4 ms·
Physicists have thought long and hard about this. This is very far outside my area, but here is a ten year old review paper that discusses some of these issues
by abdullahkhalids 1y ago
Physicists have thought long and hard about this. This is very far outside my area, but here is a ten year old review paper that discusses some of these issues [1].
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1570 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1570
- perching_aix 1y ago89 pages is intimidating, but I guess if this bothers me so much, I may as well dive in. Thanks, will take a peek in a bit.
- dr_dshiv 1y agoReport back please!
- perching_aix 1y agoMade it 2 pages in so far. As just a potential consumer of True (tm) Random (tm) Numbers (tm) [0] rather than a physicist, I'm still only vaguely sure this meta-review is actually assessing what I'm having a problem with. I'm also struggling with the language and layout a bit, but it's not too bad, and I do see that my phrasing above is incorrect (should have said ontic and epistemic). Not sure what kind of report are you hoping to hear though, sounded a bit like you're waiting for a laughter? [0] got a degree in compsci but I don't work in academia, or any industry fields where reading papers on the regular is a thing (AI, graphics, physics sim, etc.)