Talk:The Fabric of Reality

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Early comments (convenience heading)

when was the book published?

I'm mainly responsible for the content of the page at this time, and I'm willing to work on it, but I'd need more guidance than 'requires cleanup' and 'unclear or unconfusing'. Maybe someone else would be better able to respond to such broad stimuli. Rats 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that someone has put the four strands into an enumerated list and has dropped "quantum physics" in favor of "philosophy of science". This is a mistake. (See page 31 of FoR for the four strands: quantum physics, epistemology, the theory of computation, and the theory of evolution.) I'll fix this, but if the fix is unfixed I'll assume my work here is done. Rats 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the enumerated list and embellished it a bit. This may or may not meet the concerns raised by the {clean-up} and {simplify} flags. But I don't know what remains to clean up, and simplifying seems less to the point than piquing curiosity about the complexities of the book. The article shouldn't attempt to create an illusion of simplicity. RTFB! Or maybe, as I suggested above,

I rather think the article should, more directly, attempt to create the appearance of simplicity, because such an appearance would not be illusory. As far as philosophy goes, Deutsch is an autodidact, and not a terribly good one. It's hard to imagine a more simplistic and, well, stupid epistemological theory than Popper's, and I doubt you'll find an epistemologist in ten who thinks it's still a serious candidate for anything.

It's very popular among scientists, though.1Z 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. To be fair, I'll admit that there's probably lots of mediocre science that's overrated by philosophers too.

The Philosophy of Science article on Wikipedia does not seem to imply that Popper's theory is viewed as stupid nor that it is widely discredited today. If you have references to the contrary maybe you should contribute to that page? I would be interested to find out more as I am only an autodidact when it comes to philosophy myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science 81.106.87.27 (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: this article has the appearance of someone who read a book, thought it was neat, and decided to write a Wikipedia article in lieu of a book report. This is a common problem, and the results are this: nothing presented in the article is connected in any clear way to how it is perceived in the rest of the relevant fields. It's an elaboration of a lot of fairly idiosyncratic views on other people's views and their importance. It should largely be cut for length, and contextualized in current academic debates. The problem is that, like so many scientists-turned-amateur philosophers, like Dawkins or Penrose, Deutsch doesn't really have any serious standing in those fields. This is a book of pop-philosophy, unfortunately, and in that light I'm doubtful its content need significant elaboration here.

someone with greater simplifying skills should take over at this point. I'll remove the flags, but if they're hoisted again without any specific suggestions, I'll defer to others. Rats 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that the demand for simplification is contradictory to the demand for contextualisation?1Z 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The claim is that there's both too much internal detail (hence, "book report") and too little external data ("relevance"). These are compatible aims, especially since the article is almost entirely internal detail. A reasonable synthesis of these would still leave more internal detail detail than context, probably, and it would a be more valuable article. (Another problem that crops up when articles are written like this one is that the vocabulary used to describe what's in the book is almost entirely the vocabulary idiosyncratic to the book; this makes it difficult or impossible to assess its relation to other work. Of course, some of this author's terminology--not all of it--is explicitly borrowed. An encyclopedia article aims to be outside the book and connect it to the rest of the world for people who haven't already read it.)

Deutsch's take on the CT thesis is contextualised, so is his take on modal relaism. I don't really see what you are complaining about. Some specific examples would help. 1Z 14:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to understand the explanation becomes more complicated than trying to understand the subject matter, I think you're headed in the wrong direction. See Newton's first rule of philosophy in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. WFPM (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

knowledge paradox, request for clarification

It is not clear from the article why is the creation paradox not possbile from within parallel worlds. the knowledge is created in one, and then is transmitted to another. This inconsistency in the article must be resolved. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what it is you want clariifying? 1Z (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism & reception?

