Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake Physics

math.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: Fake Physics

#11

Post by stefantalpalaru »

briantakita wrote: post #2

This sounds like the reaction against "Fake News", "Fake History", etc. What that really tells me is this is an area of study that the Establishment does not want you to follow so it will label it to apply social pressure to mitigate the effects & discourage people from following it. The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks. It does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to c…

> What that really tells me is this is an area of study that the Establishment does not want you to follow

Funny, what it tells me is that people with unexplained funding keep on making extraordinary claims without even ordinary proofs.

The multiverse is just as absurd as creationism and just as poorly argued for (imperfect models of reality presented as facts).

Re: Fake Physics

#12

Post by briantakita »

rflrob wrote: post #3
briantakita wrote: post #2

This sounds like the reaction against "Fake News", "Fake History", etc. What that really tells me is this is an area of study that the Establishment does not want you to follow so it will label it to apply social pressure to mitigate the effects & discourage people from following it. The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks. It does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to c…

> The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks. It does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to cause the collapse of the socio-information paradigms that the Establishment creates. You're right as far as you go, but actually nature doesn't care what anyone thinks. One thing to question is how the establishment got to be established. If it was primarily through physical strengt…

> I think the best technique for dealing with the soup of information is to find bona fide experts with a track record of providing correct explanations and giving what they say more weight.

It's up to the experts to make a persuading case & to engage the audience to think for themselves. There are many-a-con-artist who labels oneself as an "expert". That con-artist may even have credentials to make one's "authority" even more convincing.

Labels justify all sorts of things, worst of all, telling one to stop thinking beyond the abstract representation of the label. In the domain that the label casts a perspective shadow upon, the con-artist is free to utilize to take advantage of the audience's ignorance.

Re: Fake Physics

#13

Post by haberman »

briantakita wrote: post #2

This sounds like the reaction against "Fake News", "Fake History", etc. What that really tells me is this is an area of study that the Establishment does not want you to follow so it will label it to apply social pressure to mitigate the effects & discourage people from following it. The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks. It does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to c…

Is there any scientific theory outlandish enough that you are willing to call it nonsense on its face?

Re: Fake Physics

#14

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #5

This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…

[deleted]

Re: Fake Physics

#15

Post by briantakita »

haberman wrote: post #13
briantakita wrote: post #2

This sounds like the reaction against "Fake News", "Fake History", etc. What that really tells me is this is an area of study that the Establishment does not want you to follow so it will label it to apply social pressure to mitigate the effects & discourage people from following it. The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks. It does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to c…

Is there any scientific theory outlandish enough that you are willing to call it nonsense on its face?

A better indicator of quality of a model is to ask, "is this model useful?". At the end of the day, models are representations of another system. Like tools, some are more useful than others.

Re: Fake Physics

#16

Post by parasubcutaneor »

Animats wrote: post #5

This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…

At some point, I had considered the idea that after the invention of the atomic bomb, the cabal of scientists surrounding its discovery were asked to obfuscate further advancements, and seclude practical findings behind classified restrictions.

Many of the scienctists of that post war era were hounded mercilessly for decades ever after, throughout the cold war.

If one were to try and obfuscate a scientific field, and introduce enough confusion such that whirlpools of disagreement ensnare the casual hobbyist, how would that take shape?

Re: Fake Physics

#17

Post by reikonomusha »

sgt101 wrote: post #9
Animats wrote: post #5

This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…

I think that the fusion guys think that they have made fusion work and are going to deliver it commercially in ~15 years (in ~5 years this claim will be either obvious or dead). I think that the quantum computer guys think that they are about to deliver as well.

I think the following viewpoint has been interesting. If we look back at the development of the electronic computer, it's hard to say there was a single point it "delivered". Was it the Atanasoff–Berry Computer, the Collosus, the ENIAC (1940s)? Each of these miss some things that we commonly think of as a modern, generally useful computer. (Lacking programmability, Turing completeness, or stored program representation, respectively.) Do we have to wait all the way until, say, Apple II (1977) was released to consider delivery?

I don't have an answer myself, but it seems to most people, "delivery" doesn't mean "when it's useful", but rather "when it's usable, useful, and generally available for use."

If we use that as a benchmark, quantum computing has definitely hit "usable". It is teetering on "useful". And the beginnings of "generally available for use" have been explored by a few industrial players [0, 1].

[0] Rigetti Computing's Forest: http://forest.rigetti.com/

[1] IBM Research's Quantum Experience: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum/

Re: Fake Physics

#18

Post by haberman »

briantakita wrote: post #15
haberman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any scientific theory outlandish enough that you are willing to call it nonsense on its face?

A better indicator of quality of a model is to ask, "is this model useful?". At the end of the day, models are representations of another system. Like tools, some are more useful than others.

Ok, so I propose (for the sake of argument) the following model: any message posted on an electronic message board that casts aspersions on "The Establishment" was actually written by an AI running on a computer in Siberia.

Let's suppose that many people find this model useful, because it allows them to dismiss such posts without having to critically engage them. They downvote/flag all such messages, and they feel good for having done so because they believe they are resisting an attempt to manipulate their opinions.

Do you have any problem with this?

Re: Fake Physics

#19

Post by plafl »

parasubcutaneor wrote: post #16
Animats wrote: post #5

This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…

At some point, I had considered the idea that after the invention of the atomic bomb, the cabal of scientists surrounding its discovery were asked to obfuscate further advancements, and seclude practical findings behind classified restrictions. Many of the scienctists of that post war era were hounded mercilessly for decades ever after, throughout the cold war. If one were to try and obfuscate a scientific field, and…

You have reminded me of this book (not actually read it): https://www.worldswithoutend.com/novel.asp?ID=12078

Re: Fake Physics

#20

Post by briantakita »

haberman wrote: post #18
briantakita wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better indicator of quality of a model is to ask, "is this model useful?". At the end of the day, models are representations of another system. Like tools, some are more useful than others.

Ok, so I propose (for the sake of argument) the following model: any message posted on an electronic message board that casts aspersions on "The Establishment" was actually written by an AI running on a computer in Siberia. Let's suppose that many people find this model useful, because it allows them to dismiss such posts without having to critically engage them. They downvote/flag all such messages, and they feel go…

It depends ;-)

Useful to what systems & what aims? What's important to an Entity to engage what systems?

Post reply on HN