• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

ASR without the A. Science news without the BS

kemmler3D

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
2,741
Likes
5,124
Location
San Francisco
Why is this world so fu....ing complicated?
I understand Einstein, you have to not love the quantum world. But...., its how it is. Dont panic! ;)
Quantum mechanics is unintuitive because of all the hacks and shortcuts the simulation designers used to save memory / CPU. Don't have to maintain a database of particle locations if it's not locally real... you can use pop-in and LOD scaling to save resources just like they do in games... ;)
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,606
Likes
4,499
Location
Germany
Quantum mechanics is unintuitive because of all the hacks and shortcuts the simulation designers used to save memory / CPU. Don't have to maintain a database of particle locations if it's not locally real... you can use pop-in and LOD scaling to save resources just like they do in games... ;)

Yes this fu..ing game designers had to look on the resources. From this point of view the simulation is very plausible. But its a God theorie, and maybe even the gods live also in a simulation? Its crazy nothing makes realy sense. 42 and dont panic. ;)
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,606
Likes
4,499
Location
Germany
Do you understand why this bit pretty clearly outlines why and how she's a crackpot? Her contention is functionally equivalent to saying that magic elves are interfering with our experiments to produce a certain result.

Saying that someone that speaks on the royal institution channel is a crackpot is like saying newton was a crackpot. Its ok to think different. But crackpot is just the wrong language. Btw. Superdetemism is not her child.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
9,967
Likes
17,232
Location
Netherlands
Saying that someone that speaks on the royal institution channel is a crackpot is like saying newton was a crackpot.
Newton was absolutely a crackpot. He was very superstitious, believed in alchemy, hated woman and was a total snob.

He also wrote more on theology than math and science, though nobody seems to remember any of it ;)

The trouble is: you can be totally wrong on one subject matter, and totally right on another.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,606
Likes
4,499
Location
Germany
Newton was absolutely a crackpot. He was very superstitious, believed in alchemy, hated woman and was a total snob.

He also wrote more on theology than math and science, though nobody seems to remember any of it ;)

The trouble is: you can be totally wrong on one subject matter, and totally right on another.

Sure,
Newton was absolutely a crackpot. He was very superstitious, believed in alchemy, hated woman and was a total snob.

He also wrote more on theology than math and science, though nobody seems to remember any of it ;)

The trouble is: you can be totally wrong on one subject matter, and totally right on another.

Yes he believed in gods and was a asshole, but if this makes someone to a crackpot then there are a lot out there. Dont know maybe my definition of crackpot is not exactly right.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
9,967
Likes
17,232
Location
Netherlands
Yes he believed in gods and was a asshole, but if this makes someone to a crackpot then there are a lot out there. Dont know maybe my definition of crackpot is not exactly right.
Well, it has two: either eccentric or crazy foolish. I think both apply to Newton.

Obviously he wasn’t foolish on all subjects. Which makes it an all the more confusing and fascinating personality.
 

kemmler3D

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
2,741
Likes
5,124
Location
San Francisco
I agree that someone can be a crackpot in some areas and not others. It depends on how much you know, your motivations, and how much you're willing to let evidence diminish how interesting your ideas on the subject are.

For example, I don't think I can be accused of being a crackpot in audio, but I may be a crackpot in the field of coffee brewing, because I don't actually care enough to figure out whether my theories on blooming make any sense. I just go around telling people my technique is designed to maximize how much CO2 is expelled.

Also: Newton lost a lot of money in the Tulip bubble. He actually sold near the peak then got FOMO and bought back in. In that regard he was no better than your average "stonks" rube buying NFTs and Etherium at the peak. Just goes to show that intelligence often fails to extend as far from one's area of expertise as we'd like it to and Genius is often limited to one domain, or even part of one domain.

We probably shouldn't look too poorly on Newton for believing in religion / superstition as much as he did. At the time it was a much more socially desirable character trait.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
9,967
Likes
17,232
Location
Netherlands
We probably shouldn't look too poorly on Newton for believing in religion / superstition as much as he did. At the time it was a much more socially desirable character trait.
Even by standards of that era, he was quite an eccentric person.
 

Gringoaudio1

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
540
Likes
695
Location
Calgary Alberta Canada
I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with that, because - let's be honest here - who among us is actually qualified to critique the contemporary practice of theoretical physics? I think she actually is, but precious few people in her audience are prepared to judge whether her critiques are fair.

I think she's identified (as many others have, for years) a very big problem in academia with regard to perverse incentives around publishing and funding. However, I have a feeling that's she's unfairly singling out theoretical physics for this, i.e. blaming the wrong people. The physicists didn't come up with this system of perverse incentives, MBAs infiltrating academia and potato-IQ politicians did.

What's problematic about her critiques is they get traction in the press with people who have a general anti-science stance in the first place, they will point to her content as evidence that science as a whole is a fraud and waste of money, which as I'm sure we'll agree here, it very much isn't. Science in the US is already under-funded and abused as it is, I don't think her screeds about theoretical physics will make any of the problems she's identified anything but worse.
Thank you.
 
Top Bottom