked about Nomura: Practically. We’re not talking
15 about a practical issue… we can solve it by the concept of for scientists to reach this conclusion, Gabriel: No. Some of those might be information ampli cation in many or con rm Markus’s view, is to try impossible to answer, even when well worlds̶by the way, this information to build a theory including external de ned. ampli cation has potentially very observers and keep failing it. This Nomura: Do you think so? This is interesting implications for where is the only way science can“ reach” indeed a big question. It is exactly consciousness is, which we can there. related to your theme, totality etc., talk about later̶but to actually Murayama: That’s right. I agree with namely whether there is something implement it we always assume the that. that is not answerable in principle. existence of an external object that Gabriel: Yes. I agree with that too Gabriel: Exactly. I have to think about is observing the system. In classical and I think that this is why this model that. Maybe for no good reason, but mechanics, this is not too much of that I give, of the no-totality view, my bet is that there would be. a problem because you can de ne might be a very good description Take black holes, you had said very everything precisely, for example as a of what science is doing because interesting things about black holes kind of computer simulation, but in science at most is reaching for totality yesterday,＊2 anyhow some regions quantum mechanics the existence of asymptotically, and it keeps failing in of the universe, meaning the object an“ external thing” making some sort that respect but in very speci c ways. under investigation by physics, are of observation is deeply ingrained in Science as an epistemic virtue is such that it might indeed be the its formulation. the degree of distance between an case that there are properties in So, quantum mechanics applies impossible ideal and its capacity to that region that we can never gure to a subsystem̶everybody agrees nevertheless approach it, so science out because, for instance black that it works perfectly then̶but is, if you like, searching for the holes, given that they suck all the what scientists really wanted is to biggest natural number. Well, there is information in and none comes out, nd a framework which includes no such thing. You will never nd it, and if it’s true, which is questionable external observers, namely“ full right? But nevertheless, as it does so, ̶you made very interesting points things” including such observers. it nds always more numbers. It adds about that in your talk̶but if it’s true But your philosophy says that such and adds, so it’s a very successful then physics cannot know anything a framework might not exist. The operation, even though it de nes a about the region of the universe theory might be consistent without limit that cannot be reached by the where no information comes out. it. I think this is quite possible. Maybe nature of that limit. Then clearly there are physical facts physics can do in principle is only to Nomura: This analogy is interesting. that physics cannot discover. talk about subsystems. But I want to be a little more careful While I think it quite possible, usual about my view. If the world were Quantum Mechanics and scientists don’t think that way, which classical, then I think I might have Philosophy Seem to Have is striking. Having said that, I would totally opposed to your thought. Interesting Relation say that the only way scientists can Gabriel: Yeah, of course we can come Nomura: Then, such objects should reach that conclusion, if we could to it, right. simply not be included, even in the reach, is asymptotic. In fact, this is Nomura: So, it is very interesting that list of things to describe. quite a general phenomenon. A quantum mechanics, which looks But the issue, in fact, is even “proof” of a theory in natural like a very physics thing and is not a deeper. Here is the view I always science does not go like that in theory of philosophy per se, seems have had. An important problem mathematics. You just have to keep important. Quantum mechanics is in quantum mechanics is that of increasing your con dence about the really affecting how I think about a measurement. Usually we think theory, in some sense by lowering the the nature. Because of quantum con dence for alternatives. mechanics, I feel that what Markus ＊2 On June 10, 2018, Y.N. spoke on“ Beyond Murayama: …empirical science… says might be true, although I the Universe” and Gabriel on“ Universe, World, and Reality” at a public lecture hosted Nomura: Yeah. certainly can’t be conclusive. by Kavli IPMU. There was also a dialogue Gabriel: That’s why it is empirical. Murayama: Can you elaborate on between the two lecturers; see Kavli IPMU News No. 42, p. 19. Nomura: Yes, that’s why the only way that?
16 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019 Nomura: Okay. Although I still think that even a quantum world might ultimately be described internally, at least the issue is there. In the Copenhagen way of thinking, for example, to test a prediction you have to make a measurement. Usually you just say that such a measurement is described by decoherence.＊3 Suppose you have a quantum state which is an equal superposition of spin up and spin down, and you interact with it. The initial state is then the product of you not knowing the spin state times the spin up plus down, and after you interact with the spin, the state becomes a superposition of you might say that the measurement Where Is Consciousness? “spin up and you think the spin is was done in the x direction, rather up” and“ spin down and you think than in the z direction.＊4 A standard Nomura: But it is still true that things the spin is down.” Then you may answer to this question of what become classical only after some write down the result on a piece of measurement you made is that it is ampli cations. And, since our thinking paper, which further ampli es the determined through a succession up/down information, and so on. But ̶not just a single interaction̶of ＊3 at which point did you really make a processes: for example, I also write process in which quantum coherence of a state̶the origin of strange quantum measurement? To elucidate the issue, down the result in a note, somebody behaviors̶is lost from the system due to its suppose we have only two degrees reads it, and so on. Namely, the interactions with environment. This makes the system appear classical. of freedom, a spin and me. Let us, for measured information is the ＊4 simplicity, refer to my mental state information that is ampli ed in the In quantum mechanics, a spin can take only two independent states, which one can nding spin up as A and my mental sense that many people can share it. take to be "up" and "down." These are the state nding down as B. Then you Incidentally, you cannot share states which, when the z-component of the angular momentum is measured, give de nite could say that the state after the the entire information about a answers: +1/2 and -1/2 in certain units. An interaction is̶this is nothing other subsystem because of the no-cloning intriguing thing is that the states which give de nite answers when the x-component is ＊5 than von Neumann measurement theorem of quantum mechanics. measurement are given by "superpositions" ̶equal to“ up A” plus“ down B,” Only an exponentially small amount of these two states: (up plus down) and (up minus down), giving the x-component to be and you may think that you have of information can be shared by 1/2 and -1/2, respectively.
