= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid 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)
I'm confused how you got this out of the above -- I didn't mean to imply that QM+GR was consistent. They need fixing, and the article supports this viewpoint. Grandparent asked for citations; the relevant article has several. I didn't see the earlier comments between you and endoself, because they're not in this thread, but in another, for some reason. For what it's worth, I think you're misinterpreting statements intended for poetic effect.
So while endoself is wrong when he claims QM isn't inconsistent with GR, you're equally wrong for believing EY supports QM over GR, when in fact it's incredibly likely (based on everything we know about EY's stance on updating) that for now EY supports QM when it talks about small things and GR when it talks about big things, and that if some better theory would come along that explained the evidence better, EY would update to follow that.
Of course, I can't speak for him, but I claim the above is a more reasonable interpretation of the state of affairs.
EDIT: So there's a simpler litmus test to apply here -- has EY directly said anything about GR? If so, what evidence is leading you to believe he denies it?
The source of your confusion is the meaning of the phrase 'Citation Needed'. It seldom has anything to do with wanting citations. Actually giving them to him is like answering a (bad) rhetorical question with a literal answer that effectively refutes the rhetorical point of asking it.
What else does it mean?
Basically, if someone told me 'Citation Needed!' in the same conversation that they out of the blue told me I was insane then I would expect them to do whatever they could to find a way to sneer at or dismiss the citations I proceed to give them. I would expect them to feel like their grasp for dominance backfired and try to dig themselves out of what feels like a hole.
This isn't to say that 'citation needed' is never used literally or never appropriate. But I usually find that anyone who is actually interested in whether there are citations available tends to use different language in their reply.
Ah, I see.
Those two things weren't done by the same person. endoself used [Citation Needed]; PhilosophyFTW called him insane in the followup, for a different reason.
Ahh. That changes the likely meaning somewhat (greater weight to the first bullet point, less to the last one).