In the latter half of this very interesting talk, Neil Turok discusses ghost fields, (±) indefinite metrics, and Krein space. Worth a listen!
H/T @PeterMorganQF
https://t.co/o4RrBVkPBG
Physicists and mathematicians working with GPT 5.5-Pro: how/when do you switch from Standard to Extended Thinking (or vice versa), or do you always keep it in one or the other mode?
@TimHenke9@DrAllyLouks This is not my primary area of expertise, but from what I understand, the answer is somewhere between "sort of" and "yes, probably" (book is Perception by Adam Pautz)
Along these lines, Dharmakīrtian "Mind Only" (cittamātra) idealism is arguably "physicalist" in the contemporary idiom: for Dharmakīrti, mental events are ontologically real, causally efficacious particulars that behave according to the same basic Abhidharmic rules as particles.
I think contemporary Anglophone philosophy of mind needs a richer vocabulary. (Dharmakīrtian) Buddhist metaphysical idealism is not identifiably "panpsychist" in the contemporary idiom—for many reasons, including the absence of anything like the combination problem.
I used to believe in panpsychism, but now I’m not too sure.
Take an electron, for example. It simply doesn’t have enough representational capacity to encode complex feelings (and, frankly, no need).
Where and how would it represent pain, pleasure and all the gamut of emotions and qualia that make up our world? Even if it encodes basic valence somehow, how is the readout happening and is it influencing behaviour.
In retrospect, panpsychism seems significantly handwavy. The binding problem - how simple qualia bits combine to produce our rich experience - is a showstopper.
🚀 i am happy to announce that together with my AI coauthor, chipotleAI, I have produced a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof of the Emergent String conjecture (one of the Swampland Conjectures in Quantum Gravity) #zk#AI#physics
Worth separating the two jobs finite-D is doing here. The exact periodicity — the actual novel mechanism — needs only a commensurable discrete spectrum, which exists fine in infinite dimensions (the SHO they invoke as the characterization is itself ∞-D). Recurrence is a discrete-spectrum property, not a finite-D one. What genuinely needs finite-D is the entropy bound and the Boltzmann-Brain count. Those are separable assumptions, and the objection lands on the second one.