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

  1. @judewarner1536  I think the problem is the conception of action at a distance, based on the ontological thin ice physics has been skating on for quite a few generations. If physics recognised its limitations as a description system, we'd be talking about correlations at a distance (or even over time in either direction)... it takes very little adjustment for tacyon field mediated interactions to lead to shocking and spooky correlations throughout the universe let alone between minds. However, physics is the wrong tool to investigate it - like using that remote control to provide light to find your keys with.
    1
  2. @GarrickDitlefsen  There's a book on this called Kalam Cosmological arguments.
    1
  3. Finally! This is the kind of video I subscribed for 😊
    1
  4. Not terribly insightful, didn't mention quantum volume, so didn't address central issue.
    1
  5. This is just a dressed up demonstration of Russell's paradox. The trick is to start with nothing being somehow contained. It's just further proof that the law of the excluded middle (the belief that Hilbert was magically impervious to false dichotomy), is not a law but theology (as it was immediately recognised for at the time). Only thing is, when physicists realise they were deliberately conned by Hilbert and Born as part of their Göttimgen power coup... I bet many won't be able to admit it, even to themselves. Hilbert space is nothing but a really stupid way to try to integrate a manifold. Just like his geometry, it only makes sense to someone who has never actually really used real geometry and therefore totally lacked intuition. Had he not been so efficient at engineering gaslights, we may have all grown up with the Bolyai-Lobachevsky extension instead of the modern approach "everything is on a line in some stack of tangent spaces I can only imagine I can reason with but actually I've deferred intuition to my computer". Everything Hilbert and his clan touched just spread their tentacles of multiply-accepted contradictions into it, including physics. If you want to put physics back on track, rip out all the formalist/logicist dogma you've been indoctrinated with and present yourself humbly to a philosopher that you may be able to open up from the reality-myopia cult indoctrination has left most with.
    1
  6. Sabine. Come on. You need to research better or stick to things you know about. Cryptographic material is a small amount of information. Nobody is talking about running pipes full of encrypted data through submarine cables. Jiat because you don't see the point of something, doesn't mean there isn't a good point t to look for. I am a senior cyber security specialist with a degree in theoretical physics, BTW.
    1
  7. I wish Sabine would pay sufficient attention to what the role of experimentation is in physics. She shuns philosophers as useless but ultimately that's because they disagree with her overly simplistic philosophy so the bridge is extended to her but she won't extend a bridge towards them. The only way out of a self-fulfilling belief system is to look for consistency. But consistency of understanding what the maths is telling us was thrown out in 1920 and with it physics itself ceased to be the same subject from which it takes its pedigree. It's no good saying "you need evidence" if what you will accept as evidence is only things consistent with the articles of faith built into the philosophy of science. Remember, Mathematics used to be concerned with what is true and this gave physics its power. Then from Hilbert's day on the formalists took over and maths no longer concerned itself with what is actually true. "Quantum theory" did the same attempt same time, and at that point they both cut odd their connection to actual truth. The experiments in Quantum theory have told us nothing new about the nature of reality to date, the ability to do engineering should not be conflated with understanding what it is. Being able to build a hut with sticks doesn't mean much about how well you understand trees and woodworking.
    1
  8. Computer science is actually still doing physics, low temp is doing engineering, and high energy/cosmology is inventing religions.
    1
  9. The problem is how they're working on a theory of everything. They're all standing on a big tower with 2ft foundations building floors ontop of a roof that's caving in while proclaiming "we're fixing the foundations". It would be a comedy sketch if we weren't 100 years and countless billions in the hole with nothing but modern polytheism to show for it.
    1
  10. No you don't. Believing that waves a red flag that you are a manipulative narcissist. If you gaslight what someone is saying and project your distortions into them, they will have no recourse left but anger. You can then use your neat little justification to dismiss them, self fulfilling your belligerent "scepticism". That thought pattern you just outlined, is pure evil.
    1
  11. Maybe, just maybe, he refers to Asbergers because it describes him better than being on some Disorder spectrum. Thinking differently =/=> defective
    1
  12. I started following Sabine's channel a while ago. I was initially very impressed, but the more I'm exposed to her views the more I realise its not just simplification for the sake of removing gobbledygook; it's simplification to make a straw-man to knock over. I wish Sabine would spend less time knocking philosophers and more time taking them seriously, I feel if she did, she might actually make some progress instead of digging into a fruitless rut of blindness to her own pseudo-scientific and pseudo-logical positions.