measured spin up or down. This is multiple entities, and if this sharing ＊5 In quantum mechanics, full information wrong. happens you say that the information contained in a quantum state cannot be Murayama: Yeah, because it can still is classicalized. But at what point copied faithfully. This results from the fact that any operation in quantum mechanics be either way. does this really occur? Maybe you acts linearly. Suppose there is a copy machine Nomura: No. Not in that sense. always need some external entity, that converts a spin up into two up's̶ which we write as (up)^2̶and a down into Murayama: Oh, not in that sense? or a suf ciently large amount of (down)^2. Now, imagine that we send a Round Nomura: No, the conclusion is more ampli cation may be enough to claim superposition state (up + down) into this copy machine. Since the action of the machine Table fundamentally wrong because you that things are classicalized. In the must be linear, this produces the state (up^2 can write down exactly the same latter case we don’t need to go as + down^2), which is not a copy of the original state, (up + down)^2, since the information state as“ (up + down) times (A + far as no-totality, but we don’t really about interference terms is dropped. This B)” plus“ (up – down) times (A – B)” know. obstruction for duplicating information does not occur in classical mechanics, which does , since the cross terms cancel. Then not have the concept of a superposition.
17 is probably classical̶we are not Tokyo is a city. I’ll give you another because in quantum mechanics, to having a“ superposition thinking”̶ thought“. Tenno” is the Japanese specify the state of the world, you the question of where consciousness word for emperor. So, that’s a really have to give a quantum state. is might be answered only after thought. Now if you agree and I And the state is a global concept̶ such ampli cation, and in this sense agree, is there something to which you have to know everything about consciousness may involve something we both agree? the system in principle. outside a brain because the brain is I would say yes and philosophers In this context, the relevant interacting with a lot of things. This is call̶in a certain tradition, which question is why we can admit an what I meant to say in passing earlier. I think is right; the mathematician, approximately classical treatment of Gabriel: I’m very happy with what Gottlob Frege introduced this nature, not̶unlike sometimes posed you’re saying. notion̶he called that to which we ̶why quantum mechanics admits Nomura: Things become classical both agree a thought and Frege nonlocal phenomena, such as an EPR only after information ampli cation, distinguishes between a thought and pair.＊6 The nonlocal nature of a state but how much ampli cation you thinking. I can think that thought and is intrinsic in quantum mechanics. need? This may be a quantitative you can think the thought, and we Nevertheless, you can predict what question associated, for example, with both think the same thought. So, the happens if I just dropped this phone how stable the information needs thought is not in my head. Otherwise, which I have in my hand without to become. But it is certainly true we couldn’t be thinking the same knowing what’s happening in that ampli cation occurs through thought. The thought is not in my Andromeda, despite the fact that interactions, so that your brain state head, only the activity of thinking it the quantum state must include is copied to photons in some form, is. everything in the world… and so on. So, where the information, Nomura: By the way, the concept So, your information and my namely consciousness, actually is? you are talking about applies only in information, those are shared̶ Gabriel: What you’re describing could classical physics. This is because you minute you say something like be a legitimate version of the age- are assuming that information can be those, you are already separating old assumption that consciousness duplicated. In quantum mechanics, your quantum state into pieces and has something to do with quantum the full information cannot be copied. entering into a classical regime. So, mechanics. But it might not be There is a very simple reason for that how does such classicality emerge? consciousness; it might be thought. ̶the principle of linearity.＊5 I don’t know whether this is a The mental state I am in as a theorist Gabriel: Interesting. philosophical question, but it is very right now leads to classicalization. Nomura: So, you cannot have an interesting. It turns something into classical exact copy machine in quantum ampli cation. So the operation that mechanics. This is why our world Riddle of the Unity of the you’re describing, which is obviously classicalizes because a de nition of Proposition related to the measure ment problem being classical is that we can share Gabriel: I think it is a very and so on, that operation could be the information exactly and… philosophical question that is essentially tied to thought. Gabriel: Yes, exactly. Once we share amenable to a scienti c treatment. It Murayama: Can you again de ne the information, we are on the classical is, in a certain sense, the philosophical difference between consciousness level. We have to be. Thought is question because it’s a question of and thought? classical. how thought emerges in a non- Gabriel: Okay, so here’s what I mean. Nomura: Yes, a classical thing. But our thinking environment. Only parts of I’ll give you a notion of thought with world is quantum mechanical, deep which I’m working here. We can both down. So, the notion you are talking ＊6 In quantum mechanics, one can consider think the same thought. For instance, about must become something very a quantum state in which two objects, e.g., Tokyo is a city. I tell you what I mean interesting at the fundamental level. spins, are correlated in such a way that the state of each object cannot be described by city. I tell you what I mean by Perhaps even a concept like two independently of that of the other. This Tokyo and so forth. We can then share the same thought might not phenomenon is called entanglement, and the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) pair is a speci c think the same thing, namely that b e precisely de ned at such level form of entanglement between two objects.
