I came across Deivon Drago via Peter Woit's link - 'Every so often I think it’s worthwhile to point to something about the “interpretation” of quantum mechanics that reflects my best understanding of the subject, so see here.'
As you might expect, this article is a well-informed review of the current interpretations of quantum theory - very well-written - and an exposition of the research program around decoherence which continues to help us understand the conceptual difficulties and their possible resolution. I learned quite a bit from reading the article, although like all such it ultimately disappoints: we still don't understand the interpretation of quantum theory unless you're prepared to go full-Everett (does that count?).
Intrigued, I then looked at some more articles on Drago's Substack. He appears to be posting about once a month on diverse topics from a well-educated and thoroughly materialist physics standpoint: he's like a more scientifically-grounded version of Scott Alexander without the AI-catastrophe hysteria.
In short order I read his views on string theory (judiciously supportive) and consciousness - the hard problem (he elides the difficult difference between cognitive and affective consciousness - as in: 'both you and I know you're in agony, but only you are the one who's screaming').
I also read his article as to whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed as a historical individual (he is inclined to think he did, as a minor Galilean peasant religious activist during his lifetime, but with some degree of uncertainty).
My conclusion is that Drago writes well. His approach is extremely non-tribal, a stance of disinterested, evidence-based research and even-handed judgement. What he writes is not new, but echoing what Scott Alexander once said, once he gets interested in something he researches it to death and then uses his sophisticated educational background and high intelligence to offer the results of his studies and his conclusions in an elegant essay.
There’s going to be a but. He is interested in the hardest questions, which by definition don’t have good answers. If you expect him to give you something new, something which might answer some of these difficult questions, prepare to be disappointed. He’s an erudite populariser.
But he does know more than I do, and has done more research than I have on a number of topics of interest. That’s why he’s now on the blog sidebar.
His bio is opaque and his name most likely assumed. I don’t quite think he is an LLM. Not yet.
Discussions on Quantum Interpretations are going to be ultimately disappointing until further notice. I have just had a long session with ChatGPT on my mathematical ideas for upgrading QM mathematically. For example by bringing in a form of Scott theory into mix.
ReplyDeleteI find that ChatGPT acts more like an austere referee. It tends to focus on finding an "interesting research program" from my comments.
By contrast Gemini is more forward and creative. It believes it can explain the "Born Rule" via a mix of its and my ideas. It also introduced the topic of Quantum Fluids into our discussion. It's most important introduction turned out to be "condensed matter physics" - a hot new area for theory, experiment and new high technology.