151–160 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put more simply, there's nothing special about -1.
Except that when discussing transcendentals (full-blooded reals such as e and π) integers such as –1 have measure zero and are therefore ruled out as freak coincidences.
Direct link to the paper this post sets up: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462 Always been a fan of Superdeterminism, happy to see actual physicists working on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ahem, there isn't anything more linear than the sum of two variables...
Its just an analogy. Something to show that a distribution might appear interesting but is actually not. The point is that Bell's theorem relies on the assumption that a linear distribution must be expected and the paper is arguing that that has not been sufficiently proven. At least that's my understanding of the paper's argument.
Superdeterminism looks like metaphysics to me. It seems an attempt to postulate a fundamental truth about the world, but without empirical foundation. Which experiment would falsify the superdeterminism hypothesis?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a new agey woo kind of idea that comes probably from a layman's interpretation of the effect of the observer on changing the quantum system being measured. However, it does not scale to macro systems. As Sam Harris put it when debating this idea with Deepak Chopra, the moon does not disappear when we're not looking at it. The universe was before consciousness and will continue to be afterwards.
> As Sam Harris put it when debating this idea with Deepak Chopra, the moon does not disappear when we're not looking at it. That’s a silly statement. How do we know that, if we aren’t looking at it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is well understood, could you tell me how it works? I know the mathematics of entanglement just as I know the the mathematics of a collapse of a wave function, so I wouldn't take any mathematical argument as a valid answer.
The math is the description of how it works. If you are not willing to accept any mathematical argument as a valid answer, you better explain what kind of answer you would accept as an alternative, 'cause it's not at all obvious that any other explanation could even exist.
Since we are looking at an alternative interpretation: Max Planck's Loader Model - the simplest interpretation that is never looked at. In the Loader Model atoms have a hidden and random energy state, and a detectable state. The energy of light is spread evenly as waves. And when the energy reaches a threshold the detectable state changes. Photons do not exist. What we see are just detectable jumps of the energy stat…
I haven't heard of the Loader model, but as an (ex-) Particle Physicist, I should point out that photons are just one example of the more general phenomenon of gauge bosons. In terms of the particle content associated with nature (and the predictions the _existence_ of those particles imply as emergent phenomena from "gauge theories" in quantum field theory), the photons of electrodynamics as well as their counterpar…
The "accuracy" is probably the same, depending on how the experiment is setup. Even a standing clock can give the accurate time, once a day. ;-)
But, the experiment that are directed towards detecting this variant, show that the Loader model is valid... due to double detections of quanta, when there should only be one. According to the experimenter that I linked to, with easy-to-repeat experiments.
So Occham's razor tells me to look into it, before starting more complicated theories. It is not my favourite theory, but I am a scientist.
I had a small discussion setup here. Feel free to add a comment. https://saidit.net/s/Physics/comments/18rz/nullhypothesis_qu... (saidit is a friendly community for open discussions)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my mind, once you strip down “I am” to “There appears to exist a repeating neural process that is creating a compressed embedding and record of sensory inputs”, it’s just not very mysterious or worthy of much further philosophical analysis. So these other humans in the world are probably just deterministic robots just like me, that may or may not feel like they have magic conscious aliveness. But my personal exper…
That's an absolutely fascinating thing to claim... Your description sounds like what I have very recently read about research into artificial neural networks, which would have vast implications for the future of the field. I have not ever seriously considered the ability to turn consciousness on and off at will. In my experience consciousness is absolute and once deep in reverie when I happened upon a mental switch t…
I mention this particular state because it seems to reveal that the feeling of being an agentic self is a specific construction of mind, and that it can be intentionally deconstructed while maintaining other brain functions.
There are lots of related directions one can go with this; the “no-mind” state you mention and the techniques to achieve it are excellent to practice with.
Since we are looking at an alternative interpretation: Max Planck's Loader Model - the simplest interpretation that is never looked at. In the Loader Model atoms have a hidden and random energy state, and a detectable state. The energy of light is spread evenly as waves. And when the energy reaches a threshold the detectable state changes. Photons do not exist. What we see are just detectable jumps of the energy stat…
I think photon self-interaction might be thought of as a confirmation of photon's existence. Particle ontology is a tough question, but I don't think there is a reason to exclude photon from the list without excluding all other particles.
Because the experiments and theory are so simple, I think it is the most scientific approach, to at least test this Loader model more thoroughly. Even if I don't agree with it. ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that when discussing transcendentals (full-blooded reals such as e and π) integers such as –1 have measure zero and are therefore ruled out as freak coincidences.
I'm a dummy I'll have to study your statement.