18 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019 the universe think. there in this room, so the bottle is the bottle is on the table. You process What if we have a picture where on the table. Alright? Now, on my the thought in the way in which your reality, indeed, is what we are de nition of thought, that the bottle organism does it for you and I do it thinking about, so the thought has is on the table is the thought that the for me and let’s call that thinking. So, a physical trace, a signature in the bottle is on the table. the activity of processing a thought universe? If we can assign a physically Murayama: Say that again. is thinking. What I am thinking is kosher signature to a thought, then Nomura: Yeah, right. To understand it the thought, but what I am thinking we cross the gap between thinking better… when I am thinking that thought is and reality because now we can Gabriel: On my de nition of thought, really the bottle on the table. understand how what we are doing okay, here is what the thought is. The Murayama: So, you’re saying that this when we are thinking is grasping bottle on the table̶the thought that object is the thought. a thought because we know much the bottle is on the table is not in my Gabriel: Indeed. more about what we do when we mind. It is here. What you perceive Murayama: Okay. are thinking in the brain and what is both a bottle on the table, and Gabriel: This is what philosophers call must happen on the object side the thought that the bottle is on the a fact. when reality stabilizes or classicalizes table. There are not two things in Nomura: Okay, but I didn’t get what into a thought. reality, but an inseparable unity of is the puzzle… This might be related to a really information and object. Gabriel: I said something which I famous riddle. It is called the Riddle Murayama: Okay. hope is true, right? So, it doesn’t yet of the Unity of the Proposition.＊7 This Gabriel: So, there is something in my come with a puzzle. But here is a is not solved. A student of mine just mind right now. I see the bottle from problem now. Can thoughts be false? wrote a brilliant thesis about it, but here. You see it from there, but we Can there be negative facts? it does not amount to a complete both see the same thing, the bottle Murayama: Can thoughts be false? solution. It’s brilliant but it doesn’t on the table. Hitoshi, you see it from Gabriel: Yes“; Can there be negative work. The other reviewer said there, I see it from here, and Yasunori, facts?” So, imagine there are no we could still give him Ph.D. as he you see it from there, but there is negative facts. Here is a positive fact thought the issue through̶that’s one fact: the bottle on the table. ̶the bottle is on the table. Now, is what we do in philosophy̶and he That’s why it is fair to say that once I there a negative fact here too, for indeed got the best grade because de ne all of my terms precisely… instance, the fact that there is no pig the solution was brilliant. But it can’t Nomura: You have become a on the table? be the whole story. scientist! Nomura: Negative fact means… that Here is the problem of the Unity of Gabriel: Philosophers are scientists there is no pig on the table? the Proposition. There must indeed too, you know… Murayama: It’s a fact. be an answer that physics can give. Nomura: It’s a bit nasty to talk about Nomura: Yeah, that is a fact. Bertrand Russell kind of discovered making everything precise every time, Gabriel: Yeah, but is the fact this problem, but it is in fact older̶it but… negative? The fact that there is a had already been discussed in Plato. Gabriel: Not nasty, …de ning things table entails that there is no pig Imagine that I think a certain thought is very important. Anyway, imagine exactly where the table is. Is reality such as that the dog is on the mat. If we completely de ne our concepts at composed of positive and negative I think that the dog is on the mat̶or the highest level̶namely giving you facts? let’s take something that is actually the highest, the most ne-grained Nomura: It seems that there is only scienti c account of what I mean… a fact that molecules, or particles or Round ＊7 Nomura: Okay. That is not the point whatever, are con gured in a certain The unity of the proposition is the problem Table of explaining how a sentence expresses here anyway. way… more than just what a list of proper names Gabriel: You know, we really x the Gabriel: For sure, molecules are expresses and how a sentence comes to be true or false? For example, if“ Socrates is meaning of bottle, table, etc. involved in facts, and those facts are wise” consists of just a name for Socrates, and Nomura: Okay. not negative. But now the pro blem is a name for the universal concept of Wisdom, how could the sentence be true or false? Gabriel: Now we have the thought this. Suppose no fact is ever negative,
19 and there are just more positive facts. mind) corresponds to what’s there on con dent that I am making a mistake… Then, imagine that I change the facts. the table. That is the correspondence Gabriel: Yeah, but here’s the problem. Currently, the facts are such that theory of truth. Now, you have it. Murayama: Yeah, then you can never there is a bottle. Now, I change them. say you made a mistake. By this, I didn’t create a negative How Truth/Falsity Is De ned in a Gabriel: Yes, you can never say that fact. There is just a new fact, not a Quantum Mechanical World? you either made a mistake or that negative fact. Nomura: Yeah. I am saying something you got it right. Murayama: Yeah. That is a new fact. like that, but not quite. A mistake in Nomura: But I think this logic is still Nomura: Of course, you could de ne my theory is de ned only statistically. true nevertheless because… it as a negative fact, but that would At least in a quantum mechanical Murayama: What do you think is just be a convention… world, you always have to think true then? Gabriel: The question is: If there are about things in terms of a con dence Gabriel: Now, Yasunori, what you no negative facts, then how can I level or something like that. Suppose said seems to imply that there is no make a mistake in thinking? Imagine that̶I also gave you this example falsi ability either. Because if there I think something. I think a thought. earlier＊8 ̶suppose that the mass is no absolute truth, then there is I process reality. How can I make of a particle called the Z Boson is, no absolute falsity. You can also not a