tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post9146060464395308082..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: The Holy Grail of Crackpot Filtering: How the arXiv decides what’s science – and what’s not.Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24140667618192139222021-05-11T10:05:30.997-04:002021-05-11T10:05:30.997-04:00Great comment. My research is all about Barad and ...Great comment. My research is all about Barad and I use Hossenfelder's work as well. Conor McKeownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635940999432820924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76001536212170835412017-02-28T19:22:02.111-05:002017-02-28T19:22:02.111-05:00I read this entire comment section in one sitting....I read this entire comment section in one sitting. I followed the argument as it ping ponged between commenters, understanding the points and counterpoints as they were presented. What sciences are represented in these remarks? I see math, physics, psychiatry?, Buddhism (it's not considered science by mainstream but is a practice that has potentially reproducible truths) theology, philosophy.GI Janehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09294589243253211060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58643982182530640222017-01-21T10:26:53.917-05:002017-01-21T10:26:53.917-05:00slh,
Yes, I know. I also know that the author rea...slh,<br /><br />Yes, I know. I also know that the author read my blogpost, but didn't bother to link to it. So excuse me for not being too excited about it.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48234673832400073562017-01-21T07:17:38.146-05:002017-01-21T07:17:38.146-05:00FYI a very similar article has been published in N...FYI a very similar article has been published in Nautilus http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/what-counts-as-science.Serge Heidenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445375135223609954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49806124214608667132016-07-31T02:10:53.934-04:002016-07-31T02:10:53.934-04:00"This life of yours which you are living is n..."This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but it is in a certain sense the <i>whole</i>; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance.<br />-- Erwin Schrödinger, My View of the WorldEuphoniumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06816053523107992750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10933815246058566392016-07-30T20:32:34.121-04:002016-07-30T20:32:34.121-04:00I ponder the question for a bit (just a day or so)...I ponder the question for a bit (just a day or so) and it struck me that.....<br /><br />1) we have to implement priorities (or impose limits) on all levels of education (or training)<br /><br />I like standards, a generalized standard seems highly appropriate. The methods used in basic education enjoyed a lot of testing. At the top we could still have those with superior credentials pick the Gaby de Wildehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02327693016458655191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34242205370470044042016-06-08T16:02:39.974-04:002016-06-08T16:02:39.974-04:00I just don't fathom how many seemingly reasona...I just don't fathom how many seemingly reasonable people can consider the above conjectures absurd yet thoroughly embrace the idea that for every atomic decay event a continuum of Universes, all identical except for the time of decay, spontaneously splinter off from the pre-measurement Universe! Although after reading the above book, I can certainly imagine that there is a cognitive PonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24754820561852063732016-06-08T15:59:32.669-04:002016-06-08T15:59:32.669-04:00I was in the library the other day, looking for a ...I was in the library the other day, looking for a specific book, and found this wonderful analysis: Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being:<br /><br />http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/FM.PDF<br /><br />I'm sure most formally educated individuals have read this book and if they haven't, they should, especially if they're an educator. PonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33556771718690806252016-06-07T17:34:46.124-04:002016-06-07T17:34:46.124-04:00Fast machine-learning online optimization of ultra...Fast machine-learning online optimization of ultra-cold-atom experiments<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/articles/srep25890inMatrix.ruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13043825547072634468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43560403554158263302016-05-31T17:45:51.054-04:002016-05-31T17:45:51.054-04:00@Georges: Thanks for the supportive comment, on m...@Georges: Thanks for the supportive comment, on my mention of a pseudoscience category at arVix. But as Phillip Helbig pointed out "We already have that. It's called viXra. No serious scientist reads stuff there."<br /><br />I only browsed a few papers at viXra, and my impression is that it is a mixed bag of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", to borrow the title from a David Schroederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18048116250413347228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59698278888676298062016-05-31T15:20:07.883-04:002016-05-31T15:20:07.883-04:00The Trouble with Physics is a really good book; I ...The Trouble with Physics is a really good book; I appreciate Lee Smolin's honesty. More importantly, it helped me thoroughly comprehend the "point" Brian Josephson is making in the above quote.<br /><br />In his book Smolin states that the Multiverse is a relatively new concept but Hindu, Taoist, and Buddhist yogis/yoginis have been talking about the Multiverse for thousands of PonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31915329599942606552016-05-30T03:39:05.662-04:002016-05-30T03:39:05.662-04:00Here is a very brief summary: Einstein was no lone...Here is a very brief summary: <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/history-einstein-was-no-lone-genius-1.18793" rel="nofollow">Einstein was no lone genius</a>.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76074832272284094302016-05-30T03:29:01.675-04:002016-05-30T03:29:01.675-04:00"As I pointed out earlier, to a historian of ...<i>"As I pointed out earlier, to a historian of science it is much too simplistic to baldly claim that 'Einstein was by no stretch an outsider in 1905', especially without reference to any evidence to back the claim."</i><br /><br />My evidence are several biographies, in English and German, some by people who knew him personally. Sure, he was not the typical run-of-the-mill Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37633742173870139172016-05-29T06:51:27.399-04:002016-05-29T06:51:27.399-04:00Wes, I didn't want to wander off topic, by ref...Wes, I didn't want to wander off topic, by referencing the story you linked. I will, though, speak to the Emily Dickinson poem that Tammet quotes:<br /><br />"The brain is wider than the sky, <br />For, put them side by side, <br />The one the other will contain<br />With ease, and you beside."<br /><br />This experience is familiar to mathematicians who recognize that digital t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-808087201109473972016-05-29T06:32:20.221-04:002016-05-29T06:32:20.221-04:00Wes, no offense taken.
