Page 27 of 32
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 7:06 am
by Iwannaplato
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:45 am
As for the time bit that is only for Many Worlds, not other interpretations. Many Worlds has it's own problems, mostly the need (if not hunger) for simplicity, in addition to the unfalsifiability of other worlds. IT sounds more like a need for comfort than an explanation of reality.
This is a generalized ad hom. By this I mean it is aimed at anyone who believes in the many worlds int. Actually the way you wrote it you anthropomophize the interpretation itself, but I'm assuming you're really claiming to reading the minds of people who propose/believe it.
The MWI sounds like an explanation of reality to many physicists. In fact most quantum cosmologists.
And so what if it has problems in your estimation. It's lovely to bring up problems and discuss the issue but the way you react to anyone with an interpretation different from yours is to challenge their education, posture about your greater knowledge and contacts, mind read and poo people for even bringing it up.
It comes across like a big
shut up.
There are physicists who think there may be ways to falsify and/or verify the MWI.
It's OK to bring up things and discuss them that might have problems.
Falsifiability itself is not without problems. I'm sure you can google your way to the various criticisms of falsifiability. Should no one mention it now either? (and yes, I realize that most scientists work with falsifiability)
Unless I am mistaken but you haven't really said HOW what you said isn't saying that everything has already happened 10 billion years ago.
And you could have asked for clarification pages ago.
I interpreted this to mean X, is this true?
Anyway. Poo poo-ing is certainly one way of participating in a discussion, but combined with the habits I mentioned above, it's not an interesting one to me. I'm going to return to ignoring you.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:01 pm
by Atla
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:47 am
Unless I am mistaken but you haven't really said HOW what you said isn't saying that everything has already happened 10 billion years ago.
I was referring to Wheeler's galactic thought experiment, and ffs in no way shape or form does it say that "everything has already happened 10 billion years ago". Btw I think the experiment was already conducted using a satellite, not as far away in space and time as an ancient quasar, but still impressive.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:19 pm
by Darkneos
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 7:06 am
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:45 am
As for the time bit that is only for Many Worlds, not other interpretations. Many Worlds has it's own problems, mostly the need (if not hunger) for simplicity, in addition to the unfalsifiability of other worlds. IT sounds more like a need for comfort than an explanation of reality.
This is a generalized ad hom. By this I mean it is aimed at anyone who believes in the many worlds int. Actually the way you wrote it you anthropomophize the interpretation itself, but I'm assuming you're really claiming to reading the minds of people who propose/believe it.
The MWI sounds like an explanation of reality to many physicists. In fact most quantum cosmologists.
And so what if it has problems in your estimation. It's lovely to bring up problems and discuss the issue but the way you react to anyone with an interpretation different from yours is to challenge their education, posture about your greater knowledge and contacts, mind read and poo people for even bringing it up.
It comes across like a big
shut up.
There are physicists who think there may be ways to falsify and/or verify the MWI.
It's OK to bring up things and discuss them that might have problems.
Falsifiability itself is not without problems. I'm sure you can google your way to the various criticisms of falsifiability. Should no one mention it now either? (and yes, I realize that most scientists work with falsifiability)
Unless I am mistaken but you haven't really said HOW what you said isn't saying that everything has already happened 10 billion years ago.
And you could have asked for clarification pages ago.
I interpreted this to mean X, is this true?
Anyway. Poo poo-ing is certainly one way of participating in a discussion, but combined with the habits I mentioned above, it's not an interesting one to me. I'm going to return to ignoring you.
I think you need to google what ad hom means before using it. The need for simplicity is a valid criticism as it means that one could be looking for something that ties everything up neatly rather than accept things as they are. It's something we are humans tend to do because we like things to make sense.
You might also want to google anthropomorphizing before using it too as describing what one thinks are problems with a theory isn't that.
It's not posturing, I have talked to people who study this and fact check the claims made my Atla and they are often not correct. Greater education is also required since most of these things are advanced calculations and experiments that I'm fairly sure no one here understands. All you do is throw interpretations around, and from what I was told doing that without showing the math is akin to knowing nothing about the field.
Like...once again you don't really have anything meaningful to contribute, even the article you linked negated the point you were making so I know you didn't read it.
Your words, as usual, are empty on this matter.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:26 pm
by Darkneos
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:01 pm
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:47 am
Unless I am mistaken but you haven't really said HOW what you said isn't saying that everything has already happened 10 billion years ago.
I was referring to Wheeler's galactic thought experiment, and ffs in no way shape or form does it say that "everything has already happened 10 billion years ago". Btw I think the experiment was already conducted using a satellite, not as far away in space and time as an ancient quasar, but still impressive.
