The Fallacy of Sabine Hossenfeldershe posts a lot of videos. so I am sure she gets some things wrong.
QuantverseDr. Sabine Hossenfelder is a popular science communicator, with often controversial views. In this video, I have attempted to take a critical look at the rise of Sabine, her involvement in string theory wars, recent controversy, and expert opinions.
This attacks her on three points.
1. She says black hole information loss will never be measured.
2. She did a video on an unpublished argument about black hole singularities.
3. She believes in superdeterminism.
I agree with her on (1), and on (2) she seemed to be accurately reporting a paper that might be wrong.
For (3), the video relies on Tim Maudlin:
superdeterminism 18:19 explains Quantum Randomness by denying 18:21 statistical IndependenceI agree with Maudlin that superdeterminism is kinda crazy, and undermines the whole scientific enterprise. But I would say the same about the nonlocal quantum interpretations that Maudlin subscribes to. If nature is nonlocal, then the premises underlying much of science are wrong.[Hossenfelder] about the 18:23 possible values of the Hidden variables 18:26 think about the hidden variables as 18:28 labels for the possible paths that the 18:30 particle could take say the labels 1 2 3 18:33 go to the left slit and the labels 456 18:36 go to the right slit and the label 7 to 18:38 12 go through both the particle really 18:41 has one of those hidden variables but we 18:43 don't know which then if we measure the 18:47 particles at the left slit that simply 18:49 tells us that the hidden variable was in 18:51 the one 12 three batch if we measure it 18:54 right it was in the 456 batch if we 18:56 measure it on the screen it was than the 18:59 7th to 12th batch no mystery no 19:01 instantaneous collapse no 19:04 non-locality but it means that the 19:06 particles path depends on what 19:08 measurement will take place because the 19:11 particles must have known already when 19:13 they got on the way whether to pick one 19:15 of the two slits or go through both this 19:19 is just what observations tell us and 19:22 that's what super determinism is now you 19:25 may say well drawing lines on YouTube 19:28 isn't proper science and I would agree 19:30 if you'd rather see equations you're 19:32 most welcome to look at my
[Quantverse] instead of 19:35 reading her papers let's see what Tim 19:37 Maudlin, a world leading expert, has to say 19:39 about 19:40 it.
[Maudlin] there are people who for reasons I do 19:43 not fathom, I just literally don't 19:46 understand their reasons, are are so 19:49 deeply committed to 19:52 locality that they're looking for any 19:54 Escape Route. I mean that's more or less 19:56 what we were talking about with these 19:57 with these loopholes with these 19:59 detection loopholes right they don't 20:01 like the idea of non-locality and 20:03 they're looking for any Escape they can 20:05 have from from accepting it and these 20:08 detection loopholes for many years were 20:10 one until the experimentalist just 20:12 closed those loopholes they're gone uh 20:15 so the only other loophole is they look 20:16 at this and they say well I don't want 20:17 to deny locality I guess I have to deny 20:20 statistical 20:21 Independence and the problem with 20:23 denying statistical Independence is that 20:25 it's kind of crazy and it's it's crazy 20:28 in conspiratorial and on top of it you 20:30 know as as you know I've said and other 20:33 people have said it undermines all 20:36 scientific method I 20:38 mean if in order to get out of accepting 20:41 non-locality you 20:44 deny what's required assumptions that 20:47 are required to do 20:50 science that's not a good 20:52 deal right that's a really bad 20:56 deal
The problem is not that Hossenfelder is committed to locality, but that Hossenfelder and Maudlin are committed to hidden variable theories.
Yes, Hossenfelder has kooky views about superdeterminism that the vast majority of physicists reject. In fairness, she realizes this, and hardly ever talks about those views.
I am all in favor of criticizing science popularizers when they are wrong, but he needs to look up the word "fallacy". There is no fallacy.
She also has a new video attacking Gisin:
This Physicist Says We’re Using Maths Entirely WrongI think she misunderstands Gisin. She does not link to him. Here is a Quanta article, and one of his papers. His gripe is about mathematizing nature, and it applies to classical or quantum mechanics.Intuitionist mathematics is the idea that the entire discipline of maths is a mental construct based on human thought rather than a platonic realm of eternal truths. According to physicist Nicolas Gisin, one of this idea’s biggest proponents, that maths is based on human intuition is the reason why quantum mechanics seems so strange. Let’s take a look.
In this video, Gisin attacks her for saying that free will is meaningless and contrary to science, and for her believing in superdeterminism. He is at the other extreme, and believes that classical and quantum theories are indeterministic.
I partially agree with Gisin, in that I believe in free will, and that the future is indeterminate. Infinities are not realizable in nature, and neither are real numbers having infinitely many decimal places. We only observe approximations to reals.
'Eternal Truths' my ass. How any physicist would even invoke such linguistic drivel as an explanation to anything is revolting.
ReplyDeleteIf you have to believe in an other dimensional platonic realm to *cough* 'explain' or inform where the math comes from and why it works, you should probably be fired from any academic or governmental institution because:
1.) Incompetence. You are illiterate and ignorant of your own discipline's history and development.
2.) It means you are quite literally a mystic, and are applying the equivalent of pixie dust to your solutions in order for things to work. In the real world, we call this type of solution 'bullshit'.
Math is numbers applied to logic. That's it. No otherworldly ANYTHING of any kind required. It in no way is informed by anything other than the input data and logical operations performed upon that data. Logic is required before ANY numbers can exist conceptually, much less math can be performed. If you wish to challenge this premise, please provide an example of a single mathematical operation that can occur (or has ever occurred) without a logical operator... notice the key words 'operations' and 'operator' ...which requires some amount of time in which to be performed. Before ANY mathematical statement can occur, there must be an ordered logical framework of definitions, and logical operators to determine how quantities are handled long before a result can even be considered or calculated, it doesn't just happen. Never has, never will.
Math does not float about unto itself in any capacity outside of fantasy or farce. It IS as far as we can determine and demonstrate, a human construct, and an incredibly methodical activity. Like any process, it can not ever be instantaneous. No logical sequence, no god damn math. 0 time = 0 operations = 0 math.
If mathematicians are going to invoke magic, they should get in line with the other actors, whores, and politicians, and not be allowed near education or government funding.