Comments by "" (@tinkeringtim7999) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. Flat Unified Gravitational Lagangian Yeet or FUGLY for short.
    9
  2. Quantum theory is entirely based on misunderstanding that concept. The reason physics is stuck, is because if you declare that idea invalid then absolutely all of Quantum mechanics is just special cases of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Everything based on the idea of free fields precisely fits Sabine's definition of pseudoscience, which unfortunately includes her own work.
    5
  3. and microwave to 2.726K
    5
  4. The whole thing is loopy, it was stitch up from the start, tied up resources while weaving a tapestry of misdirection.
    4
  5.  @stopthephilosophicalzombie9017  she has equally arbitrary and unclear lines about what counts as "real" in maths, but speaks and acts as if she's doing different. She asks and answers a lot of philosophical questions while in her videos and books lambasting philosophers for being useless, believing she is guided by the maths and experiments, but when others do the same just with a different perspective she correctly calls it pseudo-science. Anyone who thinks maths directly connects to nature without philosophy in between is just unaware of what science was when it earned the prestige which it has been frittering away ever since it denounced philosophy and adopted Hilbert's fundamentalist neo-platonic cult philosophy as its new and unquestionable foundation.
    4
  6. Things being able to be represented as tensors is an entirely different statement to actually being tensors. e.g. Quaternions are absolutely not tensors but can be represented as such. An element of a vector space is absolutely not a tensor but may be represented as a rank 1 tensor. A group is absolutely not a tensor and cannot be represented by a tensor at all, although one can represent elements of groups by tensors and operate on them with other tensors to represent the group.
    4
  7. Watch a film called "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once" Excellent use of the multiverse concept.
    4
  8. Love that you used a clip of a woman in hijab checking the microscope.
    3
  9. if physicists could truly understand the map is not the territory, physics would not crop up in any atheist's statement of belief.
    3
  10. @NondescriptMammal  At the end of the day, all physics is nothing more than description. Physicists play with ontology, and talk about it, and do so more consistently that your average Joe; but no theory or experiment in the domain of physics could ever settle any ontological question, even in principle.
    3
  11. @NondescriptMammal  If you think about "gravitation", do you think of the pure phenomenon, or something else? By pure phenomenon, I mean the path a body will be measured to take.
    3
  12. I think when she burned the paper it released more energy than went into coming up with it.
    3
  13.  @coconutsandmore2576  Do you truly not see the irony of your comment?!
    3
  14. Your claim for multiverses just show up in the mathematics is no different from photons and electrons which just show up as integration kernels. They are also obviously, by the laws of quantum mechanics, not observable. Only projection operators on some Hilbert space have associated observations, but there you have an observation of some energy transfer. By your argument, belief in the existence of electrons is precisely equally as religious as the multiverse. NB; I do not believe in multiverses either, but it has to be recognised that the entirety of quantum mechanics of particles is purely religious - rooted in neo-platonic formalism. There is zero, and I repeat emphatically, absolutely zero evidence that particles exist, and all working theories are inconsistent with the existence of particles. That's why high energy physics is a doomed enterprise. I have a degree in theoretical physics, I'm aware of the Canon of experiments that apparently prove quantum theory. Not a single one has sufficient logical merit or mathematical rigor to be taken seriously. Not one. The mathematical apparatus which was titled as a theory, is just an engineering tool. A mathematical black box. You don't have to use hilbert space to integrate the equations, so any interpretation relying on Hilbert space is laughably ridiculous.
    2
  15.  @Khomyakov.Vladimir  I can tell you have only learned from popular science books, that is why you don't understand the significance of the linearity of the equation and therefore didn't follow the argument. Quantum mechanics is inherently fundamentally linear and therefore no Quantum mechanics whatsoever of any kind can possibly ever produce chaotic behaviour. Talk of a non-linear theory of Quantum mechanics is just like talking of a triangle with 4 sides.
    2
  16. The extra dimensions don't have to be rolled up small to miss them in normal daily life. They just have to be a different type of degree of freedom.
