Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debunked

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

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby gill1109 » Thu May 30, 2019 11:20 pm

gill1109 wrote:Certainly, the distinction between statistical independence, mathematical independence, and physical independence has confused readers and critics of Bell for all these long years, and still does. There are very interesting “metaphysical” analyses of when one kind of independence might imply another in recent works on Causality. I think of Judea Pearl’s “modern classic” (2nd edition) and of the new book on machine learning and causality by Jonas Peters et al, you can find a legal and free pdf on internet if you follow the links carefully. Both books even use the Bell-CHSH business as an example. They are both based on the modern theory of “graphical models” aka “Bayes nets”, a wonderful integration of computing, graphics, probability theory, and statistics. Lots and lots of money being made with them, too. I’ll try to add some links and exact references later.

I think these two books are pretty much essential reading for those interested in causality nowadays. Each includes the Bell-CHSH EPRB example as a short and elementary application of a much broader theory! Both have extensive discussions about causality in physics and about different kinds of independence and the relations between them.

Judea Pearl (2009) "Causality : Models, Reasoning, and Inference", *2nd edition*
http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/
Ebook and paper both for sale, both worth every penny.

1st edition was (2000)

Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf (2017), "Elements of Causal Inference - Foundations and Learning Algorithms".
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/elements-causal-inference
Open access free pdf available. Paper version is worth every penny.

Judea Pearl's son Daniel was the journalist of the Wall Street Journal captured and murdered by the Taliban in 2002.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl

Jonas Peters works in algebraic statistics as well as in causality and in machine learning
http://web.math.ku.dk/~peters/

For completeness, I'd like to mention some "unconventional" books on the foundations of logic and mathematics and hence also about causality. The first is by the well-known Bell-denier Ilija Barukčić

Theoriae causalitatis principia mathematica
Ilija Barukčić
https://books.google.nl/books/about/Theoriae_causalitatis_principia_mathemat.html?id=z28lDwAAQBAJ

Prolegomena to the Complete Physical and Mathematical Theory of Rational Human Intelligence
Leo Depuydt
https://www.amazon.com/Prolegomena-Complete-Physical-Mathematical-Intelligence/dp/1618961012

A Logic of Exceptions
Thomas Colignatus / Thomas Cool
http://thomascool.eu/Papers/ALOE/Index.html
http://thomascool.eu/
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri May 31, 2019 2:46 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
Scott Aaronson seems to have responded to my refutation of his claims. The following comment was posted by him on his blog on March 13: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4145

Scott Aaronson wrote:
Once I slipped up, and made a single ad hominem comment about Cathy McGeoch (lead author of the “D-Wave machine gets a 3000x speedup” paper). I quickly apologized and I still regret it. Besides that, the one time in 13 years that I think I even came close to Bray and Pachter’s tone, was with the aggressive Bell’s-theorem-denialist Joy Christian. The reader can judge for herself whether Joy Christian and Manolis Kellis inhabit the same moral or intellectual universe. Even there, though, I regret getting drawn into the mud; it would’ve been more effective on my part to keep things professional.

Well, "regret" is cheap and does not undo the damage he has done to me (which is huge, if anyone cares to know). But it is good to know that he has made some progress: He now calls me "aggressive Bell's-theorem-denialist." That is progress because previously he used to call me a "Bell's-inequlity-denialist", which is not only false but also reveals his lack of understanding of the difference between Bell's inequality and Bell's theorem. How can anyone deny a mathematical inequality? On the other hand, Bell's theorem is not a theorem in the mathematical sense and its validity within physics can indeed be denied and have been from its very inception. So, again, it is good to know that Aaronson is finally making progress in learning some basic facts.

***


Dear Joy,

You and Fred seem fond of the following statement:

Joy Christian wrote:How can anyone deny a mathematical inequality?


Let me try. Since Bell's inequality (BI) was derived and offered -- and is still promoted -- in the context of the EPRB experiment, it is clearly false!

Mathematically, quantum mechanically and experimentally.

So I deny it -- not in the sense refusing to accept its existence -- but in the sense of refusing to admit its truth in its context.

So, please, why your fondness?

Thanks.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby gill1109 » Fri May 31, 2019 4:24 am

Gordon Watson wrote:So I deny it -- not in the sense refusing to accept its existence -- but in the sense of refusing to admit its truth in its context.
So, please, why your fondness?
Thanks.

