Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:54 pm

I received, corrected, and returned the proofs, yesterday.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:53 am

.
All criticisms of my 3-sphere model for the singlet correlations, without exception, either by Gill or by anyone else, are of the following "logical" form:

Say, my 3-sphere model is X. It is portrayed by the critics as Y, which is a strawman of X. The model Y is then criticized, or sometimes even ridiculed. It is then triumphantly declared by the critics that they have thereby criticized my model X and thus refuted my claim of reproducing the singlet correlations in a manifestly local-realistic model.

One can argue about the fine details of my model or of its criticisms until the cows come home. But, at the end of the day, above is the "logic" that is followed by the critics. This logic is then enthusiastically endorsed by all Bell-believers and lamented by the Bell-sceptics, whether publicly or in the secrecy of the editorial offices of predatory and non-predatory journals.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Heinera » Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:54 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
All criticisms of my 3-sphere model for the singlet correlations, without exception, either by Gill or by anyone else, are of the following "logical" form:

Say, my 3-sphere model is X. It is portrayed by the critics as Y, which is a strawman of X. The model Y is then criticized, or sometimes even ridiculed. It is then triumphantly declared by the critics that they have thereby criticized my model X and thus refuted my claim of reproducing the singlet correlations in a manifestly local-realistic model.

One can argue about the fine details of my model or of its criticisms until the cows come home. But, at the end of the day, above is the "logic" that is followed by the critics. This logic is then enthusiastically endorsed by all Bell-believers and lamented by the Bell-sceptics, whether publicly or in the secrecy of the editorial offices of predatory and non-predatory journals.
.

No, that's not my criticism.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:01 am

Heinera wrote:
No, that's not my criticism.

I am not interested in your "criticism" even if you have one. I am only concerned about those critics who have professional standing and influence in academia.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Heinera » Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:29 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
No, that's not my criticism.

I am not interested in your "criticism" even if you have one. I am only concerned about those critics who have professional standing and influence in academia.
.

Well, there are only a couple of those, since the rest couldn't be botherd to criticize someone without professional standing or influence in academia.

(And of course, professional standing partly means "not having you papers retracted")
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:46 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
No, that's not my criticism.

I am not interested in your "criticism" even if you have one. I am only concerned about those critics who have professional standing and influence in academia.
.

Well, there are only a couple of those, since the rest couldn't be botherd to criticize someone without professional standing or influence in academia.

Unlike you, at least I have a name that is recognized by MathSciNet: https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/f ... ?version=2

Image

And you have to have papers published on your name before they can even have a chance of having retracted by a stalker or a sociopath.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Heinera » Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:20 pm

Joy Christian wrote:And you have to have papers published on your name before they can even have a chance of having retracted by a stalker or a sociopath.
.

Without in any way insinuating that distances between the apple and the three may vary, I wish to declare my wholehearted support to the theory that papers have to be published before they can even have a chance to be retracted.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:52 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:And you have to have papers published on your name before they can even have a chance of having retracted by a stalker or a sociopath.
.

Without in any way insinuating that distances between the apple and the three may vary, I wish to declare my wholehearted support to the theory that papers have to be published before they can even have a chance to be retracted.

Good. So give us the citation details of one of your papers so that we can judge whether it is worth reading.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:29 pm

gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:10 am

gill1109 wrote:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380450

Oh boy, 7 pages of nonsense to read through! What fun! :o
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:56 pm

To be honest, I'm very pleased with *my* paper. It has got a lot in it, and it was a big struggle with the editors to get everything in which I felt was necessary to put on the record. I was not allowed to talk about Joy's other works.

Yet, it has triggered admission by JJC that the pure maths of Bell's theorem is not in any doubt at all. This fundamentally contradicts many of his claims in many of his papers.

Moreover, JJC admits that his computer simulations are just illustrations [perhaps: illustrations of some small part of his theoretical computations? Illustrations of a negative cosine?], not actually simulations of his own model. They couldn't be, since an authentic simulation on an ordinary digital PC would be a physical realisation of a Bell-type experiment in "flatland". It cannot work, at least, not without the use of the well-known loopholes. And this is now accepted by JJC.

I'm hoping that my comments on the first IEEE paper, and on the RSOS paper, and the correction of errors in my Entropy paper, now can proceed quickly. As far as I am concerned it is now "case closed". Time to move on. And with no hard feelings. Hoping to speed the transition, I will make another financial contribution to the Einstein Centre (Oxford).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:27 am

.
Richard D. Gill will be remembered as Martin Horky of the 3-sphere model of quantum correlations: https://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itinera ... Horky.html.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:28 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Richard D. Gill will be remembered as Martin Horky of the 3-sphere model of quantum correlations: https://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itinera ... Horky.html.

