tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post575911039947522567..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: How nature became unnaturalSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger342125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-967340263237813022018-08-03T01:30:13.371-04:002018-08-03T01:30:13.371-04:00Everybody:
As I have mentioned a few times, I hav...Everybody:<br /><br />As I have mentioned a few times, I have some trouble with the comment feature here. If you want I can explain what's up, but really I don't think it matters. Point is, it works badly and it's taking up more time than I currently have. <br /><br />Reimond has kindly offered to set up a thread on his blog, which you find <a href="https://Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75914523147269351712018-08-03T01:21:37.235-04:002018-08-03T01:21:37.235-04:002/2
" is just not a strong enough argument, ...2/2<br /><br /><i>" is just not a strong enough argument, you want a “PROOF”? "</i><br /><br />Yes, I want proof. Here is what a proof should look like:<br /><br />Definition: A theory is superdeterministic if it a deterministic theory with hidden variables that reproduces quantum mechanics when averaged over the variables. In such theories, the prepared state is generically correlated Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59425013393193210222018-08-03T01:15:12.356-04:002018-08-03T01:15:12.356-04:00Carl,
I said above I am not distinguishing the a ...Carl,<br /><br />I said above I am not distinguishing the a "precise, detailed" initial condition from a "general type" because the distinction is both ill-defined and irrelevant. I have already explained this above. The only thing that matters for the question whether a theory does or doesn't explain something is the amount of information you put into the assumptions. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36116337694753667702018-08-02T16:15:17.005-04:002018-08-02T16:15:17.005-04:00Arun;
Thanks for your kind words.
sean s.Arun;<br /><br />Thanks for your kind words.<br /><br />sean s.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45776917113968212152018-08-02T16:14:49.762-04:002018-08-02T16:14:49.762-04:00Marty;
Since Sabine has offered an olive branch ...Marty; <br /><br />Since Sabine has offered an olive branch to Tim, I’ll say no more on their conversation. Let sleeping dogs lie.<br /><br />“<i>... between you and Mateus until you summarily banned him for no good reason that was obvious to me</i>”<br /><br />Mateus crossed the line at 06:36, July 16, 2018.<br /><br />sean s.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90755383460186261772018-08-02T14:02:08.970-04:002018-08-02T14:02:08.970-04:00JimV,
Admitting, for now, that the multiple argum...JimV,<br /><br />Admitting, for now, that the multiple arguments that have been presented here for the implausibility of superdeterminism do not amount to PROOFs in the mathematician's rigorous sense, it is still possible to see why it is unscientific to pursue the idea using analogies. Let me try a new one.<br /><br />Suppose we entertain superdeterminism as a general concept, and Prof. T. Carl Hoeferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08211813349135055384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42443174417729226872018-08-02T13:47:53.258-04:002018-08-02T13:47:53.258-04:00Cont’d:
But wait, there’s more you need to do, if...Cont’d:<br /><br />But wait, there’s more you need to do, if you want to have classical EM be a “superdeterminist” theory in the sense everyone else is using! You need not just to show that there will be a failure of statistical independence in those runs of 1000 GHZ experiments under EM; you have to also show that the failure will be “the right kind” of failure, namely one that somehow leads toCarl Hoeferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08211813349135055384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88132864141109638542018-08-02T13:43:26.194-04:002018-08-02T13:43:26.194-04:00Andrei,
I sort of agree with Tim’s last reply to ...Andrei,<br /><br />I sort of agree with Tim’s last reply to you, although one can look at what Tim’s saying as simply fleshing out what the Wikipedia definition must mean, if we are to apply it to Bell’s theorem and the context of deterministic theories. In that sense, you’re free to invoke that definition in your reconstruction of Bell’s argument, just keep in mind what it amounts to.<br /><br Carl Hoeferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08211813349135055384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59479330267379097462018-08-02T13:39:01.204-04:002018-08-02T13:39:01.204-04:00Tim,
