Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[tsig]

Thank you for the Pro tip.

Why twist words to find insult?

Where did I indicate I didn't want responses? I took exception to a few that I perceived as immature and petty. I responded in kind (hence MY apology). Otherwise, for PAGES, I was fair, courteous, and responsive to replies. Replies which I appreciated, and said as much.

I called 'everyone' petty? Really? I described a couple posts I responded to poorly as petty, which you interpret as calling 'everyone' petty? Interesting.

Exactly how would you characterize your post? Friendly? Helpful? Courteous? Mature? Tough Love? Do tell.

ETA: I read the 'notpology' again, I probably should have said 'perceived pettiness', though I doubt that would have changed much.

All of the above.

I see you still haven't mastered the "no submit button" yet.

Your continued insistence on arguing that maybe a little woo is possible will inevitably get responses.

 

[The Greater Fool]

But we do. Whatever is going on at the 'tiny' level, and however big the impact of the massive volume at our scale, we measure that impact when we measure how stuff behaves at our scale. The experiments have been done; all that 'tiny' stuff contributes to the measurements we make, and as was made clear, we don't need to explicitly consider those minutiae at macro scales, they're accounted for, summed into macro scale behaviour, and we know how the macro scale behaves.

We (more appropriately, they) know about the macro scale effects because they were known for millennia before QFT. For QFT to be anywhere near complete, it had to account for known effects. QFT still has not seen gravitons, which are still hypothetical place holders. We know it is there because we see the pattern effect. Carroll shows that their is still a load of small stuff we haven't detected. Further, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and often gravity itself, were dismissed from Carroll's presentation.

Reading about String Theory, it seems gravity is better explained as action of the strings in dimensions we can't see, and the hypothetical graviton is the net effect of events in the unseen dimensions in our familiar four dimensions. Other forces, that produce no discernible pattern at our scale, may operate similarly.

How do you account for effects you don't recognize because they seem little more than noise?

In relation to woo: On the woo side, it is very much woo of the gaps; On the rational side, it's very much trying to prove a negative.

I don't believe in woo. QFT goes an extremely long way in supporting that view. Reality as I experience it, even further. My position is there are admitted gaps in knowledge that prevent certainty.

 

[The Greater Fool]

All of the above.

I see you still haven't mastered the "no submit button" yet.

Your continued insistence on arguing that maybe a little woo is possible will inevitably get responses.

Great, I can feel the love. Thank you for your friendly, helpful, kind advice.

On a Discussion Forum, it is my insistence on responding to posts DIRECTED TO ME that is wrong?

If my actually responding to posts directed to me is a problem for you, I believe there is forum functionality that allows you to avoid them, since you can't seem to do so manually.

 

[ferd burfle]

We have yet to see the mechanisms..

So did I misunderstand this statement?

 

[tsig]

Great, I can feel the love. Thank you for your friendly, helpful, kind advice.
On a Discussion Forum, it is my insistence on responding to posts DIRECTED TO ME that is wrong?

If my actually responding to posts directed to me is a problem for you, I believe there is forum functionality that allows you to avoid them, since you can't seem to do so manually.

I wouldn't get to carried away with that love thing but the advice was meant to be helpful, the fact that you are unable to take it says nothing about the intent.

My advice is this:

Quit insisting there are holes in a theory you do not understand.

Or

Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I wouldn't get to carried away with that love thing but the advice was meant to be helpful, the fact that you are unable to take it says nothing about the intent.

My advice is this:

Quit insisting there are holes in a theory you do not understand.

Or

Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Now wait, when asked about your first kind and helpful 'don't hit submit' post, you indicated in your second kind and helpful 'don't hit submit' post it was 'tough-love', now in your third 'don't hit submit' post, not so much? Just a tad quixotic there, though I may not be grasping your message.

Thank you again, for your critique of my understanding of these issues. I believe you appreciate just how much I value your opinion. It is wonderfully spunky how you simply repeat that opinion as if it matters.

And, your final advice... so sad, so very sad.

 

[The Greater Fool]

So did I misunderstand this statement?

