11–20 of 48 posts
Also, I'm annoyed that a science magazine would be careless in its wording: "it is infamous for its weirdness such as Schrödinger’s cat existing in a limbo of being half dead and half alive." The cat is 100% alive and also 100% dead. However, it has 100% chance of resolving to just one state once you look at it.
Also, I'm annoyed that a science magazine would be careless in its wording: "it is infamous for its weirdness such as Schrödinger’s cat existing in a limbo of being half dead and half alive." The cat is 100% alive and also 100% dead. However, it has 100% chance of resolving to just one state once you look at it.
What's a monism? Is it a monoid in the category of endofunctors?
Also, I'm annoyed that a science magazine would be careless in its wording: "it is infamous for its weirdness such as Schrödinger’s cat existing in a limbo of being half dead and half alive." The cat is 100% alive and also 100% dead. However, it has 100% chance of resolving to just one state once you look at it.
Also, I'm annoyed that a science magazine would be careless in its wording: "it is infamous for its weirdness such as Schrödinger’s cat existing in a limbo of being half dead and half alive." The cat is 100% alive and also 100% dead. However, it has 100% chance of resolving to just one state once you look at it.
Scientific American hasn’t been a science magazine for years. At best it’s a “science communication” magazine, at worst it’s a mix of incompetence and agendas, even if they are often agendas I agree with. It’s not worth the read anymore, and far better alternatives exist.
Are you referring to New Scientist?
>As it stands, quantum monism should be considered as a key concept in modern physics: It explains why “beauty,” understood as structure, correlation and symmetry among apparently independent realms of nature, isn’t an "ill-conceived aesthetic ideal” but a consequence of nature descending from a single quantum state. They can call it monism...but it sounds like they are just describing the spatial dimensions. 0D Poin…
Here monism means another thing, I'm not sure what, I'm not sure that it even mean anything at all. The important thing is if it is possible or not to find any experiment that can refute the existence of monism. (It's easier to be a little less technical and ask for and experiment that confirms the existence of monism.) If no experiment can confirm of refute it, then it is outside the realm of physics and can't do anything to save it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scientific American hasn’t been a science magazine for years. At best it’s a “science communication” magazine, at worst it’s a mix of incompetence and agendas, even if they are often agendas I agree with. It’s not worth the read anymore, and far better alternatives exist.
> far better alternatives Are you referring to New Scientist ?
Hossenfelder's actual argument about beauty has definitely gotten lost somewhere along the way. According to [0], she ends her book with > The next breakthrough in physics will occur in this century. It will be beautiful. She's objecting to a very narrow interpretation of "beauty" driving physics, not elegance in general, a distinction this article's author seems unable to see. Anyone who publicly makes an argument d…
Good read. >If your standards are low enough, yes. But I don’t think we should compromise on this idea of post-empirical physics. I think that’s appalling, really appalling… If there was any bit of experimental evidence that was decisive and in favor of the theory, you wouldn’t be hearing these arguments. You wouldn’t. Nobody would care. It’s just a fallback. It’s giving up and declaring victory. I don’t like that at…
That and maybe also human cognitive ability limits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good read. >If your standards are low enough, yes. But I don’t think we should compromise on this idea of post-empirical physics. I think that’s appalling, really appalling… If there was any bit of experimental evidence that was decisive and in favor of the theory, you wouldn’t be hearing these arguments. You wouldn’t. Nobody would care. It’s just a fallback. It’s giving up and declaring victory. I don’t like that at…
> I wonder if we're starting to hit up against some sort of limitation or local maxima that is blocking our search to the global maxima. That and maybe also human cognitive ability limits.
Language is a gross reduction of reality and has a hard time expresssing non-local concepts. Our inability to philosophically explain QM and classical physics in a consistant way is a good example of that.
My guess is that there are concepts which require the ability to express perspectives of reality we arent able to grok because they requira a non-local (no now, no me, no it) interpretation. Language cant express non local phenomena from the perspective of non-local and so language cant express “truth” but humans can experience it.