tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post6567097664636402606..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Dear Dr B: Should I study string theory?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51307496355060169562018-05-31T14:18:42.054-04:002018-05-31T14:18:42.054-04:00t h ray;
Place the blame on me if you like; but r...t h ray;<br /><br />Place the blame on me if you like; but readers are not responsible for muddled writing. We can leave it at that.<br /><br />sean s.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30729966639911550942018-05-29T20:05:20.078-04:002018-05-29T20:05:20.078-04:00Sean,
You've completely misinterpreted what I...Sean,<br /><br />You've completely misinterpreted what I said. I think we should leave it at that.t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90587269543850998542018-05-24T16:05:47.367-04:002018-05-24T16:05:47.367-04:00t h ray
"So you believe in a static universe...t h ray<br /><br />"<i>So you believe in a static universe.</i>"<br /><br />I believe reality does not change (i.e. “<i>expand</i>”) in response to our theories. Reality is what it is; it is our theories that need to change to correspond to reality, not <i>vice-versa</i><br /><br />“<i>Read what I actually wrote;...</i>”<br /><br />I did. Did you not notice the quote from what you sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52439555244367103802018-05-24T08:23:10.417-04:002018-05-24T08:23:10.417-04:00The article was so nice and I have to appreciate i...The article was so nice and I have to appreciate it, but as a student with pure supertheoretical(!) interests, I have to say that 'there are many physicists, who faced experiments apposing their theories sharply at the time that they were proposed. I remember Gell-Mann once told that 3 experiments were apposing with his theory and at the end they turned out to be wrong.<br />Well, at the Bastamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347461202701525438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91109639258098188902018-05-24T07:52:41.867-04:002018-05-24T07:52:41.867-04:00sean,
" ... the idea of reality expanding to...sean,<br /><br />" ... the idea of reality expanding to meet a theory seems close enough (to solipsism)." <br /><br />So you believe in a static universe. Read what I actually wrote; how is correspondence equal to solipsism?t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64259843371813680992018-05-23T12:16:49.236-04:002018-05-23T12:16:49.236-04:00t h ray;
“You misunderstand solipsism.”
Perhaps ...t h ray;<br /><br />“<i>You misunderstand solipsism.</i>”<br /><br />Perhaps true, but the idea of <i>reality expanding to meet a theory</i> seems close enough.<br /><br />sean s.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5360280940450434542018-05-23T12:04:35.297-04:002018-05-23T12:04:35.297-04:00Sean,
"Ah. Solipsism."
You misundersta...Sean,<br /><br />"Ah. Solipsism."<br /><br />You misunderstand solipsism.t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16013242128450708022018-05-23T10:12:21.755-04:002018-05-23T10:12:21.755-04:00t h ray appears to be caught in his own self-confi...t h ray appears to be caught in his own self-confirming “positive feedback loop”.<br /><br /><i>“Correspondence between reality and theory is therefore an equality IFF <b>reality can expand to meet the theory</b>.”</i> [<b>emphasis</b> added]<br /><br />Ah. Solipsism.<br /><br />sean s.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25150346359475660662018-05-23T09:00:21.530-04:002018-05-23T09:00:21.530-04:00bud,
"It is the continuous feedback loop bet...bud,<br /><br />"It is the continuous feedback loop between observations/measurements and analysis that constitutes the doing of science."<br /><br />There are two types of feedback. Only one of them leads to a closed judgment, which is the basis of my argument. The positive open feedback loop that you describe gives the illusion of movement, because it appears to cull models while t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33116606322094303842018-05-22T17:54:52.717-04:002018-05-22T17:54:52.717-04:00t h,
"An inductive approach induces only the...t h,<br /><br />"An inductive approach induces only the fantasies that you hold in contempt."<br /><br />On the contrary it is the deductive approach that produces angels dancing on the head of a pin and string theory. You simply postulate an unobservable and go merrily off spinning logically consistent loop de loops in a reality vacuum. This approach is, apparently, endlessly amusing bud raphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06948881286545517324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15964264192734156852018-05-21T07:17:01.455-04:002018-05-21T07:17:01.455-04:00bud,
"Science does not begin in theory (with...bud,<br /><br />"Science does not begin in theory (with a map), whether philosophical, metaphysical, or mathematical. Science begins with observation and measurement, and from there models and theories are constructed to account for those observations and measurements."<br /><br />Therein, the problem. An inductive approach induces only the fantasies that you hold in contempt.<br /><brt h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-911231976122578182018-05-20T17:55:19.181-04:002018-05-20T17:55:19.181-04:00Haha well at least it was a good question Haha well at least it was a good question Nate Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10226188817060295350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21020336094473209072018-05-20T15:40:06.711-04:002018-05-20T15:40:06.711-04:00THR (originating comment): The function of mapping...THR (originating comment): The function of mapping starts with the map (theoretical construction). The map is filled in with data. I'd call that a fundamental relation between physics and mathematics.<br /><br />BR: "The metaphor is usually presented as, 'The map is not the territory.' You seem confused about what that means."<br /><br />THR: Do I? I didn't even bring itbud raphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06948881286545517324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24108100367726520282018-05-19T10:31:29.106-04:002018-05-19T10:31:29.106-04:00Lawrence,