mistake if there are no negative let’s say for simplicity, 90 GeV. That falsify a theory. facts? Then, reality would be coming corresponds to the existence of a Nomura: I agree. in all the time and that’s it. Facts will peak at 90 GeV in some spectrum Gabriel: Agree? be coming in. How do we explain ̶with the existence of such a peak, Nomura: Yes, I agree. the subjectivity, i.e. fallibility, of our we usually say that the mass of the Gabriel: …then you can stop using a relationship with reality? particle is 90 GeV. But, maybe the theory… Nomura: I would say the following. “true value” is 80 GeV. Since in Nomura: I mean, I’m saying that For example, despite the fact that quantum mechanics everything is falsi ability must also be a statistical the bottle is here̶in the sense that statistical, a rare coincidence may statement exactly as the statement“ I Hitoshi has a thought that the bottle have happened that the result of an am making a mistake” in the previous is here on the table and you also experiment is pretending that the example is a statistical statement. share the thought that the bottle is mass is 90 despite the fact that the Likewise“, the mass of the Z Boson is on the table, and everybody shares true value is 80. You might still say 90 GeV” is also a statistical statement, the same thought̶despite that, if I that“ it can’t be the case because at least in a quantum mechanical am having a thought that there is no other experiments also found world, and practically even in a bottle, then that can be taken as a 90.” But the result of this other classical world, I think. de nition of mistake. experiment may also be a statistical Murayama: That is the standard way Gabriel: Yes, that would be a mistake. uke. If you think in this way, you of approaching quantum… But now that mistake is a relation can’t do anything. Nomura: Yes, I think so. between something that’s going on So, when we do science, we are Gabriel: That’s true. in you and something that’s here on always using, at least implicitly, Nomura: Indeed, things are always the table, right? And now you see the concept of typicality, and we like that. Any criterion, such as true if that’s your theory, you see you temporarily view a thing as a truth or false, is in fact almost always have the correspondence theory of if it is highly con dent in this sense. continuously connected, and so truth. Because now you’re saying that So, if we had 100 people seeing the you must cut somewhere. And your you have a theory of mistakes, and bottle here on the table and I am example̶a bottle on the table̶is you make a mistake if what’s here the only person who does not see not an exception. This is important. doesn’t correspond to what’s there. or measure it, then it would give a
And correspondingly, now you can higher con dence that I am making ＊8 After M.G.’s seminar, there was a panel de ne what happens when you don’t a mistake. And if you have thousand discussion by three panelists including M.G. make a mistake. If you don’t make people seeing it and I am still saying and Y.N., where the example discussed here was talked about prior to this round table a mistake, then what’s here (in my it’s not there, then it becomes more discussion.
20 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019 I claim we must always think in this of all elementary particles, which right? So, there has to be middle way at the fundamental level. contains all the information. Almost ground level, where the dynamics Gabriel: Always, and there is no xed all the concepts we are talking simply can’t stop. Right? But this is number. about are implicitly and intrinsically not driven by inductive data sampling. Nomura: Yes, exactly. approximate, like arti cially dividing Nomura: As I emphasized, always Gabriel: You work as you go and a continuous thing, and this division you are using statistical inference to then all these contextual parameters must even be statistical, at least in reduce the number of assumptions, are coming in. a quantum world. In fact, we might namely getting a better theory. Nomura: Exactly! even be able to turn the argument For example, suppose your theory Gabriel: You work as you go. You around and say that this is the reason predicts that all ravens are black, but cannot give a calculus for it. If there why the fundamental law of physics you observe a white one. Then you is no absolute certainty, there is no takes the form which quantum usually say that you falsify the theory, falsi ability either! mechanics does… and that’s okay. But in principle, you Nomura: I’m very sympathetic to that. Gabriel: So, what’s really going on is a cannot exclude the possibility that Murayama: Yes, that contextual part certain̶if you like, within thinking̶ you instantly became achromatopsia, is really true in a sociological sense uctuation, a probability uctuation so that you couldn’t process the in physics community. If you claim to at the level of thinking too, right? color correctly, and then got back have discovered new particle, like the There are certain points of the wave to normal. You cannot exclude this Higgs Boson, the stake is so high that and they are relative to contextual exactly, so we are implicitly assuming it requires 99.9997%. parameters themselves and then we that such a thing occurs only with an Gabriel: Exactly! You raise the stake. say, okay, we call this falsi cation, extremely small probability, implying Murayama: But when you say that and this con rming evidence, and this that your theory is excluded at a very, somebody is handing you a theory, data. But you see this is very different very high con dence. Like this, we are there should be a new particle, from Popper’s picture of falsi cation always using statistics. nobody really cares. You take because the falsi cation picture is Gabriel: Some version of so-called the data. You have excluded the one which worked like the following: holism is probably correct here. Quine hypothesis. Then, even at the level all ravens are black and then you nd proposed to think of physical theory of 90% con dence level, you would a white one and it’s like, damn, I was as a web of beliefs whose end points take that as a fact̶“Okay it didn’t wrong. So, you take this back. are measurements. We are in touch exist.” That was the model, where really with the universe, but we extend our Nomura: Yes, that’s sociological but the falsi cation picture presupposes belief system with the help of physics. interesting… that