6 ms·

This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake.

• est31 6y ago
  I think the criticism of occam's razor is valid. Occam's razor comes at a cost, and denying it would be wrong. It brings many advantages though, which outweigh the disadvantages.
  • tikej 6y ago
    Sure it is valid, but in reality most scientists don’t religiously stick to Ockham’s razor and oppose alternative theories that give correct predictions. If hard sticking to Ockham’s razor was true, Quantum loop Gravity, String Theory and many other theories wouldn’t be intensively studied for past 50 years. Or development and studying interpretations of quantum mechanics (which btw yielded results in Quantum Information Theory). It’s just that constructing something correct and new IS really hard.
• vincnetas 6y ago
  "Physicists are “stuck” with existing theories not because they like them, but because they work so well it’s hard to invent something that even works equally well" Yes, but hundred years ago we were "stuck" with another worldview that was explaining everything fine, and i assume ther was a big resistance from estabilishment to addopt new ideas. But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker. So we might look back at today after 100 yaers and see similar situation. No one says that ideas of 100 yaers ago were all wrong, just not so true as current.
  • radioactivist 6y ago
    One hundred years ago there were many things that did not have any real explanation -- classical physics was not "stuck" and was not "explaining everything fine". Our understanding of something as common as metals and insulators depends heavily on quantum mechanics. That's not even counting things like spectral lines, the stability of atoms, etc, etc that were unexplained in 19th century physics, and explicitly known at the time to be at odds with classical physics. While worldviews can be overturned and paradigms can be shifted, it is (significantly) harder than it was before. We simply know more now, and have a better understanding of our limits. So whatever new framework that has to supercede our current framework has more ground to cover than it did even in the recent past. This is exacerbated by the fact that in physics in that most everything outside the early universe and black holes (which aren't easily accessible experimentally) seems to conform to our current framework -- there is both more to fit in and less data to work with.
  • laumars 6y ago
    No, a touch over 100 years ago Einstein came up with a new set of equations that more precisely describes the movement of objects. Newtonian physics is still valid and still taught at schools since it adequately explains the movement of objects at an approximate level that is good enough for most people most of the time. But when dealing with equations at an astronomical scale, Newtonian physics start to break down. Likewise quantum mechanics doesn’t replace General Relativity. It compliments it.
    • scandox 6y ago
• admax88q 6y ago
  > unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. Part of the authors premise is that a more correct theory could have less predictive power out thr gate and might not be pursued as a result.
  • tikej 6y ago
    Why wouldn’t it be pursued? Is string theory not pursued by “mainstream science” because (at least for now) it has less predictive power than standard model?
• dusted 6y ago
  I don't think it's entirely right to discard comparatively less developed theories based on their relatively weaker predictive power. That does sound like how one reaches a local maximum, to use the term from the article. Think on it in a different way, most of the very revolutionary theories, those that changed how we see the world, were relatively more simple, they were generally simple enough that one fringe could develop them to a point where they shined so brightly as to be next to irrefutable. Things like how the earth might be round, and circle the sun. We can't expect the same to be true for more advanced fields, we can't say "yeah, this "new/underdeveloped" idea does seem reasonable, but it does not solve everything as well as our existing theory that we've been iterating on for decades, so let's not waste time on that".
  • TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > Think on it in a different way, most of the very revolutionary theories, those that changed how we see the world, were relatively more simple, they were generally simple enough that one fringe could develop them to a point where they shined so brightly as to be next to irrefutable. Things like how the earth might be round, and circle the sun. Intresting trivia: heliocentrism didn't show "shining brightly as to be next to irrefutable" - it was a fringe idea that could not be confirmed through observation at the time, required some pretty wild (for the time) assumptions - such as stars being very, very far away, to explain why there's no visible parallax from Earth's movements - and went against existing understanding of physics in general (such as, Earth is very big and heavy and bulky, so it's not obvious how could it be moving in circles very fast). Also, IIRC, the predictions made by heliocentric model were less accurate than geocentric ones. It took astronomical observations with early telescopes to provide data points favoring a mixed geo/heliocentric model, and then further observations, work of Kepler and Newton's theory of gravity for heliocentric model to finally start making sense. This does serve as an example backing TFA's thesis: some accepted theories, like (then) geocentric model, may be just local maxima - theoretical dead ends. A potential better theory will initially look bad in comparison, it needs work to develop past the accepted one.