Letter from Martin Horky to Kepler, April, 1610:

Martin Horky wrote:
Galileo Galilei, the mathematician of Padua , came to us in Bologna and he brought with him that spyglass through which he sees four fictitious planets. On the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of April I never slept, day and night, but tested that instrument of Galileo's in innumerable ways, in these lower as well as the higher [realms]. On Earth it works miracles; in the heavens it deceives, for other fixed stars appear double. Thus, the following evening I observed with Galileo's spyglass the little star that is seen above the middle one of the three in the tail of the Great Bear, and I saw four very small stars nearby, just as Galileo observed about Jupiter. I have as witnesses most excellent men and most noble doctors, Antonio Roffeni, the most learned mathematician of the University of Bologna , and many others, who with me in a house observed the heavens on the same night of 25 April, with Galileo himself present. But all acknowledged that the instrument deceived. And Galileo became silent, and on the twenty-sixth, a Monday, dejected, he took his leave from Mr. Magini very early in the morning. And he gave no thanks for the favors and the many thoughts, because, full of himself, he hawked a fable. Mr. Magini provided Galileo with distinguished company, both splendid and delightful. Thus the wretched Galileo left Bologna with his spyglass on the twenty-sixth.


Image
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:45 am

I just received the request from "Entropy" to "sanitize" my paper in that journal discussing many of Joy's works. Have already carried out the required corrections, as well as fixing my own math mistake. Will post the corrected version on arXiv asap.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:01 am

gill1109 wrote:
I just received the request from "Entropy" to "sanitize" my paper in that journal discussing many of Joy's works. Have already carried out the required corrections, as well as fixing my own math mistake. Will post the corrected version on arXiv asap.

Sanitized Martin Horky. Sure. After all, this is 2021, not 1610. :)

At least Martin Horky directly, albeit also maliciously, attacked Galileo's work and paid a heavy price for it.

What Gill has been publishing, on the other hand, has nothing to do with my 3-sphere model at all. Gill is only creating and attacking his own fantasies. :)
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:15 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I just received the request from "Entropy" to "sanitize" my paper in that journal discussing many of Joy's works. Have already carried out the required corrections, as well as fixing my own math mistake. Will post the corrected version on arXiv asap.

Sanitized Martin Horky. Sure. After all, this is 2021, not 1610. :)

At least Martin Horky directly, albeit also maliciously, attacked Galileo's work and paid a heavy price for it.

What Gill has been publishing, on the other hand, has nothing to do with my 3-sphere model at all. Gill is only creating and attacking his own fantasies. :)
.

I only fantasise that Joy’s fantasies are real. I discover that the dream is a nightmare. Both Joy’s works and mine are works of art. We dream impossible things. Yet we need art in this mundane and grim life.

My revision is with “Entropy”. It will appear on arXiv on Tuesday morning.

Martin Horky criticised Galileo’s observational work in astronomy. This stimulated Johannes Kepler to re-do the observations. Nothing wrong with that! We need more Martin Horky’s. Gill is not malicious. Gill is inquisitive, eager to learn, open to criticism.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:26 pm

@gill1109 The best way to "sanitize" your paper is to throw it in the trash can where it actually belongs.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:39 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 The best way to "sanitize" your paper is to throw it in the trash can where it actually belongs.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:37 pm

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504
Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem? (with corrections)
Richard D. Gill
In 2007, and in a series of later papers, Joy Christian claimed to refute Bell's theorem, presenting an alleged local realistic model of the singlet correlations using techniques from Geometric Algebra (GA). Several authors published papers refuting his claims, and Christian's ideas did not gain acceptance. However, he recently succeeded in publishing yet more ambitious and complex versions of his theory in fairly mainstream journals. How could this be? The mathematics and logic of Bell's theorem is simple and transparent and has been intensely studied and debated for over 50 years. Christian claims to have a mathematical counterexample to a purely mathematical theorem. Each new version of Christian's model used new devices to circumvent Bell's theorem or depended on a new way to misunderstand Bell's work. These devices and misinterpretations are in common use by other Bell critics, so it useful to identify and name them. I hope that this paper can serve as a useful resource to those who need to evaluate new "disproofs of Bell's theorem". Christian's fundamental idea is simple and quite original: he gives a probabilistic interpretation of the fundamental GA equation a.b = (ab + ba)/2. After that, ambiguous notation and technical complexity allow sign errors to be hidden from sight, and new mathematical errors can be introduced.

This version: minor but necessary correction to math requested by myself and some corrections to tone of text requested by editor of Entropy after evaluation of a complaint made by a third person.

The final version has been accepted by the editors of “Entropy”.

I was promised news from RSOS by the end of this month (March), so there should be progress to report soon on my comment on Joy’s RSOS paper. I hope the review of my comment on Joy’s first IEEE Access paper will be finished soon, too. Time to move on.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:48 pm

@gill1109 Do Quaternions provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem? :lol: :lol: :lol:
You really should have trashed that paper.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library