    2
  17. You'd rather float with no direction or grounding, in a timeless abyss?
    2
  18.  @Juan-lf6qo  the heavens are not like a canopy or a tent. How long did it take humans to realise they can't cherry pick to suit their prejudged positions? And how long did it take us to regress back from that where you think you made a valid point just now?
    2
  19. The letter is spot on honesty, they are viciously beating back all us bright independent minds with their faulty gate-keeping and teams of flying monkeys. The universe is always ultimately balanced, so there must be a hell for these people.
    2
  20. It is very satisfying, unfortunately though, she should rip into a mirror sometime. Everything she lambasts in everyone else's work, appears to be in her own too. I used to love her until I discovered she's just yet another popularist hypocrite.
    2
  21.  @voltydequa845  As far as I'm concerned, you've failed the Turing test. Not sure if it's because of your Dunning-Kruger or something deeper, either way if I keep trying to talk to a wall then I'll end up looking mad. Going around in circles where it's absolutely evident to me that you think what I said is not concrete because YOU don't understand it, and you simply cannot process that fact, nor have you provided anything whatever other than self righteous sophistry. Honestly, it's pitiful.
    2
  22.  @stopthephilosophicalzombie9017  That's good going, well equipped for any of the sensible physics. I strongly suggest the Norman Wildberger video series and/or books to get an alternative mathematical perspective (e.g. he does an entire course in differential geometry without any use of infinity other than as a projective point.)
    2
  23. ​ @tapir1073  cats are always furrmions, intelligent ones are pure furrmions, the others can simultaneously be bozons.
    2
  24. They've been put behind the people whose ancestral spirits would be angry about drilling the land unless lots of money goes in the right pockets.
    2
  25.  @daarom3472  it's not that simple, as pointed out above the inverse relation exists and is well defined therefore both relations must exist.
    1
  26.  @daarom3472  If you are using existence in a colloquial sense, please explain in what sense. If you mean existence as in predicate logic, I can't see a way to express that consistently so perhaps write what you mean by that in a concrete unambiguous way. I suspect you will struggle to, because the whole point is these things are incredibly difficult (maybe impossible) to pin down from the perspective of numbers. We've been trying to figure it out since Euler looked at the primes through sequences and polynomials. If it's just simple and self evident in your view, then all you're telling me is you don't actually know what is going on when one litre of milk is "added" to another and the result shown to be consistent with our counting system. In other words, if you think you know what numbers mean/do and you haven't studied number theory from the perspectives algebra/topology/analysis then you have only proved you can fool yourself. I don't see how anyone who has studied even one of those perspectives to a significant degree of apprehension could've entertained such a facile thought for long enough to type it but I'm open to the idea it's possible.
    1
  27. A lot of people seem to have the idea that cars are coded to reflect calculus rather than algebraic logic which is how it actually works, because its a computer. They just run logic gates, there's no infinity, just an overflow leading to a circularity or gobbledygook number (depending on overflow handling method, check IEEE stds).
    1
  28. Sabine drew incorrect conclusion; lambda wrong for _stochastic_/emergent life does support creator hypothesis over random hypothesis.
    1
  29. The "Uncertainty" is inherent in integrating all differential equations of this broad class, including many we say are strictly classical. Even fourier's original use-case of the heat equation! The thing that makes it wierd, is when we stop thinking of it as the continuous wave all evidence unambiguously tells us, and force ourselves to conjoure up the idea of sub-atomic located particles, then we have an Uncertainty paradox to deal with. 120 years of looping over the same objectively insane belief out of purely religious faith reality is not just continuous has eventually made it sound reasonable. Ironically, it survives by invoking the medieval religious defense of the Trinity "if you think it sounds crazy it's because you don't understand".
    1
  30. I'm banking on people getting fed up with the internet and going back to real books.
    1
  31. I think AI is going to weed out artificially intelligent scientists (most of them). But, the artificially intelligent mob will bury real intelligence in BS in order to keep their illusions going. Snake oil is in high demand, while very few people care about truth anymore.
    1
  32. @ravenmad9225  The world's first university was established by a Muslim woman in Hijab. Your comment reveals enough to know you'd need to do a lot of internal work before coming up with a valid point.