    1
  13. Hilbert and his Göttingen gang essentially shredded the Constructivist tapestry of mathamatical flora and fauna, taxidermying them into formalism as they lived out fantasies of colonising abstract space. Literally every shred of legitimacy/validity/usefulness comes from constructive geometry and combinatorics. All their "generalisations" were just punts into a dark void they didn't comprehend at all, and all their existence proofs depended on circular logic and/or contradictions. The law of the excluded middle was wielded to give Hilbert the power to conjour dichotomies at will, each (once annointed by his gang) becoming as real as any other idea according to their lunatic delusions of grandeur. All they had to sacrifice was Truth, a small price for hypocritical selective sceptics to pay for inflated egos. Gödel raised the Götting gang's foundations to the ground; the Guy Fawkes of logic. They admitted Gödel was correct, but did not admit this meant they'd spent the last 30 years gaslighting and viciously attacking all colleagues who opposed them for nothing more than having pushed academia off a cliff. The only way maths and physics can heal it to rip out the malignant cancer that is "set theory as a foundation of rigor" and recognise the tree of mathematics died in 1920s (good riddance!) because mathematics is a network which connects it's speakers to a communication channel which is relatively free from distortions.
    1
  14. @andrew3203  The Banach-Tarski paradox is an excellent example of how a proof of absurdity becomes an interesting paradox to ideologues.
    1
  15. What if we already had the theory of everything and then we broke it, giving what we have today?
    1
  16. ​@andyhu9542 Seriously?! Hold that apparently true statement because you don't like that the consequence would be libertarian thinking which from relative to your current perspective is extreme on the other side... you know that means you're extreme on the other side, right? No way around that other than denial.
    1
  17. ​​​​ @aes0p895 Ironically, you work pretty much like chat GPT. You just spat out plausible sounding garbage which proves your understanding is junk. The fact that you don't know WTF you're talking about has just been confirmed by Captain Obvious. For example, something can occur which cuts down the space of possibilities, even in infinite time it may not evolve to all possible states. You need infinite time and infinite space and infinite new material and infinite restarts, homogeneity, and and and. Basically you add enough conditions to make it a tautology, then it's true. Go back to the very first book on series and limits then move forward, that level is a challenge currently beyond you. In fact, since you think a hypothesis is an axiom, start literally at the beginning.
    1
  18. ​​​ @d-mancat537  It's not axiom, and it's not a proven theorem. It's not true at all and his comment was complete garbage end-to-end. It would OBVIOUSLY only be true for a system with absolutely no constraints at all whatsoever of any kind. As soon as there's a single constraint (as with any analysable system, real or ideal), obviously there become unreachable states in phase space. IE, things that don't happen. That literally mathematically illiterate codswallop about extending the idea of infinite monkeys to anything comes from popular science books. Even then, the infinite monkeys have to live infinitely long and never wear out their fingers or typewriters. But the same result comes from one monkey. Infinite monkeys in finite time may never produce anything longer than a few pages. Finally, one can also say that e and pi and sqrt2 all contain all the works of Shakespeare back-to-back somewhere according to some encoding of letters as numbers (occurs as many times as there are encodings). Simultaneously contains the bible and everything else. At that point, if you don't realise the whole game is utterly stupid, meaningless, and illogical, you shouldn't talk about maths yet. The valid/verified uses of infinity do not include such junk.
    1
  19.  @aes0p895  I understand perfectly well the concept, and all those words which appear to be unrelated to you are the conditions of the "proof" you think you know something about. Without them, your comment is just completely false. Naively so. It only seems rude to you because you have mistakenly given yourself the impression you know something and were proud of it and that bubble being burst hurts. I'm pretty sure if you've done any study, it's comp sci, as that would explain how you think you know a maths result but are actually too mathematically naive and physically ignorant to know what's going on under the thing you've been told to repeat for dopamine hits in a test. Here it is real simple for you; if the system is non-trivial, there will be excluded states in phase space, therefore not everything will happen, even with infinite time and retries. Your ego is built on sand. This is your chance to admit it to a random person on YouTube which is much easier than in person to the buddies you've convinced you know about maths.
    1
  20.  @aes0p895  I only have a problem with arrogant ignorant douches afflicted by dunning-kruger. Normal people who do not completely suck don't see the side of me that puts down such toss pots and consequently just see the very pleasant and helpful side of me. In short, stop projecting and learn how to interact yourself.
    1
  21.  @aes0p895  Only from narcissists who I just called out and got embarrassed.
    1
  22.  @Lund.J  call it locally flat. Ironically, the only "shape" it actually has is a compact boundary surrounded by an open boundary. It's shape depends on your frame of reference. By taking a complicated enough path you could in principle make the earth almost any simply-connected closed bounded shape you like, all of which are equally "true". The difference between that and the flat earth model being a single infinitesimal point. The idea the earth fundamentally IS spherical or near-spherical is actually the less philosophically literate position.
    1
  23. Maxwell and Hamilton already had a GUT, and there are still no experiments which are not consistent with it.
    1
  24. "Science has changed the world for the better" highly debatable. Good Sciencentific methods came from the Islamic empire, its insane how Europeans can just start counting at when they took hold of Science and focused it on economy and warfare. Then, having destroyed everyone else's chances of living a better way, say "look how brilliant our contribution is, look how primitive the others are". European view of its history is such extraordinarily twisted nonsense its unbelievable. Everyone is brainwashed and if you question it they just shout you down and call you stupid. I have a degree in theoretical physics, I have a highly technical career. I'm not scared of Science and tech, I understand it. I just wish the "experts" in their subjects had a viable education in the history of their subjects. It's quite silly how Sabine said she's working on foundations of physics but has only ever stood on the roof and looked sideways.
