Nobel Prize for Physics 2022 awarded to 3 scientists for work in Quantum Mechanics

[vegetariantaxidermy]

''Quantum mechanics for people who feel like idiots''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZiwtfr ... ceFestival

Great video so far Veg, really looking forward to learning how I can 'non-locally' punch a New Zealand grandmother in the head.

It's for people who 'feel like idiots', not actual idiots...

[attofishpi]

(so you still feel like me hey? ..I am shagalicious)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

This is how I feel about it too, but I've realized that most philosophers are remarkably uncomfortable with quantum physics. On every philosophy forum that has a physics section, you'll find people denying QM much more frequently than people accepting it.

Which is really weird, because QM is so fascinating from a philosophical perspective, but it's like... it's like philosophers are as close minded to actual physics as philosophers think scientists are to philosophy.

Philosophers reject QM because it's too weird for them. They can't accept anything that suggests the world operates in a much stranger fashion than we're used to thinking about. I would have thought that if ANYBODY would be open minded to that idea, it would have been philosophers, but that turns out to be the opposite of the truth.

[seeds]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

This is how I feel about it too, but I've realized that most philosophers are remarkably uncomfortable with quantum physics. On every philosophy forum that has a physics section, you'll find people denying QM much more frequently than people accepting it.

Which is really weird, because QM is so fascinating from a philosophical perspective, but it's like... it's like philosophers are as close minded to actual physics as philosophers think scientists are to philosophy.

Philosophers reject QM because it's too weird for them. They can't accept anything that suggests the world operates in a much stranger fashion than we're used to thinking about. I would have thought that if ANYBODY would be open minded to that idea, it would have been philosophers, but that turns out to be the opposite of the truth.

I personally have commented on quantum mechanics on this site until the cows came home, left, and came home again.

See my threads: "What is gravity?" - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23943

...and...

"Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?" - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34537

Indeed, the implications of the discoveries in quantum physics (especially quantum entanglement) are an integral feature of a video lecture series I created back in the 90s, and a book I self-published in 2008.

Here's a short (7.5 min) excerpt from one of my video episodes on YouTube - https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA
_______

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Here's a short (7.5 min) excerpt from one of my video episodes on YouTube - https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA
_______

Perhaps it's nonsense like this that puts people off. Keep your 'god' out of it you yank nitwit.

[wtf]

Philosophers reject QM because it's too weird for them.

Are you familiar with philosopher Tim Maudlin? Philosopher of quantum physics, huge fan (and expositor and explainer) of Bell, lots of Youtube videos. Here he is straightening out the Nobel prize committee. Highly lucid and engaging speaker. Been watching a lot of his vids lately, can't recommend him highly enough.

Tim Maudlin Corrects the 2022 Nobel Physics Committee About Bell's Inequality


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OduDEz77h9U

Also see

https://youtu.be/QURmQA3WHEg

https://youtu.be/LUE01tjDAb8

https://youtu.be/FnBC9JA9TVY

And lots of others. This guy will change your opinion about philosophers. His insights into quantum physics are beyond anything out there.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Philosophers reject QM because it's too weird for them.

Are you familiar with philosopher Tim Maudlin? Philosopher of quantum physics, huge fan (and expositor and explainer) of Bell, lots of Youtube videos. Here he is straightening out the Nobel prize committee. Highly lucid and engaging speaker. Been watching a lot of his vids lately, can't recommend him highly enough.

Tim Maudlin Corrects the 2022 Nobel Physics Committee About Bell's Inequality


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OduDEz77h9U

Also see

https://youtu.be/QURmQA3WHEg

https://youtu.be/LUE01tjDAb8

https://youtu.be/FnBC9JA9TVY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QURmQA3WHEg

And lots of others. This guy will change your opinion about philosophers. His insights into quantum physics are beyond anything out there.

I saw that first one the other day. I thought Tim Maudlin was brilliant but the interviewer was an idiot.