I know of the thought experiment, it has been recently debunked. But in a sense it does say that because it's implying a sort of time travel where what we do on our end affects how light behaves retroactively all those years ago.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:29 pm
by Atla
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:26 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:01 pm
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:47 am
Unless I am mistaken but you haven't really said HOW what you said isn't saying that everything has already happened 10 billion years ago.
I was referring to Wheeler's galactic thought experiment, and ffs in no way shape or form does it say that "everything has already happened 10 billion years ago". Btw I think the experiment was already conducted using a satellite, not as far away in space and time as an ancient quasar, but still impressive.
I know of the thought experiment, it has been recently debunked. But in a sense it does say that because it's implying a sort of time travel where what we do on our end affects how light behaves retroactively all those years ago.
Oh gee that's great, can you give a link?
I mean to the debunking.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:40 pm
by Darkneos
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:29 pm
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:26 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 2:01 pm
I was referring to Wheeler's galactic thought experiment, and ffs in no way shape or form does it say that "everything has already happened 10 billion years ago". Btw I think the experiment was already conducted using a satellite, not as far away in space and time as an ancient quasar, but still impressive.
I know of the thought experiment, it has been recently debunked. But in a sense it does say that because it's implying a sort of time travel where what we do on our end affects how light behaves retroactively all those years ago.
Oh gee that's great, can you give a link?
I mean to the debunking.
It's more a reference to the delayed choice quantum eraser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVE ... ssenfelder
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:48 pm
by Atla
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:40 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:29 pm
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:26 pm
I know of the thought experiment, it has been recently debunked. But in a sense it does say that because it's implying a sort of time travel where what we do on our end affects how light behaves retroactively all those years ago.
Oh gee that's great, can you give a link?
I mean to the debunking.
It's more a reference to the delayed choice quantum eraser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVE ... ssenfelder
Called it
You know I was sitting here, praying to Heavens: PLEASE, PLEASE anything but a link to the Hossenfelder "debunking" video. That woman has some fairly good videos but is more like an intellectual scam artist, she accomplished nothing as a physicist so she's after the Youtube money now.
Ah too bad. This would have been your second Nobel within a day.
Well I think we should part ways now, bye
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:14 pm
by Darkneos
The other people who propagated that idea retracted their videos on the quantum eraser experiment, she’s not a scam artist though since she has a degree in the stuff. Outside of quantum physics though…she’s not great.
But yeah it just sounded like you wanted any reason to dismiss it rather than engage with counter points. Like, if she’s such a scam you should be able to point out how.
Like…if she’s mistaken then explain how.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:49 pm
by Darkneos
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 7:54 pm
by Flannel Jesus
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:25 pm
by Atla
This quickly went from ridiculing the MWI and "debunking" the eraser, to accepting the eraser as correct and maybe adding an MWI-type interpretation to it.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:35 pm
by Darkneos
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:25 pm
This quickly went from ridiculing the MWI and "debunking" the eraser, to accepting the eraser as correct and maybe adding an MWI-type interpretation to it.
Not really. Just debunking the notion of some kind of time warp. The experiment is fine but the conclusions people draw from it isn’t. You’re not paying attention.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:37 pm
by Darkneos
It’s more or less confirming what the lady was saying, that there isn’t some back in time stuff going on.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 9:29 pm
by Atla
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:35 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:25 pm
This quickly went from ridiculing the MWI and "debunking" the eraser, to accepting the eraser as correct and maybe adding an MWI-type interpretation to it.
Not really. Just debunking the notion of some kind of time warp. The experiment is fine but the conclusions people draw from it isn’t. You’re not paying attention.
Except you neither understood my comments, nor Hossenfelder's video, nor Carrol's post. It's generally a good idea to have some kind of minimal understanding of a topic if you are trying to come across as a know-it-all.
Re: Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 10:01 pm
by Darkneos
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 9:29 pm
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:35 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:25 pm
This quickly went from ridiculing the MWI and "debunking" the eraser, to accepting the eraser as correct and maybe adding an MWI-type interpretation to it.
Not really. Just debunking the notion of some kind of time warp. The experiment is fine but the conclusions people draw from it isn’t. You’re not paying attention.
Except you neither understood my comments, nor Hossenfelder's video, nor Carrol's post. It's generally a good idea to have some kind of minimal understanding of a topic if you are trying to come across as a know-it-all.
I just understood that there isn't anything going back in time, meaning the future doesn't affect the past or present.