    1
  33. @ravenmad9225  The world's first university was established by a Muslim woman in Hijab. Better not show off toxic ignorance.
    1
  34. @ravenmad9225  The world's first university was established by a Muslim woman in Hijab.
    1
  35. @ravenmad9225  The world's first university was established by a Muslim woman in Hijab.
    1
  36. Single axiom theory; God creates optimum universe. Details also interesting.
    1
  37. @richardchapman1592  non-linear differential equations can't superimpose their solutions as you can with linear ones. You can sort of do so locally. One problem you'll have is making sense of anything, if your equation is non-linear it probably even support group structures like U(1) and SU(2). This sort of thing has been tried, you need to learn the maths to turn that thought into an idea.
    1
  38. @richardchapman1592  I'm actually working on a syllabus for a series of videos to go into all that stuff. Happy to have some calls and talk though it, see where we get to. Helps me to get things out doing that. V.I. Arnold has a small book on Catastrophe Theory which would be a good atlas for much of what you're talking about. Other than that, I'd recommend getting knee deep in geometric algebra, then swinging it around and seeing what you can catch with it. Iterating that process and branching off to the other things you touch (often other languages for the same thing), should get you able to fluently read and check calculations in most papers on theoretical physics, neural networks, and quantum computation.
    1
  39. They're NOT defined as cauchy sequences or dedekind cuts, total nonsense. They're defined by axioms, then in order to make them useful "cauchy" (better, Aristotle) sequences are used and in order to fend off constructivists Dedekind invented a so-called construction which is useless and leads to paradoxes.
    1
  40. ​@HadiLq A debate between Cauchy and Cantor would be like a fight between Mike Tyson and a crack addict. Cantor was mathematically and philosophically inept. Gauss correctly identified Cantor's arguments as theology.
    1
  41. ​@Alan-zf2tt What do you think "defined rigorously" means? In practical terms that means using set theory and some system of logic; in other words, tying yourself to a purely ideological position before you're allowed to speak. The history of maths would make you laugh and cry if you read original sources instead of what people say about them.
    1
  42.  @thegreatgazoo2334  right, thanks for teaching me to suck eggs when I clearly am quite aware of the ridiculously obvious and childish observation that theoretical physics uses maths. Now that's out of the way, do you have anything to say which actually contends with my comment or has any actual intelligent content?
    1
  43.  @seq31  that's not how any of it works. Proof is logical, mathematical structures are short hand for more complext 1st order logic constructions. These are applied to particular propositions using 2nd order logic in order to evaluate which logical possibilities, if any, remain. Your statement sounds much more like one of a fundamentalist zealot who is just parroting what they've been told to believe than one who has understood the basics of the topic.
    1
  44. Her "history" of maths shows the problem; despite being one of the better ones, her history garbage. Shows why people are making the same mistakes over and over. Academia is ridiculous.
    1
  45. @__Truth__  I have a library with many hundreds of original maths/physics books from 1750 to recent, charting the whole history. I also have a degree in theoretical physics so I know well the gulf between what is taught should be in those books vs what actually is. On my own, I keep going round in circles amd never having a video/book to release... fancy working on something together?
    1
  46. ​@davidespinosa1910 even if a map has every conceivable detail, it's still not the territory; just means you wouldn't have to visit the territory to get the information.
    1
  47. @NondescriptMammal  well, you were misled. best understanding is there is no such thing as empty space. Also, any curvature or expansion is due to causal connectivity to matter - so even in GR you can only declare artificially empty space (an empty portion of a non-empty space) unless it cannot curve.
    1
  48. @virno69420  lol, I'm not wrong, you just don't understand the physics. "vacuum energy" necessarily means the space-time is non-empty.
    1
  49. @virno69420  oh yeah, the problem is my comprehension of English when you said "nah u wrong vacuum energy can curve space-time". That comes from YOUR failure to comprehend what I wrote. If you've only just learned how to use crayons and GPT, don't try to correct someone who has studied physics for over 2 decades.
    1
  50. @virno69420  tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to soothe those salty tears. If you don't want to learn, and want to pretend you know what you're talking about, that's up to you.
    1