Yet another Bell forum

[gill1109]

As you know, Fred Diether's "SciPhysicsForums" has for years been the connoisseurs go-to web discussion forum for non mainstream physics. alt-science I suppose. I pride myself for having played a modest role in stimulating its birth during fights between Fred, me, Joy Christian and others over at FQXi

Fred's forum was a new embodiment of his Google Group which was a new embodiment of UseNet groups of yesteryear. (I am too young to have known UseNet well.)

Just recently a new Google Group was started by (and is therefore also "owned" by) Alexandre de Castro, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexandre_Castro3.

It is called "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum ... oundations

In order to join the group just send an email to either of the two *managers*: Alexandre de Castro and myself. The Bell inequalities and quantum foundations group is exclusively for quantum theory and related topics. Members of the group are therefore *interested* in quantum foundations, in particular in alternatives to any of the current mainstream "foundations". We are also about equally divided between Bell supporters and Bell antagonists. We are mainly physicists (both experimental and theoretical); some of us are mathematicians or computer scientists or ... ; some of us are in it for "fun", for others it is their full time day job. For the lucky few it is both.

Group description:

The Bell inequalities and quantum foundations group is dedicated to ... guess what!

The group has presently more than 30 colleagues working in the field.

We offer a forum for passionate yet civilised discussions on controversial aspects of Bell's theorem and the foundations of quantum physics.

Looking forward to hearing from some of the regulars here! I am not trying to steal clients. Just trying to support science and having fun doing science, whether for work or for play.

[FrediFizzx]

I'll check it out. Send me an invite. You already have my email address.

[gill1109]

Will do! (please remind me in 48 hours if nothing happens...)

[gill1109]

I hope people will report back here about their experiences over there. Science is open. Multicultural. Multidisciplinary. Opposite truths *can* simultaneously be true, as Bohr reminded us (at least, that was his opinion, and it’s my opinion too). Those truths are the interesting ones. The others are mere accountancy / tautologies / pure mathematics.

[FrediFizzx]

Ok, checked it out. I don't think I will be participating on that Google Group as you can't do tex equations on it like you can here. And it is just conversations about much nonsense mostly. But there is a couple of anti-Bell people on there. Might monitor it to see what they have to say.

[minkwe]

Is not viewable by non members. Why?

[FrediFizzx]

Is not viewable by non members. Why?

Yeah, that is another silly thing about it.

[minkwe]

Opposite truths *can* simultaneously be true, as Bohr reminded us (at least, that was his opinion, and it’s my opinion too). Those truths are the interesting ones.

Couldn't resist. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they are opposite, it means precisely that they can't simultaneously both be true. And if they are simultaneously true, it means precisely that they can't be opposite.

At some point we have to stick to clear meanings of words or lose the ability of making any sense when we speak. Paradoxes are interesting because they point to lapses in our logic, not contradictions in nature as it would appear to be without careful analysis.

[JohnDuffield]

I know something about quantum foundations. I'd like to take a look at this forum.

[FrediFizzx]

I know something about quantum foundations. I'd like to take a look at this forum.

Just go to the Google Group and ask for an invite.

[gill1109]

Opposite truths *can* simultaneously be true, as Bohr reminded us (at least, that was his opinion, and it’s my opinion too). Those truths are the interesting ones.

Couldn't resist. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they are opposite, it means precisely that they can't simultaneously both be true. And if they are simultaneously true, it means precisely that they can't be opposite.

At some point we have to stick to clear meanings of words or lose the ability of making any sense when we speak. Paradoxes are interesting because they point to lapses in our logic, not contradictions in nature as it would appear to be without careful analysis.

There is a third option, Michel. If they are both simultaneously true *according to your underlying systems of logic and mathematics* then your underlying systems of logic and mathematics need to be reviewed.

So you are both right and wrong - a contradiction points to a lapse in logic, but not necessarily in the manifest logic used by the author, but in "an underlying logic" which hardly anybody ever questions (and if they do, they are thought crazy, by almost everyone).

I think that that was exactly what Niels Bohr meant, and it is also exactly (I think) what Siddhārtha Gautama meant. cf. also Pirsig's "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance".

It seems to me that this is also exactly the diagnosis of some quite well known Bell contrarians: Han Geurdes, Ilija Barukcik, and Alexandre de Castro all come to the same conclusion. They all say that there is something badly wrong in the current conventionally agreed foundations of mathematics, ie in conventionally agreed logic.

I agree with you that we have to stick to clear meanings of words or we lose the ability of making sense. The problem is that the words we use already contain ideas about the world, and those ideas might be wrong. I think that is exactly what Wittgenstein and everyone who came after him were saying. And exactly what the Buddha was saying. Turtles all the way down, too. Paradoxes of self-reference. What else is consciousness than self-reference? Call it post modernist garbage if you like, but that is still the core of post modernism *and* of Eastern mysticism (and not just Eastern mysticism. You will find it in "primitive peoples" all over God's earth). Yes. *Everything* is relative, unfortunately, we are stuck with that.

[JohnDuffield]

I know something about quantum foundations. I'd like to take a look at this forum.

Just go to the Google Group and ask for an invite.

I joined up. Richard had a thread on paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.02569. It's by Brian O'Sullivan, who takes a similar view to Joy. I gave a reply showing various depictions of the electron, and a depiction of a qubit.

[gill1109]

Is not viewable by non-members. Why?

Anybody can sign up, as co-manager I am going to let anyone in, who does sign up. You are very welcome too, Michel!

So anybody who takes a bit of trouble can view it. But we keep it small and semi-private and try to keep it balanced with regard to pro and anti-Bell folk. Also, we like to keep it balanced with regard to academic and amateur Bell devotees.

I don't even know who some of the members are. I know their email addresses but not their real names. Google offers good privacy.

Some of the members post a great deal, others do nothing; I don't know if they are lurking or just not interested anymore.

The interface is not half as nice as the interface to this forum. And math formulas are a bit problematic.

Some people use email systems that send math formulas as "painted graphics". But Google is keen on security and often refuses to display such images.
However, I think this is rapidly changing since "MathType" is penetrating more and more and there are also proper open source versions of MathType. The whole thing is a bit chaotic at the moment. I want to collaborate with people who only write with MS word with some MS word equation editor. I'm happy to use Pages on my Apple Mac if necessary but it seems that different versions of MathType are not compatible with one another.

[gill1109]

I meant "pasted graphics" of course