Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Connor McCormick ☀️
@nor
Quantum mechanics has this extreme intellectual sheen, and disagreeing with the orthodoxy is a surefire way to self-recategorize as a crank. The layers of lindy thinking accumulate into unquestionable dried crusts that seminarians are instructed to accept on faith so they can join the church of shut up and calculate.
4 replies
0 recast
7 reactions
Matt
@zkmattwyatt
Incredibly mid curve take lmao QM is still exceptionally hotly contested so much that recent winners of 2022 Nobel were trying to poke holes in it as you mentioned in your video in the thread I don’t get the negativity here — QM continues to stun scientists that it’s an accurate description of the world
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Connor McCormick ☀️
@nor
One man's wizard is another man's mid curve. I'm not disagreeing with the math of quantum mechanics — its predictions are accurate. I'm disagreeing with the interpretation. And I think interpretation matters because it has implications, ranging from algorithm design to security to worldview.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matt
@zkmattwyatt
Your OG take wasn’t that Your OG take was that disagreement with QM labels you a crank to which I pointed out that this is very not true as evidenced by the 2022 Nobel prizes I agree with what you’re saying about interpretation mattering, but this now just feels like engagement bait
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Connor McCormick ☀️
@nor
The 2022 Nobel prize: 1. was for *validating* Bell’s Theorem 2. was for work done in 1998 Hardly an instance of contemporary skepticism being rewarded. In the idea I proposed in that video I essentially call entanglement into question. Hardly a quibble P.S. if qm is engagement bait we live in a good world ;)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