I made the statement. Very early in my interactions in this thread, demands to provide mechanisms were made of me. Again, if mechanisms are demanded of me, how is making the TRUE statement you quote 'crackpot'? This criticism seems rather like a Catch-22, I'm wrong no matter how I reply.

 

[tsig]

I made the statement. Very early in my interactions in this thread, demands to provide mechanisms were made of me. Again, if mechanisms are demanded of me, how is making the TRUE statement you quote 'crackpot'? This criticism seems rather like a Catch-22, I'm wrong no matter how I reply.

"The only winning move is not to play."

 

[Hlafordlaes]

All I see people doing is explaining why your hypothetical examplel keeps failing to deal with the facts as they are currently known to exist.

And just what are the facts as they are known to exist? There are no facts about posited supernatural anythings. None.

The natural world does not intersect with the supernatural. Claims made about the second, if fully contained within that fictional realm, have no bearing on the natural world. They are mere rationalist (or irrational) imaginings.

As you would rather have it:

You are attempting to create a hypothesis that creates a gap in reality so a "god of the gaps" can be hidden in it, unfortunately for your hypothesis it would seem that our understanding of reality has come to such a point that there is simply no gap for your hypothetical example to hide in.

I am afraid that any hypothesis, my example or any other, that makes no natural claims, creates no gaps whatsoever. Further, if you think there are no gaps in science, or worse, the goal is to close them all as the necessary and primary means of protection against woo, you are on a fool's mission.

When the thread catches up to Popper, I'll return. Meanwhile, I'll leave the so-called "Brights," missionary claimants to perfect knowledge across all realms, natural and otherwise, to their own devices.

"Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become like them." - Anon
(Not a religious quote, by the way.)

 

[steenkh]

The natural world does not intersect with the supernatural.

Yes it does! According to the believers, the supernatural world can be experienced directly, or in dreams, and it all involves the natural world, or we could not know or speak about it. Even without QFT, it is quite clear that the supernatural world intersects with the natural world.

 

[tsig]

And just what are the facts as they are known to exist? There are no facts about posited supernatural anythings. None.

The natural world does not intersect with the supernatural. Claims made about the second, if fully contained within that fictional realm, have no bearing on the natural world. They are mere rationalist (or irrational) imaginings.



I am afraid that any hypothesis, my example or any other, that makes no natural claims, creates no gaps whatsoever. Further, if you think there are no gaps in science, or worse, the goal is to close them all as the necessary and primary means of protection against woo, you are on a fool's mission.

When the thread catches up to Popper, I'll return. Meanwhile, I'll leave the so-called "Brights," missionary claimants to perfect knowledge across all realms, natural and otherwise, to their own devices.

"Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become like them." - Anon
(Not a religious quote, by the way.)

Haven't seen any Brights around here but if you think they are your enemies you might want to heed your last sentence.

Not being able to refute the facts you resort to name calling, sad.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

If there's something truly undetectable, then whether it exists or not has no effect on the rest of the universe.

Exactly. That is what I have been saying all along.

Gravitons and virtual particles are undetectable. I believe in order to detect a graviton, you would need a detector the size of a planet. And then, you would only detect (on average) one every decade. So, in actual practice, it is undetectable.

Virtual particles are too short lived to be detected at all. Yet they clearly have an effect according to QFT.

Some of you (not all of you) really need to stop with the "no, you are wrong" comments if you don't understand anything about actual physics. At least try to get your information from something other than an hour long pop science video.

 

[PixyMisa]

The natural world does not intersect with the supernatural.

Precisely. Because there is no supernatural.

If there were, it would, by definition, interact with the natural world.

I am afraid that any hypothesis, my example or any other, that makes no natural claims, creates no gaps whatsoever.

And says nothing.

 

[PixyMisa]

Gravitons and virtual particles are undetectable. I believe in order to detect a graviton, you would need a detector the size of a planet. And then, you would only detect (on average) one every decade. So, in actual practice, it is undetectable.

That's not what anyone is saying. If something does not interact - which is the common factor of the hypotheticals being discussed - it does not exist.

Virtual particles are too short lived to be detected at all. Yet they clearly have an effect according to QFT.

