Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1.  @PaulGreeve  : I love her show and her style, but haven’t read her book. Yet, I don’t agree with her entirely. Taking a page from your own book, so to speak, I disagree in principle that the mere investigation of what sets the values of anti-matter versus baryonic matter is valueless. Whether we call it a, “problem,” or not is merely word play, after all? It’s an interesting mystery. Dirac only predicted that there would be such a thing as, “anti-matter,” by doing math and he was later proven correct, though he never suggested he knew what the amount would be. So far, so cleared up, and thank you to Sabine for that. Yet, to just take the, “Shut up and calculate,” attitude thereafter and to suggest that it’s time wasting to delve deeper into that mystery is wrong headed in my view. I am not expert enough to comment on whether the vast sums spent on colliders is worth it or not, or if the science is valid when it comes to this question in particular, but there is an obvious question worthy of investigation by science isn’t there? If the amounts of anti-matter and matter were 1 to 1 equal, there would be no universe in which we could ponder the question at all. So, isn’t it natural to wonder what caused that imbalance? It was by pondering such questions that Einstein came up with his ideas, for which later scientists like Arthur Eddington dreamt up experiments that could prove him right. Either, there was an equal amount of both matter types and there was something that caused them to avoid direct contact in the earliest moments of the universe’s existence, or there were different amounts to start with? Either way, how is trying to discover which is the case a waste of any scientist’s time? Knowing what conditions set these values could change our understanding of physics altogether? I think it’s a slippery slight of hand to try to invalidate the question, just because you would rather spend money an resources differently. She admits herself that it would be, “wonderful to know the answer.” But, then just goes on to say there is no way to figure it out. I think she’s wrong about that, and about the ingenuity of science to come up with ways of interrogating these questions. She reminds me of Hoyle dismissing the Big Bang theory whilst coining the expression, refuting the very basis of the science out of a personal dislike, rather than for a scientific reason. To speak in absolutes, “There is no science in existence today equipped to investigate the question,” (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty much what she said) is a bonkers thing to say, like standing in a forest and saying, “There’s nothing here from which we could build a house,” when a thousand carpenters would beg to differ. Don’t get me wrong. I love her show, and she’s usually right on the money. But she has an emotive attitude that sometimes gets the better of her, which a lot of people miss because of her cool Germanic style. This seems to me to be one of those cases. Of course it’s an intriguing question, from which the whole of physics would benefit by the answer! Maybe the debate should be about, “how,: it is investigated, not, “if,” it should be? What do you think? ✌️
    2
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. What I find most interesting about it, is what she put her finger on, right at the end of her presentation. It’s a, “philosophical,” difference. It’s a mutation of paranoia and distrust, born out of anti-authoritarianism and disillusionment with, “authority,” figures. Give me a Flat Earther in the same room as me and access to the internet, and I can destroy their, “scientific,” arguments, in minutes. Yet, I know this will not convert them, for one of three possible reasons: They’re (1) too emotionally damaged to, “want,” to accept the truth (too proud to admit this six foot, hairy boomer, who can’t stop laughing at him is right, for example) (2) too educationally challenged (stoopid, or probably a combination of 1 & 2?) or, (3) they’re being paid to refute common sense. The group 3 are the ones I despise, because they could do untold harm, and they do it for money. You might argue there is a group 4? The troll. But, actually, the troll is just any one of, or a combination of, the previous three categories. But, here’s the, “interesting,” bit that I promised (trigger warning) : Many Worlds Theory, or MWT. That is a, “hypothesis,” which has some mathematical basis, which can be made to fit the hypothesis. But, only ever at the cost of disregarding some other fatal flaws which have yet to be resolved. It is popular among many of our leading physicists. And, though more and more people are questioning it, it has taken on the trappings of Dogma. Yet, there is no, “scientific,” basis for it. No evidence, no disprovability, no testable experiments, no predictions, no applications, no foundation for its conjecture whatsoever. It is a philosophical idea, which some scientists cling to with the emotional commitment of high priests. Why is that, exactly? I believe it is because it solves one thorny problem and no other. If it were true, we could then dispense with, “God.” And that is the ONLY reason MWT is a philosophical belief that has taken root in physics and is doing duty for science where there is no science to be had. In other words, it’s not just Flat Earthers, who are willing to run away with their philosophical ideas. It seems anyone is capable of that type of thinking, if the emotional stakes are high enough? . . . Food for thought? . . . ✌️
