by gris » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:16 am
IMO you Richard are making exactly the same mistake prof Elfers made in the Lucia de B case. Extrapolating towards an integral conclusion - in this case how best to go forward and thus not waste time- with correct mathematics yet not addressing all the relevant questions. In mathematics only Bayes lets you do the latter. For like in solving a crime scene you have questions that need answering in order to find out where to start looking what to subsequently test. The question in Lucia case was: a priori: do nurses often or not kill their patients? Answering that question with not probable at all immediately puts you on the right track that checking the data from the police was in order. And it is also immediately clear as well that answering the ultimate issue in Law should be done via verbal logic. Bayesian nets are too complicated so in breach of the Lex parsimony.
The question in QM that QBism leaves out is that it should also immediately address all relevant data also that of GR. It doesn't do that. The question in this respect is: is there pressure in the system?
Well there is or there isn't. I guess there is and given that position I thus can easily have an infinite universe with an infinite amount of stuff in order to achieve that scenario. Ergo start comparing integral scenario's on there testability and probability and test them. One point that stands out as well is that it is obvious that there is to much given our paradigm / inexplicable order in the system we observe. There must probably be a simple elegant formula hiding in the growing abundance of irreconcilable yet relevant data you lot keep on generating with your non inspired only extrapolating a bit way.
I can - prove - that there is only ONE scenario that fits ALL known observations (to me at least) and answers ALL relevant questions AND is testable. And you can't disprove that. For you have no better integral scenario to test. You only have your dogma and have the illusion that every time it generates more relevant data you are making headway. Well yes you indeed are, but painstakingly slow.
When does someone dare to try and integrate all we already have in one (or more) plausible or even probable testable scenario's?
Anyway this article in Nature is chipping away at the physics dogma that at first was Rutherford now still is empirical statistics (that Elfers had thus better not had used, as well) even in trying to integrate. Finally a nuclear physicist as a pensioner starts looking in the correct direction. And you call it a waste of time. You scientists are yet to discover that you need to go even further away from Rutherford. We would have had exactly the same confirmation bias induced discussion, whether or not to use statistics alone in his time, as we have now about using verbal logic or not. Spotting the trend yet? Where is it heading and where will it end? I'll tell you in verbal logic, or in someone over a hundred years finally daring to jump to a conclusion in breach with current dogma and achieve a result on a testable prediction.