‘Joe the gambler’ is a great example how an ...Tim,<br /><br />‘Joe the gambler’ is a great example how an explanation works based on statistical independence (SI).<br /><br /><a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/06/how-nature-became-unnatural.html?commentPage=2&showComment=1533099507319#c6197973348884133308" rel="nofollow">Here in my</a> <i>“Generally, in a deterministic theory like Newton’s clockwork universe the only room Reimondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04669340425105889539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83234257832344440642018-08-02T13:24:35.985-04:002018-08-02T13:24:35.985-04:00Arun
No, it is my contention that because the app...Arun<br /><br />No, it is my contention that because the apparatus settings can be made using so many completely different physical randomizing devices (Including shaken dice, and the parity of the digits of pi, and parity of the number of raindrops that fall on a given square inch of glass in a given minute during a rainstorm, and the polarization of photons coming from the last scattering Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17918668471205376513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37083632723915914332018-08-02T13:13:31.239-04:002018-08-02T13:13:31.239-04:00JimV
As Aristotle noted more than 2 millennia ago...JimV<br /><br />As Aristotle noted more than 2 millennia ago, it is only appropriate to ask for as much rigor and proof as the subject matter admits: demanding more will of course end in pointless dissatisfaction. If Sabine is looking for mathematical certainty in an empirical subject like physics then she is looking for what obviously can never be achieved. There is no point in that. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17918668471205376513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81400094771106255172018-08-02T12:03:42.930-04:002018-08-02T12:03:42.930-04:00Cont’d:
The only way you can avoid it is by insis...Cont’d:<br /><br />The only way you can avoid it is by insisting that you meant the second reading of “initial condition” (generically-characterized IC). But if you go this way you really have to, finally, face up to the strength of the challenge: the superdeterminist theory has to be at least able to capture the behavior of stuff we have around us, like dice and Galton boards and computers Carl Hoeferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08211813349135055384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63172871791838477412018-08-02T11:58:31.636-04:002018-08-02T11:58:31.636-04:00Sabine,
You just replied to Tim (i.e., it’s in th...Sabine,<br /><br />You just replied to Tim (i.e., it’s in the most recent batch of posts from you that I can now see):<br /><br />Tim: <i> "just "choosing the right initial conditions to account for the data" is not an acceptable scientific move here."</i><br /><br />SH reply: <i>“As I said, you want an explanation which amounts to a simplification. If that's not the case,Carl Hoeferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08211813349135055384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-60358056374437810062018-08-02T09:44:36.944-04:002018-08-02T09:44:36.944-04:00TM, RE: The relevant hypotheses were "The dic...TM, RE: The relevant hypotheses were "The dice are fair" and "The dice are rigged". Like any sane person, you went with "The dice are rigged"...The rest of your comment is, of course, irrelevant. <br /><br />Thanks for the reply. Yes, I did consider the rigged-hypothesis to be likely, but I also advocated further study before coming to a definite conclusion. As I JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29483823092265285282018-08-02T08:20:51.406-04:002018-08-02T08:20:51.406-04:00Andrei
Good, this is useful, You have indeed misu...Andrei<br /><br />Good, this is useful, You have indeed misunderstood the structure of Bell's theorem. Looking thing up on Wikipedia for a specific case has its limitations, and you have bumped up against that.<br /><br />The statistical independence assumption made by Bell is formally analogous to the Stosszahlansatz, or more precisely the Hypothesis of Molecular Chaos made by Boltzmann. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17918668471205376513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83283126524168895362018-08-02T08:18:08.032-04:002018-08-02T08:18:08.032-04:00Marty,
I guess we have differences as to what we ...Marty,<br /><br />I guess we have differences as to what we consider personal attacks. If someone accuses me for talking out of my ass, I consider this more than enough justification to refuse further communication with such a person. <br /><br />As to Tim, well, as you have noticed he is still commenting. This means I haven't yet given up hope on him. <br /><br />It seems to me we share the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74832915410850207682018-08-02T07:56:04.145-04:002018-08-02T07:56:04.145-04:00Tim,