Precisely. So the example has no bearing on the discussion.

 

[The Greater Fool]

That's not what anyone is saying. If something does not interact - which is the common factor of the hypotheticals being discussed - it does not exist.

If the woo has agency (god, demons, angels, pixies, unicorns, etc.), how would experiments detect the effect when, presumably or possibly, the woo agency would have no purpose to act within an experiment?

To be clear, I think this is squarely into fantasyland, but am curious as to the response. I promise not to argue the answer

 

[PixyMisa]

If the woo has agency (god, demons, angels, pixies, unicorns, etc.), how would experiments detect the effect when, presumably or possibly, the woo agency would have no purpose to act within an experiment?

Statistical inference. Examine the world at large and compare what you observe with what you would expect if the god/demon/angel/pixie/unicorn did not exist. If the thingy really exists and really does something, there must be an observable difference in the world.

If the thingy acts such that the world is in all ways indistinguishable from one in which it did not exist - then in what sense does it exist?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

That's not what anyone is saying. If something does not interact - which is the common factor of the hypotheticals being discussed - it does not exist.

You keep shifting the goalposts. The claim is that if something interacts (in this specific case, neurons), then it is detectable by conventional particle physics experiments. This is wrong. Even if I grant all assumptions about QFT being absolutely correct and a perfect model of reality at the energy scales of everything that affects neurons, it is still wrong. Even if I grant the assumption that physicalism and/or materialism are true and that everything which exists is modeled by quantum field theory and the assumptions of physicalism and/or materialism, it is still wrong. Even if I grant the assumption that there are no other particles or interactions or forces which exist that are currently unknown, it is still wrong.

Gravitons and virtual particles both exist, according to quantum field theory. They both affect reality, at our energy scales, according to quantum field theory. Yet, it is impossible to detect them, according to the experimental predictions of quantum field theory.

Even if I grant you and steenkh all of your physicalist assumptions and (incorrect) assumption that QFT is a perfect model of reality at the relevant energy scales, you are still wrong.

How does it feel to be so, so indisputably wrong by all known standards of modern physics after you keep saying "you are wrong" followed by an appeal to authority to Sean Carroll?

Precisely. So the example has no bearing on the discussion.

Extremely cute attempt at shifting the goalposts, but it's not going to cut it with me.

 

[tsig]

If the woo has agency (god, demons, angels, pixies, unicorns, etc.), how would experiments detect the effect when, presumably or possibly, the woo agency would have no purpose to act within an experiment?

To be clear, I think this is squarely into fantasyland, but am curious as to the response. I promise not to argue the answer

You're suggesting an agency that can affect the universe but can't be detected experimentally because it doesn't want to act within an experiment?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

If there were, it would, by definition, interact with the natural world.

Can you stop saying "by definition" as a smokescreen to hide the fact you have not provided an argument? I am starting to think you are incapable of providing a logical argument, so you have to resort to claiming something is true "by definition" (when it clearly isn't) or telling people to "watch this video" (i.e. check out this authority figure so I don't have to provide an argument. Sorry but I can't tell you what time he refutes your argument. It's only an hour long, just watch the whole thing! If you miss the refutation the first time, just watch it again!)

Either that or you do not know what "by definition" means (hint: the property is contained within the definition of the object one is discussing), and you do not realize that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Statistical inference. Examine the world at large and compare what you observe with what you would expect if the god/demon/angel/pixie/unicorn did not exist. If the thingy really exists and really does something, there must be an observable difference in the world.

Believers in such woo with agency believe they see a difference (Miracles!, answered prayer, ghosts, etc.).

If the thingy acts such that the world is in all ways indistinguishable from one in which it did not exist - then in what sense does it exist?

The premise is not that such woo action would be indistinguishable (as indicated above), just that it would be purposeful, unpredictable (from our perpspective), and disinterested in influencing experiments.

I agree with your 'indistinguishable' statements 100%. However, such seem less about QFT and more other arguments?

You're suggesting an agency that can affect the universe but can't be detected experimentally because it doesn't want to act within an experiment?

It has been suggested to me, yes. Fundementalist brother, you know.