    • Patient0 6y ago
      right on thanks for making this point - "Also, IIRC, the predictions made by heliocentric model were less accurate than geocentric ones." - that was my recollection also: the epi-cycles had greater predictive power and accuracy.
• konschubert 6y ago
  I still haven't understood why people keep saying that there is randomness in QM. The so-called "wave function collapse" isn't really part of QM, it's duct tape that we have applied to stick together the QM with "Classical Physics" and our pre-existing assumptions about human consciousness. I don't think we should consider it "real" or "true". Without the wave function collapse, there is no randomness in QM.
  • jackhalford 6y ago
    you have it wrong, QM is the only physical theory that has randomness as an inherent part, as compared to e.g thermodynamics where randomness is due to lack of information. It is proven (see Bell inequalities) that randomness in QM isn't due to lack of information. You can't just wave away the collapse mechanism, what do you make of the double alit experiment? isn't the target "real" enough?
    • konschubert 6y ago
      The problem with the double slit experiment is that the target isn't treated as a quantum system. That's why the wave function "collapses": Because it collides with the non-quantum target. It's a useful approximation, but of course in reality, there is no such thing as a non-quantum thing. And if you evolve the target's wave function with the wave function of the particle, then there is no stochastic collapse.
      • choeger 6y ago
        What you are saying is that whenever we, the observer, leave the QM model we use the collapse as a computational trapdoor function? Sounds like an interesting point of view. But would that not also imply that we should be able to measure the quantum world with quantum devices? Say we have a quantum property that is extremely close to p=0.5. If we could invent a device to replicate that property perfectly and measure it repetitively we could then estimate ever more accurate boundaries for the "true" value of p, no?
        • 6y ago
• kristianov 6y ago
  Every gradient points slightly downward at the local maxima.
• TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  No, this is historically incorrect. Quantum Foundations was strongly disfavoured as a research pastime for decades - not because Shut Up and Calculate gets the right answer (it doesn't for many problems, including those that involve gravity) but because the risks of failure and obscurity were too high, there were few academic champions, it was seen as academically fringe, and the potential rewards for bolting something new onto the Standard Model without fundamentally changing its assumptions were much higher. There's also been the - likely incorrect - belief that different models are too hard to distinguish experimentally. So there's been a process of continuous refinement of existing theories which are known to be incomplete, and no concerted and sustained attempt to solve foundational philosophical problems - which is the level that Einstein, Newton, and other pioneers operated at.
  • mannykannot 6y ago
    I am wondering why you think the belief, that different models are too hard to distinguish experimentally, is incorrect - after all, the achievment of such a distinction would seem to be highly motivating. To take a historical example, The publication of Bell's inequality motivated a successful program leading to its experimental verification; do you have in mind some potential experiment to distinguish between models that is being wrongly ignored on the grounds that it is too hard to persue? An alternative explanation for quantum foundations being in limbo is that it is extremely difficult to come up with alternatives that offer a possibility of verification. Update: writing this reminded me of [1], in which a simple experiment by Shahriar Afshar, that arguably challenged one tenet of the Copenhagen interpretation, provoked a disturbingly over-the-top response, which supports your position on how work on quantum fundamentals is opposed (though, personally, I doubt it succeeds in challenging the Copenhagen interpretation. Interestingly, the opponents of Afshar's interpretation do not all agree on why they think it is wrong.) [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325915-400-quantum-rebel-wins-over-doubters/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325915-400-quantum-...