there are facts and either you Science is not just a collection of Murayama: Yeah, that’s the de nition get them or you don’t, and Popper sensory data and inductive claims. you mentioned. just said that you never get all Murayama: Does it need to be really Gabriel: You see, this shows, in a the facts. You always get a partial human sensory system or it can be certain sense, that the falsi ability glimpse and the more facts come extended by instruments? criterion also fails. in, maybe some discon rming facts Gabriel: Yes, it can be extended Nomura: In the exact sense. come in too and that’s it. So, Popper by instruments and thus by Gabriel: Yeah, in the exact sense. would say that science goes like this. measurements. Murayama: Because it’s not 100%. All ravens are black. False, there is a Murayama: Okay. That’s good. Nomura: Yeah. I think the case of a white raven, and then it’s like“ damn, Nomura: This is precisely why the dolphin is also the same̶I mean, if forget about the black ravens.” What issue is interesting. In a classical Round we trace the motion of all the atoms do I know about ravens? That’s the world, the probabilistic nature in Table by, e.g., a very strong computer, conclusion. Then, I’m not interested in these processes is usually attributed then we don’t necessarily have to ravens anymore. to incomplete knowledge, namely introduce the concept of dolphin, Murayama: That’s a really sad you don’t know enough with human, or anything like that, since de nition of science. precision. we just have to follow the motion Gabriel: Yeah. That’s not what it is, Murayama: Like a weather fore cast.
21 Nomura: Yeah. But if you know cat is so aptly chosen. It’s an animal. solutions to it̶but here is the one perfectly the location and velocity That’s why we are like“ okay, is it I really like. A recent one by a friend of all the elementary particles and dead or alive?” So for that it matters of mine, Sebastian Rödl, a German have a hyper-strong computer, then for animals to be dead or alive, so philosopher, he says the liar paradox we don’t need to introduce such a maybe we are the kinds of systems is just nonsense. There is no paradox. probabilistic nature… that as thinkers… Here is how. Gabriel: Yeah, then it will be ne. Nomura: I’m sympathetic. In fact, So, imagine I look at you and I just in one of the papers＊9 I even utter the words“ I told you,” and now said something like that. The you ask me“ What? What did you tell Discussing Consciousness Again classicalization relevant here may me?” Out of the blue, it’s like“ I told Nomura: But quantum mechanics just be information ampli cation̶ you” and you look at me“ what?” says that this is not the case. that’s the possibility I discussed. I’m and it’s like“ well just that. I told Probability seems to be much more not pushing consciousness is very you!” Now“, what did you tell me?” is fundamental. But then this brings us important and necessary. a good question, right? So, I’m not to the issue of consciousness. You Gabriel: No. It’s not consciousness. saying anything if I just claim“ I told could say“ Oh wait, you say that We are not talking about you.” I can’t tell you it without saying probabilities are the only thing that consciousness. what it is. So, the liar paradox just can physically exist, but I exist in a Nomura: Maybe yes, but I’m not a doesn’t specify truth conditions. It speci c place in speci c time.” This proponent of that. contains a statement apparently may require something like going Gabriel: But that’s really not the saying about itself that it is false back to consciousness̶do I have proposal here. It’s really a much more without specifying what“ it” is. to introduce consciousness in the objective proposal, nothing having to Nomura: Yeah, that is interesting. But, de nition of physical law? I doubt, do with“ subjective consciousness”. is this something you have to“ solve”? but I don’t have a de nite conclusion. Murayama: So how does thinking I thought that when Gödel proposed Gabriel: But here is how you could and thought work, to address this it, he meant to show that there is maybe map decoherence＊3 onto question? an intrinsic limitation in Boolean that picture, so not do it with Gabriel: Okay. So here is the picture. yes or no logic, and not presented consciousness but do it with thought. A thought can be true or false. as a paradox. This is just a feature So, what if a measurement̶in the Determinately it has two states, A or of Boolean logic, that it cannot be sense of the measurement problem̶ B, on/off. That’s why you can translate complete. takes place once I stabilize a thought thoughts into information. Gabriel: Yeah. That’s one way of environment, so it’s not internal. Murayama: Okay. So, that is classical. dealing with it or you can say accept, Consciousness is typically seen as Gabriel: That’s classical. I think for instance, dialetheism, which is an something very private, intimate, thought is classical. interesting logical view. According right? I can’t see your consciousness. to this view, you can say that the liar That’s typically implicit in the concept sentence is both true and false. Liar Paradox of consciousness. Murayama: Both true and false? But if we have this other concept Nomura: Yeah, but because you are Nomura: Yeah. You are just saying of thinking, then maybe that could referring to“ A or B”- or“ Yes or No” that Boolean is not enough̶you do it, where thinking is putting me as -type statement often, I would raise a measurement system̶the whole this. What do you think about“ I am a ＊9 Y. Nomura“, Quantum mechanics, ＊10 animal that I am̶putting me in liar”-type situation? spacetime locality, and gravity,” Found. Phys. touch with my environment and my Gabriel: Oh, yeah. So, well, I think 43 (2013) 978, arXiv:1110.4630 [hep-th]. environment now, the environment that can be solved because the liar ＊10“ I am a liar”: if he is correct (TRUE), then he of an animal, is going to be classical. paradox is the following proposition. is a liar (FALSE); if what he is saying is wrong (FALSE) then he is not a liar (TRUE). (Perhaps, a Otherwise, the animal couldn’t L: L is false. So, this is how you better sentence was“ This sentence is survive. The animal doesn’t jump over formalize it. It’s simple. Now, an false.”) Y.N. raised this as a possible example for something that cannot be answered probabilities. That’s why Schrödinger’s interesting solution̶there are many simply by Yes or No.
