4 ms·

It's mainstream in the sense that they are using mainstream tools and are publishing dozens of books with mainstream publishers like Springer. It comes out of

It's mainstream in the sense that they are using mainstream tools and are publishing dozens of books with mainstream publishers like Springer. It comes out of mainstream institutions. I'm just saying it's not merely some wacky fringe shit that orthodox scientists like to marginalize.

saalweachter 9y ago
Fair enough; I'm just exceedingly full of caution when it comes to warning laymen off taking any contemporary work without a giant grain of salt. On-going research - individual papers or lines of research from a small number of working groups - can be interesting, and it can give you a new direction to attack other problems from. It's also just fun to see what the cutting edge of the future might look like. But until the work is digested by the larger body of researchers and you see what comes of it, there's also a bit of a cognitive risk to it. Half of us on HN have a favorite Grand Unified Theory of physics, an explanation of dark matter we assume is correct. Every other paper on the subject of nutrition spawns a fad diet. We regularly purge our lives of particular chemicals on any hint they're the next lead. We're all staring really hard at different quantum computers trying to figure out if they're really quantum or if they are if they're actually useful. It's really hard, once you've bought into a line of research, to let it go if it's later discredited. There's a lot of great research going on right now that's going to be the foundation our understanding of the universe for the next century. There's also a lot of research going on right now that will ultimately end up being wrong or just uninteresting. It's really exciting to learn about it right now but the closer to the cutting edge you get the more prepared you have to be for the really cool stuff to later end up being really wrong.
- macawfish 9y ago
  Your caution is understandable. The research I posted is quite different from many of the theories in the article above. It's not something that needs quantum mechanical microtubules in neurons. "Quantum", in this field is something that comes along with probability theory itself, for free, regardless of physical, spiritual or philosophical interpretation. Calling it "quantum" is an acceptance of what quantum physicists have learned about scientific experimentation, about applications of probability theory in general. I see the name of this research as more of an embrace, and a pointer to the profound, simple realizations of quantum theorists in their applications of basic probability theory. And I see it as a scientific window into worldviews that have been neglected/rejected by proud, hard core rationalists, but that are common sense to people who rely on poetry to make sense of the world. Specifically, it is about the slipperiness of inquiry itself, experimental or otherwise. It's about quantifying the potentially disruptive quality of asking. Any tactful 4-year old will tell you that sometimes you need to prime adults before asking them for what you want, whether that's a toy, ice cream, whatever. Successfully manipulative children get a good sense of the likelihood that their parents will say yes or no based on the context. Are they in a bad mood? Better not ask at the moment. If they say no now, they'll be less likely to change their mind until later. Nagging will only make them irritated. The wave function is collapsed. Yet somehow this kind of nuance is often lost on very smart adult scientists. Take for example the Nate Silverman debacle. There is well established evidence that when opinion polling, each question, each prompt influences the probabilistic setup of the next one. Someone might not like Donald Trump at all, but in the context of even mentioning Hillary Clinton, they have just decided with conviction that they will be voting for him anyway, out of anger, spite, jaded frustration, poor sense of humor, self identity as rebellious, who knows. Whereas if you'd reversed the order, they might have aimed that same anger in the opposite direction. They point being that these effects can be taken into consideration, even if we don't know all the factors, we might as well try switching the order, changing the prompt, trying to understand them... But at the very least acknowledging their existence! The ignorant discussions of the last US political cycle focused on determining if people were inherently "trump supporters" or "Clinton supporters". As though there were even such things, objectively. The polling process was unscientific enough, but the voting process is even worse... There has been absolutely no discussion of the mechanics of the voting system, how different kinds of "experimental setups" like IRV or score voting compare to FPTP. These things absolutely make huge differences in real social and political outcomes, yet there is mainstream ignorance about them, even in self proclaimed "scientifically minded" people. IMO, it's imperative that the basic realizations of quantum theory be integrated with the rest of science as soon as possible. The point is that the measurement is entwined with outcomes. There don't seem to be objective, predetermined, absolutely stable variables, not even in the world of particles, but certainly not in the human world. Just like the rest of us, all science has is the ability to inquire, and the chance to make sense of what is discovered.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

