The use of probability theory is widespread in our daily life (gambling, investments, etc.) as well as in scientific theories (genetics, statistical thermodynamics). In virtually all cases, calculations can be carried out within the framework of classical probability theory. A special exception is given by quantum mechanics (the physical theory that describes matter on the atomic scale), which gives rise to a new probability theory: quantum probability theory.Many professors argue that the essence of quantum mechanics is negative probability, or imaginary probability, or interfering probabilities, or something like that.

On the other hand, experts in probability and statistics have found quantum probability to be useless for modeling anything but atomic particles.

However, you only need regular probability theory for quantum mechanics. This has been explained by Jaynes and the Bayesians. Probability is not a physical thing, and is not essential to the theory. It is needed for testing, but that is true of all scientific theories.

Wave can interfere. Probabilities do not.

All they do is handwave and take 269 pages to do it. You explain things clearly in about A PAGE. I always was in favor of a tax on university publishing of any sort. The major challenge of this era is dealing with the incredible dump of information. If the government wants to fine everyone for environmental pollution then why not penalize those that create info smog? The higher education bubble has produced nothing but fifth-rate imitators, where a handful of talented people could advance most fields. They just get in the way with garbage and derivative trivia.

ReplyDeleteThe results are in about "education." It just enables rent seeking for the coddled:

"Cross national data show no association between the increases in human capital attributable to rising educational attainment of the labor force and the rate of growth of output per worker. This implies the association of educational capital growth with conventional measures of TFP is large, strongly statistically significant, and negative. "

"[N]either the increase nor the initial level of higher education is found to have a statistically significant relationship with growth rates both in the OECD and worldwide. This result is robust to numerous different specifications."

They pay these overeducated and overrated buffoons six figures but conservatives complain when we try to adjust the minimum wage to keep up with the Keynesian economists printing so much money. Give me a break.