I am fond of it because I cannot but admit to its truth in its rightful context, and I recognize the enormous impact it should have on our thinking.

As I said before it is generally accepted as a pretty trivial theorem in computer science, more specifically, in distributed, classical, computing. It's been around for 60 years and been subjected to enormous scrutiny and animosity. It's not going to go away easily.

I am talking here about computer science as an abstract meta-science (or hypo, or hyper, depending on your taste), like pure mathematics itself. Or for that matter, like statistical science. Queen or handmaiden?

Gordon - your arguments are just plain wrong. You really need to learn some pure mathematics and some pure computer science.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Gordon Watson » Fri May 31, 2019 4:57 am

gill1109 wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:So I deny it -- not in the sense refusing to accept its existence -- but in the sense of refusing to admit its truth in its context.
So, please, why your fondness?
Thanks.

I am fond of it because I cannot but admit to its truth in its rightful context, and I recognize the enormous impact it should have on our thinking.

As I said before it is generally accepted as a pretty trivial theorem in computer science, more specifically, in distributed, classical, computing. It's been around for 60 years and been subjected to enormous scrutiny and animosity. It's not going to go away easily.

I am talking here about computer science as an abstract meta-science (or hypo, or hyper, depending on your taste), like pure mathematics itself. Or for that matter, like statistical science. Queen or handmaiden?

Gordon - your arguments are just plain wrong. You really need to learn some pure mathematics and some pure computer science.


Please: Enough of the verbage and avoidance.

One half-page of elementary algebra awaits your attention.

I am not aware of any simpler way for you [or Heinera] to be specific and show which of my arguments is wrong.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby gill1109 » Fri May 31, 2019 8:07 am

Gordon Watson wrote:One half-page of elementary algebra awaits your attention. I am not aware of any simpler way for you [or Heinera] to be specific and show which of my arguments is wrong.
.

I’m interested in everyone else’s opinion of your half page of elementary algebra.

I don’t like algebra. I have a computer to do algebra for me, nowadays. I told you what’s wrong with your algebra, and you couldn’t, or wouldn’t, understand what I said. I wrote out a statement of Bell in the subjunctive mood which he should have used in the first place (but he was young and hasty, and used the indicative), and you didn’t see any difference.

Bell’s Theorem *is* less than a quarter of a page of utterly elementary probability theory. You are blind to it, Gordon. Worse still, you deliberately prefer to remain blind, rather than upset any of your preconceived ideas. You certainly aren’t going to waste any precious energy on learning something new. Whether about language or the foundations and philosophy of science. The biggest new developments in the field for 250 years. You call it verbiage and avoidance.

Pearl has even written popularising airport bookstore paperbacks for people who can’t find the time to read the real thing!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri May 31, 2019 4:41 pm

Well, Bell made a mistake that reduces his so-called theorem to a junk physics theory. The mistake is not really in his inequalities. It was in trying to compare QM and the quantum experiments to the inequalities. Now that we have successfully implemented Joy's hidden variable into quantum mechanics, Bell was certainly wrong about that. IOW, his interpretation of the actual physics was wrong. There are a whole bunch of bogus interpretations that are going to end up in the junk pile now. This is just the beginning.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:04 am

gill1109 wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:One half-page of elementary algebra awaits your attention. I am not aware of any simpler way for you [or Heinera] to be specific and show which of my arguments is wrong.
.

I’m interested in everyone else’s opinion of your half page of elementary algebra.

I don’t like algebra. I have a computer to do algebra for me, nowadays. I told you what’s wrong with your algebra, and you couldn’t, or wouldn’t, understand what I said. I wrote out a statement of Bell in the subjunctive mood which he should have used in the first place (but he was young and hasty, and used the indicative), and you didn’t see any difference.

Bell’s Theorem *is* less than a quarter of a page of utterly elementary probability theory. You are blind to it, Gordon. Worse still, you deliberately prefer to remain blind, rather than upset any of your preconceived ideas. You certainly aren’t going to waste any precious energy on learning something new. Whether about language or the foundations and philosophy of science. The biggest new developments in the field for 250 years. You call it verbiage and avoidance.

Pearl has even written popularising airport bookstore paperbacks for people who can’t find the time to read the real thing!