22 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019 have to extend it. Gabriel: Exactly, that can be done. Murayama: That’s along the same line of thinking then. Gabriel: Yes. That can be done. That’s one form of paraconsistent logic. Nomura: Okay. Gabriel: So, no problem. But my solution is even easier. I think that when I say“ I am lying” and I am not telling you anything, then I am not lying. So, that’s why there is no paradox. You need to say something in order to create a paradox. Murayama: But if you say“ I always lie”, then it is a paradox. Gabriel: Now, yeah. Now, it becomes a paradox. Yeah. I always lie. But, then I would say the answer to this is no. If someone tells me“ I always lie” then is related with quantum mechanics, Now, if my arguments are sound, I could say“ no” because what you’ve why quantum mechanics is they provide us with a generalized just said is neither true nor false, so formulated in a way that it applies Gödel scenario. I worked out you don’t always lie. only to subsystems. I’ve always felt a generalized incompleteness That’s why we typically formulate that this may be related with theorem, so wherever you shoot it like this. We abstract from the Gödel’s.＊11 for completeness, you can’t get it. speakers because otherwise you can Gabriel: Yes, I think so too. That’s my argument. It’s very strong just deny that this is a legitimate Murayama: Okay, Yasunori. That’s and general̶so it has to apply to speech act. You can just say“ don’t why you brought this up. quantum mechanics too. speak this way,” right? So, if we Nomura: Yes. I always thought this Nomura: Yes, that’s what I am saying. formalize it, usually we say something way. Gabriel: Yes. Absolutely! like proposition L, so we call the Gabriel: My theory on the Nomura: Wow, it seems we have only sentence L and the sentence L says L fundamental level is a kind of 10 minutes. We had a lot fun, but is false, right? So, now it’s true. generalization of what we know how to assemble all these in the form Nomura: Exactly, so negative from Gödel’s theorems and their of an article? Isn’t it too dif cult? … feedback is always outside the consequences. There are still Boolean logic. problems in Gödel. For instance, if Through an Encounter with Gabriel: Indeed. So, we know that you assign a Gödel number to a Philosophy Science Knows What this indeed causes problems, and I sentence without accounting for the It Is think that this is part of why I think fact that the sentence has meaning, Gabriel: Yeah, we can wrap it up. You there is no totality, even in logical you did not really do the trick. Gödel see, for instance if we tackle this very space because if there were totality needs a theory of semantic meaning speci c issue, which came out now in logical space, the liar would be in before he can prove what he wanted at the end, I mean I clearly formulate Round there too. So, you have to rule out to prove. Gödel doesn’t give you a with my theory something that is Table something, for instance the liar. You theory of meaning. He gives you a have to be justi ed in ruling out the formal system, which prints out a ＊11 A set of two theorems formulated by liar paradox and other paradoxes in string of symbols. If no one is around mathematician Kurt Gödel. They state that every formal axiomatic system capable of order to have a theory at all. to understand them, no proof ever modelling basic arithmetic is“ incomplete,” i.e., Nomura: Interesting. I believe this occurred. has some intrinsic limitations.