    1
  25. @s H  There was an Islamic empire for 30 years, with a succession of 4 khakifa. After that, it is as you described except for the last statement "we have surpassed them". Who is we and who is them and how is surpassing measured? If we is modern man and we have surpassed them (ancient people) in access to technology then I agree. Otherwise its much less clear cut. In terms of Islam though, I think that still beats atheism/materialism by a wide margin in terms of numbers.
    1
  26. In the 60s science institutions were converted into cold war machinery, physics became engineering and they stopped feeding the cow whose milk they survived off. nothing changed since.
    1
  27. Maths doesn't lie on its own, someone has to use it to do it.
    1
  28. Hierarchical analysis would induce this result regardless of whether or not its true. Why isn't Sabine mentioning the importance of "testability" which is completely absent for all biological theories; we can't re-run a billion year experiment.
    1
  29. @Aanthanur  Nope, it is not tested in the slightest. Not even one iota. You have conflated testability with plausible consistency.
    1
  30. @Aanthanur  It's simply not considered well tested, that is false. It's considered to have "strong" evidence. The gap between the two positions is so wide it may blow your mind.
    1
  31. @ryanturner6920  the inverse to a flat white.
    1
  32. The reason its got to be high energy or weakly interacting is thay the physics community refuses to believe it has a flocking problem.
    1
  33. spot on.
    1
  34. Its not that nobody understands quantum mechanics, it's that nobody can find a definition of measuring *which preserves their particle story*!
    1
  35. "Trust data, maths, logic" is a recipe for completely deceiving yourself. It is literally fundamentally impossible to put together enough maths consistently to deal with everything you use your logic for. Therefore if you "trust" those things, you will be convinced of your logic while you're actually just a blind hypocrite. Gödels theorem together with ex flaso quodlibet sequitur prove this conclusively and irrefutably (for those who put their faith in maths).
    1
  36. It's quite clear he simply swapped × and +, which actually is just a change of symbols. If he did understand physics, this would be a hilarious way to technically create a new and precisely equally valid standard model! 😂 Sabine didn't seem to spot the trick.
    1
  37. Its hit the boundary over which their snake oil has been flowing. The potential of AI has barely been tapped yet.
    1
  38. Maxwell's Treatise doesn't fit Sabine's types of physics progress. She needs to go back to the roots, not just keep peddling the historically implausible story handed down by the victors of the early 1900s socio/political physics wars.
    1
  39. Authors have simply admitted they don't know the difference between novel and derivative.
    1
  40. I commented about this on Sabine's video where she was talking about Nuclear solving the problem, it only apparently solves the carbon component but we would be able to produce much more waste heat as we have much more power to make use of unless we also make a focus on efficiency. If we have abundant energy, energy efficiency in design will likely go out of the window. I would like to see Sabine do more joined up thinking between the points she picks up to talk about.
    1
  41. The aether ruled out a century ago wasn't Maxwell's aether at all. Physicists have just been desperately holding onto any kind of partcle picture they can despite the overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that they are problematic fictions.
    1
  42. @sabine have you taken a look at Wildberger's reformulation of calculus etc. on a purely finite algebraic foundation?
    1
  43. Typical. Turings point COMPLETELY missed, scientists game the system to "win" by moving the intelligence bar down. If the test is does it have humanity, it obviously still fails because by default it often put math in bullet point environments so it doesn't render.
    1
  44. Agree, it would be hilarious if after all the ducking around that finally find out.
    1
  45.  @voltydequa845  Of course, it would be ludicrous to expect me to produce a precise book in the comments section. I certainly managed to be far more precise than the absurd waffling drivel you just defecated under my comment. If you had a rudimentary understanding of the problem area, you will understand the comment I made and the value it has. If you want to join in, get odd your totally un-earned high-horse and join in. If you want to pontificate with more of that senseless drivel, get in the sea.
    1
  46.  @stopthephilosophicalzombie9017  do you have a serious research interest or more of a curiosity around these questions? I'm interesting in collaborating with people who share a significant mathematical background but have a different perspective to the status quo narrative usually taught.
    1
  47. Great format. Sorely needed, and IMO more useful and engaging than the previous one which had degenerated into throwing stones from a glass house. Keep up the progress! Edit; bashing liz truss and brexit in that call sketch was brilliant.
    1
  48. The superposition being the normal cat dynamical function as it persues collapse into either state.
    1
  49. Major missing factor is these technologies can be used to target enemy satellites. The moment that starts with retaliations, were done.
    1
  50. Microstates are just as much artificial for our convenience as macrostates. Saying one is more fundamental than another is a religious position.
    1