I was surprised to find no discussion of how the book was received by others in the field. I recently read it and was surprised by certain aspects of it, which I would not have expected to have passed silently in the scientific community:

The strawman argument with the character Deutsch labels a "crypto-intuitionist";
Circular argument against solipsism;
What strikes me as multiple leaps of logic, e.g., that the interference effect must be a product of alternate universes, or that there must be intelligence up to the very instant of the end of the universe;
The condescending treatment of anyone who doesn't accept the alternate-universe model (e.g., that such scientists are "clinging" to older models)

I would expect that these sorts of things would have resulted in responses from other people in the field, and would expect to see that reflected here. Does anyone know if the book, or Deutsch's views put forth in it, generated any commentary? TJRC (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but this is a peculiar book in that it's obviously intended for general readers (that is, non-scientists), yet its clear intention is to make a case for an unestablished theory. Most popular scientific books either present established science or if they present controversial ideas do so not as advocates; they explain various contending theories and deal with them even-handedly. So "other field people in the field" may not have formally critiqued this merely because it doesn't address them. It's hard for me to imagine, however, that physicists appreciated Deutsch's attempt to rally the public and pressure the scientific community from without. (And yes, the book is riddled with logical solecism and disingenuous argument.) TheScotch (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto-inductivist?

Furthemore, all valid arguments are circular - it is called petitio principii - it is only a fallacy if you think that the purpose of a valid argument is to justify the conclusion using the premises. 155.192.33.250 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

With apologies to the original author, this article is confusing, difficult to read, and sounds like random selections of someone's study notes. It includes much too much detail, too many buzz-words and is not meaningful to someone who hasn't read the book. (Assuming that the book is meaningful!)

I hesitate to attack it with an axe :) but I think it would be a much better article if it had 1/10 of the detail. I've listed it for cleanup and will come back and see what's happened and what I can add.Drpixie (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would not object to you attacking it with an axe. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrust concentrated position

"With considerable thrust concentrated position" -- shouldn't there be a hyphen in there somewhere? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weakly

Any ideas how to fix this wording : "His theory of everything is (weakly) emergentist ..."? Slightsmile (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one long précis

This article is simply one long précis/"summary-only description" of the book. It includes no information whatsoever about reception, impact or anything any third party might have thought about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)

Appalling : Misses the Point of the Book

This book had a big effect on me and I have read it several times over the years, tho I do not have it to hand so am commenting by memory.

Article is full of grand technical terms that may be correct but are confusing to the general reader. Furthermore it seems to miss the important themes of the book.

The book is called "The Fabric of Reality".

Therefore the main theme is that "reality consist of more than visible and tangible matter". It denies simplistic materialism. It argues that immaterial things, like mathematics, have real existence though in a different way than matter. His "mathematics" probably includes things like Logic, and the Laws of Nature, which govern/describe how matter behaves.

Subordinate Themes:-

1) Scientific Theories are best regarded as explanations.

Philosophers keep getting tangled up trying to prove scientific theories using pure logic alone, without any basis of facts. Viewing them as explanations instead brings many advantages, such as the ability to choose the simplest theory that fits the evidence.

As an example, he demolishes Solipsism. Solipsism is generally supposed to be irrefutable, on the grounds that if everything is a dream, then so are the results of any test one could do.

Deutsch refutes that by taking the theory seriously (as he says) and thinking out the ramifications. How is it that everything (specifically all fields of science) forms a consistent whole, even things one does not yet know? How do other, imaginary people know things that you do not? How can they have skills that you cannot equal?

The end result is that you have a theory which includes all the complexity of the apparent world, plus an additional notion that it is the dream of a single entity. Thus it is actually a more complicated theory, not a simpler one.

2) Abstractions such as Mathematics are real tho immaterial.

Deutsch argues that Mathematics has an independent existence "outside" our heads. It is resistant, contains surprises, develops in unexpected ways. It does not conform to our imagination or wishes.

3) Interference Effects of single quanta imply the "Many Worlds" Multiverse.

