3 ms·

Typical that a non physicist is calling the work of actual physicists pseudoscience just because it “smells” funny to them. What exactly is so absurd about two

Typical that a non physicist is calling the work of actual physicists pseudoscience just because it “smells” funny to them. What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dekhn 5y ago
Hi. My phd is in biophysics. This is scientific garbage (the proposals are absolutely not supported by any experimental data).
- codethief 5y ago
  Which proposals are you referring to exactly?
  - dekhn 5y ago
    All of its interpretations of QBist "Core Position" on the wikipedia page. Most importantly, nothing I can see in the QBist pages has anything to do with actual experimental work. It's a framework for viewing what the mathematics of human theories of QM "mean" and how to interpret that. However, nothing of what they propose is required to explain what we observe, experimentally. More generally, no "interpretation" of QM is required to apply the theory in generalizable, predictive ways, so all this work isn't really helping us move science or engineering forward.
    - codethief 5y ago
      >>> This is scientific garbage (the proposals are absolutely not supported by any experimental data) >> Which proposals are you referring to exactly? > All of its interpretations of QBist "Core Position" on the wikipedia page. You're making very broad claims here. Whether you find QBism plausible or not, it's certainly not "scientific garbage" and also fully compatible with experimental data (as is any other interpretation of QM). > However, nothing of what they propose is required to explain what we observe, experimentally. So you would say that orthodox views of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, shut up & calculate, many worlds (as it's becoming increasingly popular)) explain what we observe? > More generally, no "interpretation" of QM is required to apply the theory in generalizable, predictive ways, so all this work isn't really helping us move science or engineering forward. I disagree, once again. Have you actually deeply looked into the issues with QM? Many of them are linked to questions that come up in quantum gravity, so I would argue that getting QM right would be a very good first step in making scientific progress.
knodi123 5y ago
> What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome? I hardly think that's a fair description of what he's claiming. This sounds almost like the textbook example of the motte and bailey fallacy.
meroes 5y ago
> What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome? That seems inadequate to explain Bell nonlocality.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dekhn 5y ago

Hi. My phd is in biophysics. This is scientific garbage (the proposals are absolutely not supported by any experimental data).

codethief 5y ago
Which proposals are you referring to exactly?
- dekhn 5y ago
  All of its interpretations of QBist "Core Position" on the wikipedia page. Most importantly, nothing I can see in the QBist pages has anything to do with actual experimental work. It's a framework for viewing what the mathematics of human theories of QM "mean" and how to interpret that. However, nothing of what they propose is required to explain what we observe, experimentally. More generally, no "interpretation" of QM is required to apply the theory in generalizable, predictive ways, so all this work isn't really helping us move science or engineering forward.
  - codethief 5y ago
    >>> This is scientific garbage (the proposals are absolutely not supported by any experimental data) >> Which proposals are you referring to exactly? > All of its interpretations of QBist "Core Position" on the wikipedia page. You're making very broad claims here. Whether you find QBism plausible or not, it's certainly not "scientific garbage" and also fully compatible with experimental data (as is any other interpretation of QM). > However, nothing of what they propose is required to explain what we observe, experimentally. So you would say that orthodox views of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, shut up & calculate, many worlds (as it's becoming increasingly popular)) explain what we observe? > More generally, no "interpretation" of QM is required to apply the theory in generalizable, predictive ways, so all this work isn't really helping us move science or engineering forward. I disagree, once again. Have you actually deeply looked into the issues with QM? Many of them are linked to questions that come up in quantum gravity, so I would argue that getting QM right would be a very good first step in making scientific progress.

knodi123 5y ago

> What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome? I hardly think that's a fair description of what he's claiming. This sounds almost like the textbook example of the motte and bailey fallacy.

meroes 5y ago

> What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome? That seems inadequate to explain Bell nonlocality.