[wtf]

I saw that first one the other day. I thought Tim Maudlin was brilliant but the interviewer was an idiot.

Agreed. The interviewer kept interrupting just as Maudlin was making his point.

[seeds]

_______

Ah yes, veg's uplifting comment to me reminds me of that greeting card that states:

"You're nobody until you've been ignored by a cat"

However, in this case it's:

"You're nobody until you've been insulted by the meanest person on the forum"

So, this "yank nitwit" thanks her (him/it).

Now, how about we all pitch-in and try to find veg a good proctologist who can do something about that enormous corncob?

(I have to admit, I am definitely a nitwit for responding to her vitriol)
_______

[Iwannaplato]

I saw that first one the other day. I thought Tim Maudlin was brilliant but the interviewer was an idiot.

Agreed. The interviewer kept interrupting just as Maudlin was making his point.

I don't know yet if he's the interviewer, but the guy introducing things says that Maudlin is know for the poignancy of his criticism.
Poignancy meaning the quality of causing or having a very sharp feeling of sadness.
I mean, that's possible, but I truly doubt that's what he meant to say.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I saw that first one the other day. I thought Tim Maudlin was brilliant but the interviewer was an idiot.

Agreed. The interviewer kept interrupting just as Maudlin was making his point.

I don't know yet if he's the interviewer, but the guy introducing things says that Maudlin is know for the poignancy of his criticism.
Poignancy meaning the quality of causing or having a very sharp feeling of sadness.
I mean, that's possible, but I truly doubt that's what he meant to say.

I noticed that too lol. The word didn't seem to fit.

[wtf]

I don't know yet if he's the interviewer, but the guy introducing things says that Maudlin is know for the poignancy of his criticism.
Poignancy meaning the quality of causing or having a very sharp feeling of sadness.
I mean, that's possible, but I truly doubt that's what he meant to say.

@vegetariantaxidermy's comment was a bit confusing. The first of my links had an introducer but not an interviewer.

The second link was the one with the annoying interviewer. That was indeed the first link in the group of links I supplied after my first one. Hence the confusion.

Maudlin only makes me sad because I know I'll never be that smart. A lot of science types on Youtube make me angry because they're so stupid. Some of the most famous names. Not Maudlin. He's really smart.

If you look up poignant on Google, it says: ARCHAIC: sharp or pungent in taste or smell. Maybe the introducer just meant sharp.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't know yet if he's the interviewer, but the guy introducing things says that Maudlin is know for the poignancy of his criticism.
Poignancy meaning the quality of causing or having a very sharp feeling of sadness.
I mean, that's possible, but I truly doubt that's what he meant to say.

@vegetariantaxidermy's comment was a bit confusing. The first of my links had an introducer but not an interviewer.

The second link was the one with the annoying interviewer. That was indeed the first link in the group of links I supplied after my first one. Hence the confusion.

Maudlin only makes me sad because I know I'll never be that smart. A lot of science types on Youtube make me angry because they're so stupid. Some of the most famous names. Not Maudlin. He's really smart.

If you look up poignant on Google, it says: ARCHAIC: sharp or pungent in taste or smell. Maybe the introducer just meant sharp.

The first link was the one with the title 'Tim Maudlin Corrects the 2022 Nobel Committee' in the post I responded to. If Mr. Razo Bravo isn't the interviewer then what is he?

I also noticed that in the description someone has but 'sic' after the word 'poignancy', which is used when someone has noticed an error but because it's a quote they don't feel inclined to change it.

[wtf]

The first link was the one with the title 'Tim Maudlin Corrects the 2022 Nobel Committee' in the post I responded to. If Mr. Razo Bravo isn't the interviewer then what is he?

LOL Sorry I must be lost in the links. I think you're right. Suffice to say that my Youtube feed has been serving me up heaping portions of Tim Maudlin lately, and I've become a big fan. He's generally a lot smarter than all of his interviewers.