The two slit experiment shows interference effects even using single electrons or photons. Since a material particle can only pass thru one of the slits, how can it "know" about the other in order to land in some places and avoid others? Deutsch argues thus: an electron in our universe passes thru one slit; an identical electron in a nearby universe passes thru the other slit. These two electrons interfere with each other and thereby produce the interference of light/dark bands.

[Naughty aside : this is not the only explanation possible.

See Richard Feynman - Science Videos at http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 .

In the second video he emphasises that there is no wave-particle duality ::- that "waviness" is a property of many quantum interactions. He could have followed the mathematics further and said that "particleness" is also a property of many quantum interactions. A single particle can only travel thru one slit, but a quantum can and does pass thru both. Indeed the mathematics implies that a quantum travels every possible path simultaneously. In his book "QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" he explicitly states that photons travel at various speeds, they are not fixed to the speed of light. The waves and particles we are familiar with are emergent properties of large numbers of interacting quanta. Being unfamiliar to our macroscopic senses, quanta behave in ways that seem crazy but are described by mathematics to great accuracy.

This sticks closer to Deutsch's assertion that maths is real: if the maths says it is this way, then that is how it really is. No need for the extra assumption of parallel universes. But this is naughty - my opinion only, not the book. ]

4) Quantum Computing

Assuming the multiverse of interfering quanta, quantum computations actually run inside many or all the universes and thereby produce results that would be impossible within a single universe.

5) Time does not exist

The multiverse consists of a large number (understatement) of instantaneous snapshots of each universe. But there is no way to order them to make a time sequence.

6) Virtual Reality

Deutsch argues that the fact - that virtual reality is possible - is itself a significant part of reality. Thus reality consists of : matter, mathematics and virtual reality.

[ Personal aside :: 5) and 6) are where he lost me. First few times I read the book I nodded with agreement, but afterwards could never remember the importance of Virtual Reality. On the most recent reading, I noticed that here Deutsch turned philosophical, and that's why I could not follow him. He commits all the mistakes that I associate with philosophy : gaps in the logic; not keeping the various meanings of a complex topic clearly separate; drifting from one meaning to another without noticing; and so on. ]

6) Don't remember the following themes..

cos they are philosophical too. :-(

Mea culpa.

Allxuqep (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent Worlds

The following says that "coherent worlds" was been mentioned above. Maybe it was there at some point, but perhaps it was deleted. I don't see it. It should be added back or the "mentioned above" part deleted.

4.An interesting point which perhaps relies on the "coherent worlds" approach mentioned above.

Alexepascual (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Debate is not unprecedented"

After the section outlining the book's position on MWI, there appears to be an attempt at a rebuttal/commentary on each point. The first point says:

"The situation of having multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics is anomalous. People should settle for the most straightforward (realistic) interpretation, which is, according to Deutsch, Many Worlds."

and the 'However' section says:

"The interpretational debate is not unprecedented. There was a debate about the nature of gravity and action-at-a-distance in Newtonian physics. There is a debate about the ontology of space in relativity theory. There is even a debate about the ontology of mathematics."

How is the fact that there have been previously been debates about interpretation a counter to the point?

Ubermammal (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junk Article

This article is junk and should be deleted or half of it removed. There is either entirely unsourced or original content rebuttals or quips about the content of the book, that quite frankly need to be fixed or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.102.88 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for Deletion

I've chanced back on this article after a long time, and it's still a very poor page. The book obviously impressed some people, but the article doesn't even hint that this book is in any way notable. Everything after the initial Overview paragraph is very poor content - not notable, doesn't explain or summarise, apparently personal opinions, not referenced (at least not with respect to the book), and confusing. I hesitate to start an edit war, but wikipedia would be better without the page, or if the page was just a stub. I'll nominate the article for deletion - maybe someone would like to make it more encyclopaedic, or maybe we delete it. Drpixie (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has been cleaned up - thanks to those who pruned it. Without the confusing non-explainations, it is a better article. Drpixie (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment

This article needs a reception/criticism section. Thriley (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]