saalweachter 9y ago

Fair enough; I'm just exceedingly full of caution when it comes to warning laymen off taking any contemporary work without a giant grain of salt. On-going research - individual papers or lines of research from a small number of working groups - can be interesting, and it can give you a new direction to attack other problems from. It's also just fun to see what the cutting edge of the future might look like. But until the work is digested by the larger body of researchers and you see what comes of it, there's also a bit of a cognitive risk to it. Half of us on HN have a favorite Grand Unified Theory of physics, an explanation of dark matter we assume is correct. Every other paper on the subject of nutrition spawns a fad diet. We regularly purge our lives of particular chemicals on any hint they're the next lead. We're all staring really hard at different quantum computers trying to figure out if they're really quantum or if they are if they're actually useful. It's really hard, once you've bought into a line of research, to let it go if it's later discredited. There's a lot of great research going on right now that's going to be the foundation our understanding of the universe for the next century. There's also a lot of research going on right now that will ultimately end up being wrong or just uninteresting. It's really exciting to learn about it right now but the closer to the cutting edge you get the more prepared you have to be for the really cool stuff to later end up being really wrong.

macawfish 9y ago
Your caution is understandable. The research I posted is quite different from many of the theories in the article above. It's not something that needs quantum mechanical microtubules in neurons. "Quantum", in this field is something that comes along with probability theory itself, for free, regardless of physical, spiritual or philosophical interpretation. Calling it "quantum" is an acceptance of what quantum physicists have learned about scientific experimentation, about applications of probability theory in general. I see the name of this research as more of an embrace, and a pointer to the profound, simple realizations of quantum theorists in their applications of basic probability theory. And I see it as a scientific window into worldviews that have been neglected/rejected by proud, hard core rationalists, but that are common sense to people who rely on poetry to make sense of the world. Specifically, it is about the slipperiness of inquiry itself, experimental or otherwise. It's about quantifying the potentially disruptive quality of asking. Any tactful 4-year old will tell you that sometimes you need to prime adults before asking them for what you want, whether that's a toy, ice cream, whatever. Successfully manipulative children get a good sense of the likelihood that their parents will say yes or no based on the context. Are they in a bad mood? Better not ask at the moment. If they say no now, they'll be less likely to change their mind until later. Nagging will only make them irritated. The wave function is collapsed. Yet somehow this kind of nuance is often lost on very smart adult scientists. Take for example the Nate Silverman debacle. There is well established evidence that when opinion polling, each question, each prompt influences the probabilistic setup of the next one. Someone might not like Donald Trump at all, but in the context of even mentioning Hillary Clinton, they have just decided with conviction that they will be voting for him anyway, out of anger, spite, jaded frustration, poor sense of humor, self identity as rebellious, who knows. Whereas if you'd reversed the order, they might have aimed that same anger in the opposite direction. They point being that these effects can be taken into consideration, even if we don't know all the factors, we might as well try switching the order, changing the prompt, trying to understand them... But at the very least acknowledging their existence! The ignorant discussions of the last US political cycle focused on determining if people were inherently "trump supporters" or "Clinton supporters". As though there were even such things, objectively. The polling process was unscientific enough, but the voting process is even worse... There has been absolutely no discussion of the mechanics of the voting system, how different kinds of "experimental setups" like IRV or score voting compare to FPTP. These things absolutely make huge differences in real social and political outcomes, yet there is mainstream ignorance about them, even in self proclaimed "scientifically minded" people. IMO, it's imperative that the basic realizations of quantum theory be integrated with the rest of science as soon as possible. The point is that the measurement is entwined with outcomes. There don't seem to be objective, predetermined, absolutely stable variables, not even in the world of particles, but certainly not in the human world. Just like the rest of us, all science has is the ability to inquire, and the chance to make sense of what is discovered.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]