"Quantum mechanics is probably th...Lawrence, <br /><br />"Quantum mechanics is probably the most battle tested modern theory. "<br /><br />In what battle space?<br /><br />"They are dimensions where anomaly cancellations prevent degeneracies of commutators with Virasoro and Kac-Moody algebras of operators."<br /><br />Demonstrating that the theory cannot live in fewer dimensions. Thus, assumed. A constructed t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31674761810483220072018-05-18T20:08:16.483-04:002018-05-18T20:08:16.483-04:00T. H. Ray,
You wrote: Now, we have the theory of ...T. H. Ray,<br /><br />You wrote: <i>Now, we have the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of quantum fields, neither of which are OBJECTIVELY testable. They are theories without basis -- totally self-referential. </i> Quantum mechanics has successfully passed thousands of different experimental tests, all performed numerous times. Quantum mechanics is probably the most battle tested modernLawrence Crowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090839464038445335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70499289649797403702018-05-18T13:32:10.857-04:002018-05-18T13:32:10.857-04:00bud,
"The metaphor is usually presented as, ...bud,<br /><br />"The metaphor is usually presented as, 'The map is not the territory.' You seem confused about what that means."<br /><br />Do I? I didn't even bring it up.<br /><br />"It means that, by its very nature, a map contains far less information about the territory than the territory itself does."<br /><br />What does one know about the nature of a map?<t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78705669346853598622018-05-18T12:41:31.146-04:002018-05-18T12:41:31.146-04:00t h ray;
Actually, it's the only context for ...t h ray;<br /><br /><i>Actually, it's the only context for theory that's meaningful.</i><br /><br />Words by themselves do not <i><b>have</b> a context</i>; <br />words by themselves are <i><b>used in</b> a context</i>;<br />words by themselves have <i>meanings</i>.<br /><br />In the context of this thread, <i>theory</i> means what Dr. B and others have been telling you. It is not the sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64668604653217191682018-05-18T11:08:26.657-04:002018-05-18T11:08:26.657-04:00Sean,
"You appear to be using the word '...Sean,<br /><br />"You appear to be using the word 'theory' to refer to any and all ideas, notions, guess-work, etc.. That is too vague to be meaningful in the context of this conversation."<br /><br />Yep. Actually, it's the only context for theory that's meaningful. Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." So it is. t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14990929594087034072018-05-18T10:03:44.928-04:002018-05-18T10:03:44.928-04:00B,
We're not saying anything different, in pr...B,<br /><br />We're not saying anything different, in principle. "The standard MODEL is a quantum field THEORY. If you test the standard MODEL you cannot rule out quantum field THEORY per se, you will only ever rule out the model."<br /><br />That's true. The model is the testable element of theory. Quantum field theory is not testable. HOWEVER, unless one can tie the model t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83492733261447667182018-05-18T00:00:54.770-04:002018-05-18T00:00:54.770-04:00t h ray,
"The consequence of not deriving mo...t h ray,<br /><br /><i>"The consequence of not deriving model from theory, obviates one's ability to challenge assumptions and make closed logical judgements. That's why it matters. If one dares to step outside the orthodoxy, one risks his career and public ridicule."</i><br /><br />As I said above, a theory is a set of mathematical axioms together with a prescription for how toSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7175497624837711612018-05-17T19:37:02.853-04:002018-05-17T19:37:02.853-04:00B.
"I told you above what I mean with theory...B.<br /><br />"I told you above what I mean with theory and model." Above:<br /><br />" ... The standard MODEL is a quantum field THEORY. If a model doesn't fit with data, it may be the model that's wrong or it may be the theory that's wrong."<br /><br />You may not think it matters, though I will be more specific:<br /><br />A physical THEORY is a set of closed t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68684418310310318222018-05-17T18:46:59.583-04:002018-05-17T18:46:59.583-04:00t h,
"I don't think otherwise. Then agai...t h,<br /><br />"<i>I don't think otherwise. Then again, we are not making a map of Africa. Give thought to the meaning of a mathematical function--it's far from navel gazing. One can venture into the jungle without a map; without a plan, however, one has to believe that every discovery is an accident.</i>"<br /><br />The metaphor is usually presented as, <i>"The map is notbud raphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06948881286545517324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65949322269808010122018-05-17T11:15:13.548-04:002018-05-17T11:15:13.548-04:00t h ray;
“One must derive a model from a theory.”...t h ray;<br /><br /><i>“One must derive a model from a theory.”</i><br /><br />You appear to be using the word “theory” to refer to any and all ideas, notions, guess-work, <i>etc.</i>. That is too vague to be meaningful in the context of this conversation.<br /><br />sean s.sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74783829111497091912018-05-17T11:09:00.596-04:002018-05-17T11:09:00.596-04:00t h ray,
I told you above what I mean with theory...t h ray,<br /><br />I told you above what I mean with theory and model. You are not using this nomenclature (which I believe is rather common in my discipline). Neither have you told us what you mean with those words. I am merely telling you that according to the nomenclature I have proposed above, your statements are nonsense. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75671856271681905932018-05-17T11:06:44.051-04:002018-05-17T11:06:44.051-04:00sean,
Where have you moved? To inductive general...sean,<br /><br />Where have you moved? To inductive generalizations? <br />t h rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150085167540063914noreply@blogger.com