    1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. I find her presentations fascinating and her voice is so soothing to me. I’m quite the fanboy . . . The Many Worlds notion has always struck me as bogus; from my not-expert perspective. It’s untestable, and certainly unprovable, for a start, even if, “evidence,” may one day be found. The same evidence can and will be usable for rival theories. But, my real problem with it, is that it’s actually philosophy, not physics. The very same prejudice that Einstein felt, which made him find the work of LeMetre so unpalatable, (which evidenced the Big Bang Theory) is at work in MWT. It’s a philosophical argument, with one purpose; refuting the existence of God. Einstein apologised to LeMetre, a Catholic priest, after having once told him, “Your math is correct but your physics is abominable.” And, The Big Bang is now generally accepted, despite having been held back for almost a generation by the egos of over powerful scientists. And, once again, we are seeing the history repeat itself. The idea of something miraculous happen, that the physical world could actually be altered by the mere act of, “observation,” and all that this implies, is intolerable to an atheistic culture, that is as guilty of prejudice, groupthink and dogma, as any religious organisation in history. The very same people who worship Galileo as their Martyr for being a victim of prejudice and dogma, perpetrated by an over weening establishment, have now become that very thing they despise. They are sacrificing science on the alter of that dogma, which might as well be stated as, “We refuse to accept any conclusions that may imply a creator of the universe, regardless of what the facts are,” and they come up with the most extravagant, superstitious and logically implausible solutions, and pursue them with such vehemence that they have become the new dogma! No doubt, someone reading this, will assume that I am a, “believer,” in God, and have a personal axe to grind, rather than question their own assumptions, because they have been trained to respond in that fashion, as though I was a Flat Earther or denying Gravity . . . But, my actual point is that there is yet to be a scientific explanation for our observations, and that the Copenhagen position has become a dogma, enforced by a powerful scientist, with a famously powerful and intolerant personality, and has evolved in to ever increasingly extravagant philosophical ideas. Without any evidence (hard or otherwise) Physics has been actively encouraged to wonder away from the path of science. We must look harder at the problem, and bring in fresh minds. And, whether we find evidence, or proof, of a God, a creator, or the exact opposite, we must accept the truth of whatever we find, unflinchingly, with the disciplined eyes of the scientist. We must leave philosophy to the philosophers, especially when we cannot even establish a working mathematical model for MWT that doesn’t have one or more fatal flaw in it. We simply have NO BASIS for MWT. Yet, I hear, you can actually fail your doctorate for saying that now! You would have thought we’d have learned by now, after the famously appalling ways great scientists have been treated, by the scientific community in the past, (leading to suicides and even murders! . . . In the 20th Century!) that anything that smacks of dogma is unhealthy for science. And the establishment must NEVER be allowed to get too comfortable, or, “established.” These were just some general thoughts on the nature and culture of science today, as it relates to this fascinating problem . . . It’s worth pondering, do any of you know any Christian believers in science? Physics especially? And, do any of you know any atheists in that field? Of the ones who claim to have, “open minds,” who are the least tolerant of difference in beliefs? You already know the answer, right? . . .
    1
  47. What is the hard evidence for your interpretation of determinism? We have never (not once) deciphered the gap between macro and micro physics. We know that there has to be a relationship between the two, because they coexist in our world, but no one has ever come close to bridging that gap. My experience is that I have free will. That is my experience of the world. You’re trying to pull the, “Science says it’s so,” card, yet you’re behaving like so many of those scientists that you have distain for because you have no proof. A quintillion quantum events took place in my right arm as I saluted the screen just now, yet my arm bent to my will along with all of those events, not because it was written into the Big Bang but because it seemed a suitably random choice of illustration. And, just because a computer can predict whether I was about to move, or not move, my arm before I knew I was going to do it means nothing when it comes to bigger, more general choices, such as watching your video, forming an opinion about it and what I do with that information, since I am more than an electronically measurable mechanism; much more than the sum of my parts. Choice, free will, I grant you, are more illusory than many think. But they’re not totally absent, just because of one type of measurement of motor function, set against thousands of other experiences humans have which are under their control. Perhaps there are only a few of us who truly are free willed free thinkers? Perhaps I am exceptional? But, I would say I’m one of those, wouldn’t I, being neurodivergent and all? Give me acceptable, empirical evidence please? Otherwise, why should I privilege your opinion over so many other untestable, unproven hypotheses?
    1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1