23 in principle falsi able, in principle know it is to keep trying and failing. philosophy. testable, then it has consequences for So, in that sense, what we will be Gabriel: It’s a branch of philosophy. our way of doing and understanding doing must be the same anyway, Murayama: I think every scientist quantum mechanics clearly, because but it is always good to have in mind would agree with that. now you have to choose and so the other possibility offered by a big Nomura: Yeah. But it’s not completely you could falsify what I am saying. philosophical thinking, which says well articulated because it’s slightly It’s a high-stakes claim. If you can that failure may not necessarily mean person dependent, I mean at a show that quantum mechanics is a that we are weak but may indicate detailed level. The basic theme complete system, then you would something fundamental̶such a is probably shared by almost all have falsi ed what I am saying. complete framework simply does not scientists, but it’s very interesting to Nomura: At least, in a quantum exist. This is literally where philosophy even study this. mechanical world. and science meet, and it’s fun. Gabriel: Yes, there is no research Gabriel: Yeah, at least. That is Gabriel: Yeah, this is a really fun project on this, right? I mean… something general. question. I think we have now Murayama: One thing I’m sure you Nomura: Because mathematically achieved an understanding of some know that some scientists use the Gödel is an example of your… of the things I say as a philosopher word philosophy in a somewhat Gabriel: Yes, mathematically I’m right and things that actually show up in derogatory fashion. anyhow. physics that we can continue fully Gabriel: I know. Yeah. Nomura: Yeah, because philosophy is articulating. But if we articulate that, Murayama: In a negative way. more general… I think this is a philosophy of science Gabriel: Stephen Hawking and so Gabriel: So, I’m right anyhow. that I have never seen. I doubt that on, philosophy is dead and so on. But (Everyone laughed.) But I have the scienti c hypothesis that we have then they don’t de ne philosophy. So, an additional stronger claim. The formulated and with rami cations Stephen Hawking’s claim“ philosophy hypothesis is that the general view, and consequences for understanding is dead” is maximally unscienti c, the generalized stable view, my of science, knowledge, and reality right? generalized Gödel thing, must have ̶I doubt that anyone has ever Nomura: Because he didn’t de ne… consequences within quantum formulated it. Gabriel“: Philosophy” or“ science” for mechanics too, something I see in Murayama: So, philosophy of science that matter. work by Carlo Rovelli too with whom can be tested experimentally. Murayama: Excluding something he I once discussed this in a public event Gabriel: Yes. That’s the claim. Science didn’t de ne. That’s great. in Marseille. can know what science is if it talks to Gabriel: Yeah. Great! Saying that Nomura: A narrow version of your philosophers. Philosophy of science as philosophy is dead is like, well, I don’t philosophy seems like the claim that it is currently practiced in my view is know what they mean but if they your principle also applies to the a failure. We need to cooperate and mean that Jesus is dead with the physical world. bring actual metaphysics (or rather word philosophy, then it’s true, he Gabriel: Yes, that’s the narrow what I call ontology) and physics died, if he ever lived. But if they really hypothesis. together. mean philosophy is dead, then they Nomura: I think this is at least a Murayama: That’s really amazing. are saying physics is dead too. reasonable chance to be true. Yeah. Nomura: Yep, because physics is Gabriel: Yeah. Yes. That would be Gabriel: So, science itself becomes a form of philosophy. That’s what remarkable, right? That, I think this re ective and thereby we falsify we’re talking about. Everything is has real consequences for physics, Heidegger’s famous claim that philosophy! right? science doesn’t think. Science itself is Gabriel: Yes. Absolutely! So, this Nomura: I think so. What we are a form of philosophy. remarkable feedback loop, you searching for, i.e., a complete logical Nomura: Yes, I strongly support that know... So, science can look upon framework of whole Nature, may be idea. science within science. something that does not exist, but Gabriel: Yeah. Murayama: That’s great. Yeah. again the only way to scienti cally Nomura: Like one branch of
24 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019 Toward Changing Misconception new study of truth waves I have asking good questions, may not really of Science by General Public seen, which talks about how public know what we are doing and under Gabriel: You know this as a scientist, perceives science. By and large, what philosophy. So, discussion like but that has never been built into a people tend to trust science. That’s this in public settings would be very philosophy of science. All philosophy the sort of what comes up in the helpful. of science that I know of is dualistic. survey, but they clearly state that Murayama: That’s absolutely clear. They think of science there, they feel decoupled from science Gabriel: I think the demand is very philosophy there. So, the scientists because they don’t know what large. I mean the fact that̶and it’s do their stuff. They are basically scientists are actually doing and how coming from different directions̶... super smart engineers, right? They they are thinking and so on and so So, I became aware of the power of build machines and gure out things, forth. They aren’t quite sure whether that demand by being contacted by right? they can really trust the stuff. So, that scientists… Nomura: And calculate. disconnect is actually causing social Murayama: Uh-huh. Murayama: That’s the perception. problems. Gabriel: Yeah, Hitoshi, like you, which Gabriel: Yeah, that’s the perception Gabriel: Yes. A real social problem, con rms exactly. I was invited here, but that’s a terrible perception. That’s which in turn becomes a scienti c right? So, my activity and your activity a terrible misunderstanding. problem when we gure out what overlapped, so that at some point I Murayama: Right, exactly! I strongly the social problem is, so we get this had an e-mail in my e-mail box. And oppose that. loop back into the picture. the fact that I got these invitations Nomura: Yeah. That’s not what Nomura: Two comments. At the very means that within the system of science is. least, what we have demonstrated science itself, that arises, right? Gabriel: No, no way. today and yesterday is that at least This must have something to do Nomura: But on the other hand, in Japan, there is a public demand. with the state of the art in science, so many scientists seem to be just Look at today’s event! This was done science itself is even becoming more doing that, so that’s why this kind in a room on the 13th oor of some re ective, and as it does, it changes of interaction is interesting and random building, and yet the room its nature. So, there is something very potentially useful because science is was packed. In our dialogue progressive going on right now, and not just engineering or calculations. yesterday＊2 as well, there was large then given that the social system of Gabriel: No, even though you need to audience. So, the demand is there. science is deeply interconnected with do that. You might behave like that Gabriel: Yeah. No doubt. modern technology, and therefore but that doesn’t mean that what you Nomura: The second is that̶this democracy and so on, there is this are doing is that. If we achieve this is seconding Hitoshi’s comment̶ additional feedback loop. So, there level of self-re ection, then a lot of people may not really know what are a lot going on, and in Germany public perceptions of both philosophy scientists are doing and how they there is clearly that demand too. and science would totally change. work. For example, in today’s event, Nomura: Oh, I also had the third And given that modernity̶modern someone asked the role of intuition comment. I enjoyed today’s dialogue democracy and so on̶is logically in science, right? a lot! drawing on technology and science Gabriel: Yeah. Yeah. Gabriel: That’s likely the most certain but with a bad understanding of Nomura: I said that in doing science thing. what that is, what we are doing now we certainly use intuition, but the Nomura: Yeah. This is really true, has much bigger consequences than nal outcome, whatever a physical con dence level 99.99… merely answering a certain problem. law or alike, should not rely on Gabriel: Me too. Yeah. This was Round If you articulate this in the right way… intuition. And he was like“ Wow! great! Table Think of the social consequences if That makes things clear!” I thought Murayama: It has always been a we brought actual science and actual I just said an obvious thing, but that question to myself“ what exactly I’m theoretical philosophy together! was eye-opening to someone. So, doing?” because the scienti c Murayama: That’s really important maybe even intellectual people, like methods have been sort of taught too because there was actually those coming to our events and and enforced on me̶it didn’t come
25 out of me. Because I’m practicing Gabriel: Yeah, philosophy doesn’t here, then given that it’s a eld̶that’s myself, and it’s my life, why I’m doing answer anything! (laugh) why I have the eld metaphor in my this and why that is important and Nomura: Not necessarily, though philosophy, eld of sense̶so if you what does it mean. I think those sometimes it does… do something in this eld, probably questions would keep coming up. Gabriel: Within the division of there are entanglement phenomena And this dialogue was very helpful labor, my role, I think, as a general across elds of sense. ̶it didn’t answer those questions, I philosopher is to look at different Murayama: Okay. have to say, but we’ve been thinking pockets of scienti c knowledge and Nomura: Great! Nice meeting you. about it. then all these feedback loops are Gabriel: Good. We’ll continue. Nomura: Yes, that’s what we can be starting. And now we are ready in Murayama: Thank you so much, thinking about. Philosophy is about this whole uctuating network, and Markus. thinking! we know if we change something Gabriel: Thank you very much.
Problems with KiDS, or with N=1 rigid supersymmetry breaking” Kavli IPMU Seminars LambaCDM?” Speaker: Sergei Kuzenko → continued from page 35 Speaker: Benjamin Joachimi (UCL) (U Western Australia) 48. “ Holographic RG ows from 7D Date: Mar 19, 2019 Date: Mar 25, 2019 gauged Supergravity” 55. “ The holographic dual of the 61. “ Nilpotent Goldstino super elds Speaker: Alessandra Gnecchi Omega-background” in supergravity and cosmological (CERN) Speaker: Kiril Hristov (Inst for constant” Date: Mar 07, 2019 Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Speaker: Sergei Kuzenko 49. “ Coulomb branches of Research (INRNE) at Bulgarian (U Western Australia) symmetrizable quiver gauge Academy of Sciences) Date: Mar 26, 2019 theories” Date: Mar 19, 2019 62. “ The potential of generalized Speaker: Hiraku Nakajima (Kavli 56. “ Cosmology with weak Kahler geometry” IPMU) gravitational lensing: challenges Speaker: Marco Gualitieri Date: Mar 07, 2019 and opportunities” (U Toronto) 50. “ Emergent in ation from a Speaker: Elisa Chisari (U Oxford) Date: Mar 26, 2019 Nambu–Jona-Lasinio mechanism Date: Mar 19, 2019 63. “ Are the small parameters in the in gravity with non-dynamical 57. “ The Higgs Trilinear Coupling and quark sector related?” torsion” the Scale of New Physics” Speaker: Dipankar Das (Lund U) Speaker: Antonino Marciano Speaker: Spencer Chang (U Oregon Date: Mar 27, 2019 (Fudan U) / National Taiwan U) 64. “ Alternative Fayet-Iliopoulos terms Date: Mar 11, 2019 Date: Mar 20, 2019 in supergravity” 51. “ Integrable coupled sigma-models” 58. “ Black hole information and Reeh- Speaker: Sergei Kuzenko Speaker: Benoit Vicedo (U York) Schlieder theorem” (U Western Australia) Date: Mar 12, 2019 Speaker: Kazuya Yonekura Date: Mar 27, 2019 52. “ Higgs signatures in primordial (Tohoku U) 65. “ Elliptic Artin groups I” non-Gaussianities” Date: Mar 20, 2019 Speaker: Kyoji Saito (IPMU) Speaker: Yi-Peng Wu (RESCEU, 59. “ How Dark is the Universe? Date: Mar 30, 2019 U Tokyo) Intensity Mapping in Broadband 66. “ Elliptic Artin groups II” Date: Mar 13, 2019 and Beyond” Speaker: Yoshihisa Saito (Rikkyo U), 53. “ What are derived manifolds?” Speaker: Yi-Kuan Chiang (Johns Hiroki Aoki (Tokyo U of Science) Speaker: David Carchedi (George Hopkins U) Date: Mar 31, 2019 Mason U) Date: Mar 22, 2019 Date: Mar 14, 2019 60. “ Maximally supersymmetric 54. “ The Inconsistent Universe: backgrounds and partial N=2 →
26 Kavli IPMU News No. 45 March 2019