In fact, objectivity and i...Wes, no offense taken.<br /><br />In fact, objectivity and inter-subjectivity are not operationally different. The problem with quantum mechanics that you cite -- so many interpretations -- is the central problem of induction. <br /><br />Mathematically complete theories (special relativity, e.g.) do not suffer from mistakes in interpretation acquired inductively.t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54401861559212974802016-05-29T06:25:03.670-04:002016-05-29T06:25:03.670-04:00Brian,
That's right, re Lakatos. That is w...Brian, <br /><br />That's right, re Lakatos. That is why Popper framed his work by 'verisimilitude' -- truth likeness. The point is, how confident can one be in a theory developed from observation alone? If there is no demonstrable independence of theory from result, one risks proving what one assumed in the first place.<br /><br />That's acceptable for mathematics, toxic to t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48953534244653866802016-05-29T06:12:15.093-04:002016-05-29T06:12:15.093-04:00Let us address back the original topic about the a...Let us address back the original topic about the arXiv filtering. Since it only accept “small mutations” of nowadays official standpoints it ends up being a subtle way to reject any unwelcome departure from conventional standpoints in order to preserve the very many established interests. <br /><br />I agree with David Schroeder who said: “Perhaps arXiv should have a dedicated section labeled &Georgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03745346752371629460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14375924816536359552016-05-29T05:04:13.084-04:002016-05-29T05:04:13.084-04:00@plain skee: It was well understood that the resis...@plain skee: It was well understood that the resistance of a metal drops as the temperature is lowered, for reasons more or less as you have cited. The problem was that in the case of superconductivity the resistance actually became zero even above absolute zero, where the vibrations are still present.<br /><br />@th: Latakos demonstrated that Popper's picture doesn't describe the way Brian Josephsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092041074557357975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26632685789494665712016-05-29T03:39:24.511-04:002016-05-29T03:39:24.511-04:00I started recently to follow your debate. If you h...I started recently to follow your debate. If you have enough endurance and enough spare time you may read the following linked paper: “Space, this great unknown”, which in fact addresses a variety of issues and some of those you have talked about. It deals in part with nowadays deep lack of realism in theoretical physics.<br /><br />https://www.researchgate.net/publication/Georgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03745346752371629460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31533429864098201812016-05-28T18:31:27.489-04:002016-05-28T18:31:27.489-04:00th ray,
Listen, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh...th ray,<br /><br />Listen, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh with mathematics and the mathematical community; I'm not even a member being almost completely self-taught and understanding a limited subset. But even so, I love mathematics, you know; it's a wonderful and elegant art form, of course, and extremely useful when applied. I don't mean to be cantankerous towards you or anyone PonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-85370017124730584492016-05-28T17:57:09.124-04:002016-05-28T17:57:09.124-04:00"you may believe that mathematics is not obje..."you may believe that mathematics is not objective; in that case, you will find it hard to apply a mathematical theory or technique to a physical problem."<br /><br />It would seem to me that you conflate objectivity with inter-subjectivity; they are two distinct things! The reality we are embedded in is an inter-subjective construct and mathematics is an inter-subjective practice; bothPonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77837044705343949392016-05-28T17:32:53.791-04:002016-05-28T17:32:53.791-04:00" Results must be interpreted in context of a..." Results must be interpreted in context of a theory" <br /><br />Sure, but Popper elsewhere demonstrated that all actions are 'theory-laden'. Theories were always in play, just not always explicit while theorist not necessarily consciously aware. <br /><br />Something that faults Popperians is the way that point they make (that you did) about theory encourages misinterpretationAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68771089916036172122016-05-28T17:26:03.856-04:002016-05-28T17:26:03.856-04:00Hi Mr Josephson,
You say "No-one said we sho...Hi Mr Josephson, <br />You say "No-one said we should ignore this observation until there is a theory that we can do a Popperian act upon; it would indeed have been irrational to do that" <br /><br />Well that's right because there was an empirical foothold as you describe. But I was sure that superconductivity was theoretically available from the fundamental description of Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48112166459717699892016-05-28T13:02:00.283-04:002016-05-28T13:02:00.283-04:00Brian, no one is arguing that observation plays no...Brian, no one is arguing that observation plays no role. It is conclusion by induction that is at issue. <br /><br />I realize that "real science" to an experimenter is identical to doing experiments. I don't know any way of interpreting those experimental results other than theory.t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49411428296130989552016-05-28T12:00:43.609-04:002016-05-28T12:00:43.609-04:00Phillip Heilbeg:
As I pointed out earlier, to a h...Phillip Heilbeg: <br />As I pointed out earlier, to a historian of science it is much too simplistic to baldly claim that 'Einstein was by no stretch an outsider in 1905', especially without reference to any evidence to back the claim. (It is also simplistic to claim the opposite).<br />For example, AE himself commented later that he had limited access to publications while at Berne, and Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com