tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post3896286794608420627..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: FQXi on the AzoresSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21294435668510733852009-07-25T08:55:55.127-04:002009-07-25T08:55:55.127-04:00Hi John,
“Though there is much to be said for doi...Hi John,<br /><br />“Though there is much to be said for doing it on the cheap in a motel in Phoenix with a 2 liter per night per person budget for cheap vodka, "Russian-style."<br /><br />This recollection of Tim’s seems closely related to another old saying being:<br /><br />“I’d rather have a bottle in front of me, then a frontal lobotomy” <br /><br />Perhaps this is what he confusedPhil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39645743043754486702009-07-25T06:30:24.150-04:002009-07-25T06:30:24.150-04:00Tim May writes:
Though there is much to be said...Tim May writes:<br /><br /><i><br /><br />Though there is much to be said for doing it on the cheap in a motel in Phoenix with a 2 liter per night per person budget for cheap vodka, "Russian-style."<br /><br />(Something I think I saw John Baez describing.)<br /><br /></i><br /><br />I don't remember describing such a conference. 2 liters of vodka might be enough to cause some John Baezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11573268162105600948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75548961681798162252009-07-18T00:21:59.400-04:002009-07-18T00:21:59.400-04:00> the only purpose of this meeting is to annoy ...> the only purpose of this meeting is to annoy everybody who isn't here.<br /><br />You can tell Max Tegmark that the mission was successful. Of course what I do is probably not fundamental: I only observe the actual Universe.Ned Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428119988990766625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84488947363923312732009-07-17T07:44:24.990-04:002009-07-17T07:44:24.990-04:00Hey nice blog on the conference.
Btw, I really li...Hey nice blog on the conference. <br />Btw, I really like your blog so I submitted it to Viralogy.com. That will help more people discover it! If you want you can claim your http://www.viralogy.com/blogs/my/1686<br />which will also help your ranking. Hope you get more traffic through that! <br />Anyway, I hope you have a great week and that you will be successful in every activity you engage in!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17660888488706954974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23893552786450459132009-07-16T14:22:12.888-04:002009-07-16T14:22:12.888-04:00Hi Arun, yes, the "grass eating curing the co...Hi Arun, yes, the "grass eating curing the common cold" theory was presented by David Deutsch as a example of a theory which could be instantly rejected without needing an experiment. The vast majority of theories fall into that category.Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82044211984016747462009-07-16T13:05:03.514-04:002009-07-16T13:05:03.514-04:00Andrew Thomas:
The grass example is a case of why...Andrew Thomas:<br /><br />The grass example is a case of why I think the philosophy of science is often quite useless. <br /><br />It is trivially true that we don't look at a lot of ideas that can be put together at random (e.g., the vast majority of the theories of the form 'eating A cures B' or more generally, action A causes effect B, where A and B are picked at random) because Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28147489281501153282009-07-16T11:27:47.432-04:002009-07-16T11:27:47.432-04:00By contrast, Christine, I don't think there is...By contrast, <i>Christine</i>, I don't think there is a sense to try to maintain the canonical <i>unique</i> science system by “fighting” with undesirable “deviations” and maintaining the dominating hard core of “good standards” (one could understand your critics as that kind of intention). It's already too late even practically for it because various deviations from high standards Andrei Kirilyukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407274342959324969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11764871831984366962009-07-16T11:19:10.926-04:002009-07-16T11:19:10.926-04:00Christine, while being an adherent to your attitud...<i>Christine</i>, while being an adherent to your attitude of “reasonable” science (let me call it like that), I want to ask you a question <i>from within</i> your attitude (as you state it). Apart from those “deviations” from elementary reason you denounce (let's ignore them for a moment), do you consider that the kind of science you like is in a good state today in itself or whether it Andrei Kirilyukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407274342959324969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54304974954019237132009-07-16T11:12:11.342-04:002009-07-16T11:12:11.342-04:00Christine,
You repeat the same things over and ov...Christine,<br /><br />You repeat the same things over and over again and you ignore or you misinterpret other people's arguments.<br /><br />This is not the right way to engage into a conversation.Giotisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56398057506497037232009-07-16T10:28:03.335-04:002009-07-16T10:28:03.335-04:00"The years of searching in the dark for a tru..."<i>The years of searching in the dark for a truth that one feels but cannot express, the intense desire and the alternations of confidence and misgiving until one breaks through to clarity and understanding, are known only to those who have themselves experienced them</i>"<b><a href="http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html#general_relativity" rel="nofollow">Einstein</a><PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71403122956529484862009-07-16T09:55:30.723-04:002009-07-16T09:55:30.723-04:00Bee:From the above discussion I think these might ...<a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/07/fqxi-on-azores.html#c7659460285143120251" title="FQXi on the Azores" rel="nofollow">Bee</a>:<i>From the above discussion I think these might not overlap for all of us. We even have Andrew saying he cares more for the entertainment value than for scientific content, though I think most of us care more for understanding Nature.</i><br /><br />So PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48758842080867605532009-07-16T09:41:11.969-04:002009-07-16T09:41:11.969-04:00Hi Christine, no problem! We're all friends he...Hi Christine, no problem! We're all friends here!<br /><br />However, you have been making some fairly strong accusations that the work of FQXi is "unscientific" (pretty harsh), and I do not believe it is correct. In fact, I do not believe FQXi is remotely unscientific. It contains many excellent scientists whose work I respect. And if you're going to make such accusations, you Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29929571325617770312009-07-16T09:32:10.468-04:002009-07-16T09:32:10.468-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75568402717599327342009-07-16T09:28:02.713-04:002009-07-16T09:28:02.713-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19898215588348671612009-07-16T08:17:56.482-04:002009-07-16T08:17:56.482-04:00Excuse the rudeness of my last comment.