Regarding the (previously missing) cont. You...Tim,<br /><br />Regarding the (previously missing) cont. You write<br /><br /><i>"just "choosing the right initial conditions to account for the data" is not an acceptable scientific move here."</i><br /><br />As I said, you want an explanation which amounts to a simplification. If that's not the case, I would agree on calling this non-scientific. What I have said is that Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70787617645008592332018-08-02T07:41:43.861-04:002018-08-02T07:41:43.861-04:00Tim,
I noticed the cont but there was no further ...Tim,<br /><br />I noticed the cont but there was no further comment from you in the queue. I kinda assumed you had something else to do. In any case, if anyone would prefer to continue this on a different platform, that would be fine with me. I myself meanwhile find the comment sections on Blogger seriously terrible. I'm sorry about this but not much I can do. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29598092570166752482018-08-02T07:38:45.550-04:002018-08-02T07:38:45.550-04:00Sean S.,
Tim wants everyone to read Bell (i.e., ...Sean S., <br /><br />Tim wants everyone to read Bell (i.e., we all must seek information) but is unwilling to click on a link (your signature) and then click on a second link (that shows your email address with your name and affiliation) to find out who you are (i.e., information needs to be spoon-fed), I am tempted to post something here that would be of the spoon-feeding variety. I'll justArunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-123460730828851732018-08-02T07:35:56.659-04:002018-08-02T07:35:56.659-04:00People may have noticed that there is a "Con&...People may have noticed that there is a "Con't" at the end of my last post, but the continuation was never posted. I case it has gone astray, here it is:<br /><br />Now of course there cannot be any real progress: I finally try to straighten out what you are now claiming to have meant all along, and you immediately make a claim that is inconsistent with that. You write: "Even Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17918668471205376513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23325361824823004872018-08-02T07:31:28.700-04:002018-08-02T07:31:28.700-04:00I too have tried kialo. Unfortunately it really a...I too have tried kialo. Unfortunately it really all depends on the abilities of the particular moderator.Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8087823745373498882018-08-02T07:25:07.250-04:002018-08-02T07:25:07.250-04:00Reimond,
Tim´s “Joe the gambler” is a great exampl...Reimond,<br /><i>Tim´s “Joe the gambler” is a great example how an explanation works.<br />Theory 1: Joe's dice are rigged is the simplest.<br />For me a good explanation/theory is the one that uses the least assumptions.</i><br /><br />JimV, in the comment above you, has provided a good answer.<br /><br />In addition, there is a hidden assumption that is not stated, which is that Joe the Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81299892628919365132018-08-02T07:17:52.488-04:002018-08-02T07:17:52.488-04:00Hi Sabine,
I don't know why you want me to sh...Hi Sabine,<br /><br /><i>I don't know why you want me to show this.</i> [Where "this" was my question: <i>In particular, can you show that the assumption that "it works" is self consistent when applied collectively to all experimental demonstrations of the phenomenon?</i>]<br /><br />I'm just trying to decide to what extent I think the idea of superdeterminism looks Marty Tysannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18113481752481566995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3122469976034459962018-08-02T07:10:49.369-04:002018-08-02T07:10:49.369-04:00Tim,
I'm a bit befuddled by your analogy of Jo...Tim,<br />I'm a bit befuddled by your analogy of Joe and the casino, because, as I understand it, the dice belong to the casino.<br />-Arun<br />Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19503900433720908122018-08-02T05:18:37.083-04:002018-08-02T05:18:37.083-04:00Hi Sabine,
I expect you'd agree that writing ...Hi Sabine,<br /><br />I expect you'd agree that writing is a tricky communication medium because words alone are limited in how well they can convey the mood and intent behind them, even when one tries to be careful. So my reason for writing the "sociological comment" may not have been clear; it was not to criticize you for the sake of being critical. Even so, it may have had zero Marty Tysannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18113481752481566995noreply@blogger.com