= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilosophyFTW comments on Identity Isn't In Specific Atoms - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
Why did you not write this as a reply to me?
[Citation needed]
Quantum mechanics is the theory that reality is described by the Schrodinger equation; loop quantum gravity includes the Schrodinger equation. Its proponents claim that it includes the general relativity field equations as a long distance limit; that is what we mean when we say that one theory is a quantization of another, just like quantum and classical electrodynamics.
95% probability less than 10% of the physics you read is from journals/arXiv.
You are insane.
Feel free to make further claims you have no evidence for. Here's an article from arXiv you might find interesting: http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4144
I'm surprised that you put arXiv in the same class you put whatever it is you mean by journals. Maybe I should take the above article seriously? After all, arXiv makes it available. Get out of town.
You win two paper-machine points [1]: one for observing the true nature of arXiv, and the other for implicitly deriding those who argue the countability of the reals.
[1] Probably not redeemable for anything you'd want.
EDIT: Don't be too harsh on the mantra "QM says reality is described by Schrodinger". It's the noble lie they tell undergraduates -- or at least, what they told me when I was an undergraduate. In my opinion, it's slightly unfair to expect the average LW'er to have a better-than-undergraduate knowledge of QM.
Thanks for the points. Yes, ArXiv frequently sucks. And people who argue that the set of real numbers has the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers are morons.. =)
Now I'm interested. In what way are "quantum mechanics" and "vector on a Hilbert space evolving according to Schrodinger's equation" not the same concept?
They are. I guess the mantra I quoted should have been, "It is true that QM describes reality." That's what I assume the grandparent thought you were saying, anyway. It's not worth calling someone insane over a definition.
I'm confused. Are you saying that I got called insane for saying that quantum mechanics is the theory that reality is described by quantum mechanics?
No. I'm saying you got called insane for "saying" (though you didn't say this) that quantum mechanics describes reality.
But this is just my interpretation of things. I'm having trouble modelling PhilosophyFTW's beliefs.
I never stated that every paper on the arXiv was good.
You have neither confirmed nor denied my actual statement.
I'm not sure what your point is here. If you stick quantum mechanics and Maxwell's equations together, everything is entailed, but quantum electrodynamics did not give identity back to specific particles. It would be very unlikely for quantum gravity to do that either; certain parts of nature fit perfectly into a very rigid structure and the basic framework of quantum mechanics can be explained but will probably not be eliminated. You can't point to a specific part of a theory and say "the theory is wrong, so that result is wrong"; theories get improved, but they still have to have enough of the same structure to derive the results already tested by experiment.