Recent content by gentzen

3 hours of a single agent is affordable, while 88 hours of 10000 agents burning $15 million dollar is not. https://agmai.org/general-sep29/

Since Anthropic is next to go IPO (I guess mid November 2026), it is understandable that OpenAI tries really hard to showcase the strength of its internal models. If Anthropic manages to push-through its targeted $2 trillion market capitalization, OpenAI‘s IPO in 2027 could become a...

They persist for the Navier-Stokes solution (and many other suspicious incidents), but not for these 722 new papers. Also, 3 hours of a single agent per result is much more acceptable than 88 hours of 10000 agents for one brute-forced result. Mathematicians have every right to be pissed-off...

The problem is that the equality sign is fundamental to how math works. And you mess with the meaning of the equality sign. This cannot be excused by reference to unassigned physical meaning. This is way worse than reinterpreting the meaning of the +/- sign, which is sometimes done informally as...

No, we don‘t! Maybe „the formalism“, but all the other things you mentioned are unrelated.

Bohmian particles have positions which can be plugged into the 3n-dimensional n-particle wavefunction. If you do this for all particles which currently don‘t interest you much, you end up with a wavefunction for the one or two (or four) particles which do interest you. Whether the Bohmian...

Thanks for your answer. This clarifies one thing for me, which I always found strange about You seem to ask for radial new concepts, but when something like the "original" thermal interpretation with its radical new concepts comes along, you are not interested at all. For Scott, I was fully...

The Hilbert space is not overly helpful for understanding that weirdness. It is helpful for understanding the trouble with Fermions and Bosons. But when you really want to work with them, after you understood the trouble and are ready to move on, Fock space is more helpful. Of course, if one...

How would you reply to ? My reply was to distinguish between QM and QFT, and to highlight how QM gets used and verified. QM gets verified by the phenomenology, while QFT gets verified by its predictions of new phenomena (often new particles) and extremely accurate predicted "constants". Note...

I look at the actual predictions, and how they are derived. For example, I was talking about "specific heat" in my answer to WernerQH. If you look at some models for it, like Einstein solid model, Debye model, or Born-von-Kármán-model, you won't find much talk about Hilbert spaces or operator...

Initially, it was a theory like thermodynamics, which described things like specific heat, conductivity, spectroscopic measurements, interactions of molecular beams with electric and magnetic fields, ... The main difference to a theory like thermodynamics was that it could no longer be...

I don't think that comparing Hobson to Bell is helpful. As I said before, van Kampen is a more appropriate reference point. Hobson wants to collapse the wavefunction even in scenarios without a sufficiently permanent record of the "results". So he proposes to speak of "to interact at x". If you...

I once quoted from “Quantum Philosophy” by Roland Omnès parts of the replies to such objections:

Some form of locality is needed for being able to even do science: I have not yet thought about whether that causality condition "If the output of a process is discarded, it may as well have never happened." implies that time only evolves forward. Probably not, because there are those cups and...

In Picturing Quantum Processes, what is real are processes. The objects are where processes start and end. Your interaction events would be processes too, if you don't insist that they have to happen at a precise point in time (or rather even a precise point in spacetime). However, objects are...