Here is a...Excuse the rudeness of my last comment.<br /><br />Here is an excerpt of what I have posted to Sabine over my blog, perhaps it is a helpful supplementary note:<br /><br />"Well, maybe there is a problem here concerning how various sub-disciplines in physics work and operate. (...) But after a moment’s thought I do admit that this may well not be a consensus in other sub-disciplines. One may Christinehttp://egregium.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33621625562636662602009-07-16T07:56:41.009-04:002009-07-16T07:56:41.009-04:00@Andrew:
I wonder what is it in my writtings that...@Andrew:<br /><br />I wonder what is it in my writtings that makes people think that I have some very limited understanding of the subject at hand.<br /><br />I have repeated several times, <br /><br /><b>USE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD</b><br /><br />Please, read , e.g, here what it is all about:<br /><br />- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" rel="nofollow">Article on the Christinehttp://egregium.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66301270902852621752009-07-16T07:38:36.659-04:002009-07-16T07:38:36.659-04:00Hi Christine: "Evidently, one can disregard a...Hi Christine: <i>"Evidently, one can disregard a theory already at the level of mathematical or logical inconsistency."</i><br /><br />No, I'm not saying that we are disregarding theories on the basis of inconsistencies - the theory I mentioned of eating grass as a means of curing the common cold is in no way inconsistent. It would be disregarded because it contained no underlying <Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70409185324307539172009-07-16T07:19:49.411-04:002009-07-16T07:19:49.411-04:00If this post has served to demonstrate anything fo...If this post has served to demonstrate anything for me, is to better distinguish the difference between the usefulness at times in being an <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antagonist" rel="nofollow">antagonist</a> and the worthlessness in serving primarily as a <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tormentor" rel="nofollow">tormentor</a>. That is to say, that Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67127948814524621222009-07-16T06:39:31.964-04:002009-07-16T06:39:31.964-04:00So science isn't just about performing experim...<i>So science isn't just about performing experiments - it's about thinking, and talking, and conjectured explanations(...)</i><br /><br />Science is the understanding of nature by the use of the scientific method.<br /><br />Performing experiments *is* the final word. Evidently, one can disregard a theory already at the level of mathematical or logical inconsistency. I have never claimedChristinehttp://egregium.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52761089943362559972009-07-16T06:19:15.849-04:002009-07-16T06:19:15.849-04:00In this dicussion of what is "scientific"...In this dicussion of what is "scientific" and what is not scientific, I wonder if you have read David Deutsch's "Fabric of Reality" in which he considers the scientific process in detail and comes to the conclusion that science has progressed by finding succesively superior <b>explanations</b> of the structure of reality. It's good stuff ...<br /><br />Deutsch Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82007341488553011722009-07-15T20:52:28.684-04:002009-07-15T20:52:28.684-04:00Science 325(5937) 161 (2009)
Big Pharma's las...Science 325(5937) 161 (2009)<br /><br />Big Pharma's last managed battle was high throughput combinatorial chemistry. Noisome brains were swapped for docile technicians. The last blockbuster drugs are falling out of patent, techs are bewildered. "Quack, damn you." Jamie Hyneman, <i>Mythbusters</i><br /><br />The nuclear waste storage standard was 10,000 years. An expensively hotUncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30664391633392838142009-07-15T18:10:28.131-04:002009-07-15T18:10:28.131-04:00Arun wrote:
"(...) but is ground-breaking ev...Arun wrote:<br /><br />"(...) but is ground-breaking even if in only some small way mathematically, then it may continue to be legitimate to work on."<br /><br />Nice "plan B". No problem to adhere one's research to the field of mathematics if it has been shown to be unsustainable in physics, it's honest afterall.<br /><br />"Toy models with exact solutions or Christinehttp://egregium.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56730999683641947132009-07-15T17:38:23.096-04:002009-07-15T17:38:23.096-04:00Bee: “I doubt the goal of FQXi is to support usele...Bee: “I doubt the goal of FQXi is to support useless pseudo-science...”<br /><br />Without knowing the origin of your “selbstverständlich” and therefore strong doubt, I would note the fact that FQXi is supported exclusively by the John Templeton Foundation, which is a very rich charitable foundation of strongly believing, almost “militant” Christians but also with strong financial/business originAndrei Kirilyukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407274342959324969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4318294962361650982009-07-15T16:33:47.580-04:002009-07-15T16:33:47.580-04:00Christine: “So ok, several professional scientists...Christine: “So ok, several professional scientists have their theories that cannot be tested, will never be tested, are impossible to be tested, but who cares and who knows? Let us speculate further on the theory, it's so fun!”<br /><br />Well, one must acknowledge honestly, taking into account all available experience, that it is largely like that in today's fundamental physics (maybe Andrei Kirilyukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407274342959324969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46368508199561282262009-07-15T16:29:56.622-04:002009-07-15T16:29:56.622-04:00For the specific area of particle physics, I think...For the specific area of particle physics, I think that if what you're working on is speculative, as far as the physics goes, but is ground-breaking even if in only some small way mathematically, then it may continue to be legitimate to work on. Toy models with exact solutions or that lead to new analytic or numerical computation methods are legitimate, and so on.Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.com