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

Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–245 of 245 posts

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#241

Post by gradschoolfail »

082349872349872 wrote: post #238
gradschoolfail wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds about right? EDIT: placeholder for thinking more about this in context of Acemoglu & Restrepo: according to them ai as pointed at science today will not lead to even midterm econ growth “Why zero-to-one’s cannot be automated” id=41839542, note that nongoverning glamour-chasing elite Swedes didnt accolade Acemoglu for the institution-agnostic (“weird”er?) parts of his work that we were recently interested in Ed…

If sleep deprivation gets you to anything near FAKvS' benzene structure (what did TAE think?) it may yet be useful! Sounds like we've greatly constrained our IRL hops to {1,2}. Are you familiar with any tulle-clad tensor inventors? > Another damned thick heavy book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble, eh, Mr Gibbon? —P WH, DoG&E

Sleep deprivation might have led to {2->1}, but the almost iambic lines you 404’d on were borne of a restful sleep under fully endogenic (biochemical) influence. (Thats why you 404’d)

Nice you brought up the tensoring, my current work related (& pseudo AMP laced) investigations (thanx to your earlier hint) are cloyingly whispering: that Werner’s unitary designs should be reworked with bright eyed bushy tailism for cases t> X

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#242

Post by aebtebeten »

gradschoolfail wrote: post #240
082349872349872 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, full context from Gibbon is great: > It has been objected to Marcus, that he sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own family, rather than in the republic. Nothing however, was neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the narrow mind of young Commodus, to corre…

Glad that helped! Sleeping on it, it was even more likely that NB was correctly quoted by the still unremembered English historian as having taken issue with Tacitus’ (cf the famous convo with Wieland) coverage of one or more of the emperors’ motivational techniques

The major divisions of Tacitean studies seem to be based on whether one rehydrates his dry narrative with anger* or with zeal?

  le rouge  ira
  le noir   studio
(what line might white or green Taciteans take?)

> Gesetze sind wie Würste, man sollte besser nicht dabei sein, wenn sie gemacht werden. —OELvB

> Les empires sont comme des saucisses ; pour les déguster, mieux vaut ne pas savoir comment ils sont fabriquées —not NB

("empires are like sausages: to enjoy them, better not see how they're made")

* The Onion was not supposed to be a how-to guide

EDIT: (in defence of Bonaparte re. Wieland: having both read Linebarger's Psychological Warfare covering the general theory, and myself noted a tendency, in modern US corporations as in ancient chinese imperial tales, to attach great importance to making your predecessor look bad, it's certainly a consistent position for one emperor, in reading about others, to be annoyed less by any red anti-tyrannical subtext, and more by a certain willingness to believe told tales that smacks more of cluelessness than psychopathy. I would not be surprised if Bonaparte would've claimed Bulgakov's Pilate to have been more realistically depicted.)

EDIT2: Tacitus was born (as the web seems to agree) an Equestrian, yet followed the cursus honorum (ought to be in official records), which implies imperial Rome was less vertically stratified than republican Rome?

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#243

Post by 082349872349872 »

aebtebeten wrote: post #242
gradschoolfail wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad that helped! Sleeping on it, it was even more likely that NB was correctly quoted by the still unremembered English historian as having taken issue with Tacitus’ (cf the famous convo with Wieland) coverage of one or more of the emperors’ motivational techniques

The major divisions of Tacitean studies seem to be based on whether one rehydrates his dry narrative with anger* or with zeal? le rouge ira le noir studio (what line might white or green Taciteans take?) > Gesetze sind wie Würste, man sollte besser nicht dabei sein, wenn sie gemacht werden. —OELvB > Les empires sont comme des saucisses ; pour les déguster, mieux vaut ne pas savoir comment ils sont fabriquées —not NB…

Voltaire anticipated Bonaparte with the position "could history please have some credible villains?": https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1064250n/f48.image.r=...

[Just as I believe Bonaparte could easily have had ulterior motives in attacking a pro-republican Tacitus, I believe christian monks could easily have had ulterior motives in bothering to make copies of only the most sensational descriptions of roman emperors — especially considering Nero Claudius "never let a crisis go to waste" Caesar Augustus Germanicus had it coming, having framed them for the fire and all]

Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#244

Post by m101 »

btilly wrote: post #218
m101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant your second perspective. I'm in the Popper camp on your example. You may have good reasons as to why you say he's wrong, but isn't that the scientific method: showing things to be false. If it can't be shown to be false then how can it be scientific? It might be some other branch of thought. On the specific case of quantum mechanics - I want to see these forever promised quantum computers actually doing somet…

From my personal observation, those whose scientific understanding I admire mostly see little value in what the philosophers have produced. Those who I see admiring the philosophers seldom demonstrate much scientific understanding. Therefore my personal observations do not lead me to the belief that the philosophy helps scientific observation. You are an illustration. You just argued that one of the most successful s…

We believe things are probabilistic, but we don't know it is so. To the best of our ability to measure it looks that way. I don't think we can say any more than that.

I am not denying that the transistor is useful and that science does useful things.

I believe a "successful theory" is one that should produce provably good predictions. Quantum computing cannot prove it works yet despite having made promises for a long time.

But you're right, I'm not a scientist, and anyone reading this should know that.

I will change my opinion on quantum stuff when we find it produces unfalsifiable quantum computing results that factor products of large prime numbers (or whatever else they promise to do). But as of right now I believe there is something wrong in quantum computing.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#245

Post by m101 »

rcxdude wrote: post #226
m101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant your second perspective. I'm in the Popper camp on your example. You may have good reasons as to why you say he's wrong, but isn't that the scientific method: showing things to be false. If it can't be shown to be false then how can it be scientific? It might be some other branch of thought. On the specific case of quantum mechanics - I want to see these forever promised quantum computers actually doing somet…

Quantum computers were proposed primarily as a means for physicists to do simulations of quantum mechanics. I don't think the 'they'll be faster at everything' hype came from them, in fact this basically seems to have come from people misunderstanding the point of them. So I don't think physicists have anything to answer for on this, only perhaps pop-sci writers (most of whom don't think have claimed such a thing eit…

I see. Thank you for the insight.
Post reply on HN