I "Observer Effect" referring to two different things?

[stevendaryl]

Freeman Dyson was appointed professor at IAS Princeton, where he spent almost all of his career:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson

Also, regarding professors attending the forum here, Richard Gill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Gill
sometimes contributes. He told me that the forum's low tolerance for crackpots had taken some of the fun out of it. He thinks that arguing with crackpots can teach us something about how we should convey physics and matemathics. I agree.

I know Richard. We were on the same "team" combating the goofiness of Joy Christian's refutation of Bell's theorem.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

And no, I am the first one wanting to avoid any religious-supernatural stuff or pseudo-science. Consciousness exists and if we observe it has physical and measurable effects, we need to take account of the fact.

Maybe, there was a severe misunderstanding. I completely agree with you that consciousness exists. What I meant with “religious-like” stuff was "denying the obvious".

 

[bhobba]

He thinks that arguing with crackpots can teach us something about how we should convey physics and matemathics. I agree.

I once posted a lot on sci.physics.relativity which has an infestation of them.

It soon lost its appeal of being fun. It eventually drove away genuine scientists like Steve Carlip and John Baez. I stopped as well once they left - it was useless conversing with nothing but 'idiots'.

Then out of sheer luck I found here. I was replying to a post about Quantum Darwinian on of all places the philosophy forums. I think I got the context a bit wrong and one regular there got stuck into me saying we had an orderly thread and I ruined it. Well that sort of really got up my goat and I decided to see what he actually knew about QM - it wasn't much. But he did suggest we take the discussion over here where I was warned they had a low tolerance for crackpots. He soon left when it was obvious he was out of his depth, but I really enjoyed my experience here precisely because crackpots are soon shut down.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PhysicsExplorer]

Freeman Dyson was appointed professor at IAS Princeton, where he spent almost all of his career:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson

Also, regarding professors attending the forum here, Richard Gill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Gill
sometimes contributes. He told me that the forum's low tolerance for crackpots had taken some of the fun out of it. He thinks that arguing with crackpots can teach us something about how we should convey physics and matemathics. I agree.

I disagree. The bickering can really put you off reading.

 

[bhobba]

Freeman Dyson was appointed professor at IAS Princeton, where he spent almost all of his career:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson

Good to know there is sanity in the system where not actually having a PhD but obvious ability means you can still get the title you deserve.

I always remember reading in Feynman's biography how when Dyson was explaining his ideas that unified Feynman's, Tomonaga, and Schwinger's approach Feynman was joke cracking and making everyone laugh in the back of the room. At the end he said - your in Doc. I always thought that was a strange remark - until I found out Dyson never got a PhD - like I said he could get a DSc anytime he wanted one with the quality of his published work - but it never seemed to worry him.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PhysicsExplorer]

Good to know there is sanity in the system where not actually having a PhD but obvious ability means you can still get the title you deserve.

I always remember reading in Feynman's biography how when Dyson was explaining his ideas that unified Feynman's, Tomonaga, and Schwinger's approach Feynman was joke cracking and making everyone laugh in the back of the room. At the end he said - your in Doc. I always thought that was a strange remark - until I found out Dyson never got a PhD - like I said he could get a DSc anytime he wanted one with the quality of his published work - but it never seemed to worry him.

Thanks
Bill

I do have fascination for similar people in history. A good example was George Green, creator of Green's Theorem, was actually mostly self-taught. He certainly had the ability too.

 

[bhobba]

Have you read the book before? Has Bill Hobba read the book. Who has read the book. Why do most of you hate Bohm Implicate Order.. it is just a Perimeter Institute kind of topics these days.

Yes I have read it. For me it's a lot of mumbo jumbo - just borderline physics. Take for example the statement QM is non-local - it isn't and Bohm should know that since he was the one that came up with the counter-example to Von-Neumann's theorem disproving the great man. Bell corrected it - although I am not with Bell when he called that theorem - silly. It wasn't - the math was impeccable - its the assumption that went into it that was at issue. And only a few people spotting it (one was a female - and likely ignored in part because of it - not sciences finest moment) - well that says something - maybe holding Von-Neumann the mathematician in too high esteem or it was simply obvious - you need to be on the ball to see it (he assumed expectations were additive which does not apply to hidden variables)

Thanks
Bill

 

[fanieh]

Yes I have read it. For me it's a lot of mumbo jumbo - just borderline physics.

Thanks
Bill

I goggled "Fotini" a while ago to review her geomotrogenesis.. and found out she left the Perimeter Institute.. or was she kicked out because her idea is not far from Bohm's?

http://nautil.us/issue/38/noise/this-physics-pioneer-walked-away-from-it-all

"Five years after walking away from physics, Markopoulou is still trying to explain that change to herself. She was forced to re-examine her position when Perimeter’s new director, Neil Turok, who joined in 2008, deemed her work too speculative and squeezed her out of the Institute. But her unease had deeper roots."

 

[bhobba]

It's a matter of scientific taste/tact exactly how far you go with assumptions and not acknowledge they are highly controversial. IMHO, and quite a few others, Bohm's work on the implicate order well exceeded what was tolerable in that regard - aside from not what I would call being clearly enunciated.

The female I was thinking of was Grete Hermann:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.3986.pdf

Nasty business that - but part of the times eg Noether.

Things have of course now changed (well I like to think so anyway) - hopefully Fotni was not its reemergence - we all must be on guard against such silliness as sexism - it can be insidious.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

Edit: The thread topic has been sufficiently discussed. Thread will remain closed.