Alas, you again miss the point. "The biggest new developments in the field for 250 years" was not the object of my comment.

That comment was directed at your current psycho-analytic writings. That's what I call verbiage and avoidance!

So please, returning to facts: please show me where "Bell’s Theorem *is* less than a quarter of a page of utterly elementary probability theory."

And please explain:

Since Bell carries -- to the end of his days and on the horns of a self-confessed dilemma -- this probabilistic expression

    Bell locality:

why do you reject it but Bell did not?

PS: In the interest of brevity, further comment reserved for now.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Mikko » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:18 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
    Bell locality:

Alone that formula does not mean Bell locality or anything. Only if you define all used symbols it may mean something.
Mikko
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Gordon Watson » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:12 pm

Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
    Bell locality: with GW edit

Alone that formula does not mean Bell locality or anything. Only if you define all used symbols it may mean something.


Mikko, I've corrected a typo.

When I introduced that eqn here -- for Richard Gill -- it was sourced to Norsen (on Norsen's terms), eqn (18): https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0408105.pdf

"Bell locality" is also the term used by Norsen (and others).

HTH.
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby gill1109 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:30 pm

The paper by Travis Norsen was published in a conference proceedings or something like that with a paywall; obscure journal or organisation (not in my university library), so I can't access the final published version without spending my hard owned Euro's on it. More importantly, as far as I can see no one has ever cited that paper. The author's affiliation does not exactly boost confidence. Since I can't make sense of your writings why should I try to make sense of Norsen's?

I'll answer your mathematical questions about my reactions to *your* paper on the other thread tomorrow.

Why don't you invite mr. Travis Norsen to join in the discussion here or on that google-group set up by Alexandre de Castro (devoted purely to Bell and quantum foundations). De Castro thinks that he has both a proof and a refutation of Bell's inequality, hence he can prove 0 = 1, hence there is a fundamental crisis in the foundations of science. We have to "re-think" and re-engineer both mathematics and logic. There are other smart people with the same opinion. Itamar Pitowsky (RIP) touched on this possibility; Han Geurdes is another; Ilija Barukčić yet another. Shouldn't your own logic force you down this same route?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:43 pm

Now, I don't see how anyone can refute the Bell inequalities. That is not the problem. But it is pretty easy to refute Bell's so-called theorem.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:55 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Now, I don't see how anyone can refute the Bell inequalities. That is not the problem. But it is pretty easy to refute Bell's so-called theorem.

Exactly. The Bell inequalities are pretty trivial. [I don't think it makes sense to accuse Bell of *stealing* them from Boole. Not many people have read Boole from cover to cover, and Boole has the inequalities as an exercise for the reader; he doesn't give the solution, he didn't publish an instructors manual. It was nice that Itamar Pitowsky discovered/uncovered them...]

Meta-physical implications of the inequalities - that is the interesting thing! We are discussing them now and we have been discussing them since they were first published. Fred, what you think easy to refute is the commonly accepted "executive summary" that quantum mechanics is non-local, or even, supposing QM predictions are more or less right, that nature is non-local.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Mikko » Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:01 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
Mikko wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
    Bell locality: with GW edit

Alone that formula does not mean Bell locality or anything. Only if you define all used symbols it may mean something.


Mikko, I've corrected a typo.

When I introduced that eqn here -- for Richard Gill -- it was sourced to Norsen (on Norsen's terms), eqn (18): https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0408105.pdf

"Bell locality" is also the term used by Norsen (and others).

HTH.

When that equation was introduced there was no reference to Norsen. So you should explain the symbols, especially "c" which is not present in Norsen's equation 18 and which seems to have the same role as λ. Norsen's equation (18) is of course a good way to express locality:
P(A,B|a,b,λ) = P(A|a,λ) P(B|b,λ),
where P is probability and must not be confused with Bell's P. Other symbols are as in Bell's paper except that Norsen has a circumflex on a and b whereas Bell has an arrow. But the meaning is the same: they are directions.
Mikko
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:50 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
I forgot to mention that there is also another unpublished "critique" by Gill, which he has posted on viXra: http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0102

I have responded to it briefly in the Replies-to-Reviewers of my Royal Society paper: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... s-RSOS.pdf

And I have previously posted the following comments at Gill's Researchgate page: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 7s_Theorem

Image

I have heard that Gill has been permanently banned from posting on the arXiv since mid-2015, after he tried to post the above error-filled critique to arXiv. Apparently, the archive moderators did not approve the abusive and unprofessional language Gill used throughout the submitted version of his critique, apart from it being a manifestly incoherent preprint.

Richard D. Gill has informed some of us in a private email (because he is no longer allowed to post in this forum) that his viXra preprint mentioned by me above has been finally allowed on the arXiv by the arXiv moderators after four years: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504. Although he has revised this preprint, my above response to it still applies. It is again littered with numerous elementary mathematical mistakes, and is essentially a series of strawman arguments that have nothing to do with my 3-sphere model or any of the contents of my three published papers listed below:

1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2

2) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

3) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:24 pm

***
In response to the latest criticism of my work on Bell's theorem by Richard D. Gill, I have added a third appendix (Appendix C) to my existing 2012 reply to him on the arXiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.

For the convenience of potential readers, I have also made a separate PDF file of the new appendix here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... -12-16.pdf.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:40 am

Joy Christian wrote:
In response to the latest criticism of my work on Bell's theorem by Richard D. Gill, I have added a third appendix (Appendix C) to my existing 2012 reply to him on the arXiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.

For the convenience of potential readers, I have also made a separate PDF file of the new appendix here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... -12-16.pdf.


For the past eight years, Gill and Moldoveanu have made a huge noise about cross products changing sign under reflection, as discussed in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183#p4944

Moldoveanu wrote:
Nope because a x b is a pseudo-vector which upon this reflection against the horizontal axis changes signs as well ...

The suggestion here is that I have forgotten this basic fact and thereby made a sign error in my derivation of the strong correlations. Gill has made the same claim in his latest critique:

Gill wrote:
The author does not take account of the fact that surely, his cross-product too should also consistently follow the left- or right-handedness of the coordinate frame chosen by .

So this is their big criticism. :) This is what their noise of the past eight years is all about (which has been frequently amplified in the editorial offices and on the peer-reviewer desks).

But no physicist would make the mistake Gill and Moldoveanu have been making for so many years. Cross products do not change sign between left- and right-handed coordinate frames!

In vector algebra, the cross product between the vectors a and b is the same in both right-handed and left-handed coordinate frames. In the right-handed frame the three vectors, a, b, and a x b, respect the right-hand rule and in the left-handed frame they respect the left-hand rule. But the rule for calculating the cross product remains the same. Therefore, the sign change in a x b introduced by Gill and Moldoveanu is illegitimate. There is even some discussion about this on the Physics Stack Exchange: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... -handeness

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Richard D Gill » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:32 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
In response to the latest criticism of my work on Bell's theorem by Richard D. Gill, I have added a third appendix (Appendix C) to my existing 2012 reply to him on the arXiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.

For the convenience of potential readers, I have also made a separate PDF file of the new appendix here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... -12-16.pdf.


For the past eight years, Gill and Moldoveanu have made a huge noise about cross products changing sign under reflection, as discussed in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183#p4944

Moldoveanu wrote:
Nope because a x b is a pseudo-vector which upon this reflection against the horizontal axis changes signs as well ...

The suggestion here is that I have forgotten this basic fact and thereby made a sign error in my derivation of the strong correlations. Gill has made the same claim in his latest critique:

Gill wrote:
The author does not take account of the fact that surely, his cross-product too should also consistently follow the left- or right-handedness of the coordinate frame chosen by .

So this is their big criticism. :) This is what their noise of the past eight years is all about (which has been frequently amplified in the editorial offices and on the peer-reviewer desks).

But no physicist would make the mistake Gill and Moldoveanu have been making for so many years. Cross products do not change sign between left- and right-handed coordinate frames!

In vector algebra, the cross product between the vectors a and b is the same in both right-handed and left-handed coordinate frames. In the right-handed frame the three vectors, a, b, and a x b, respect the right-hand rule and in the left-handed frame they respect the left-hand rule. But the rule for calculating the cross product remains the same. Therefore, the sign change in a x b introduced by Gill and Moldoveanu is illegitimate. There is even some discussion about this on the Physics Stack Exchange: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... -handeness

***

As I read Gill's critique, he points out what he sees as a mathematical inconsistency in Christian's analysis, and just offers a mathematical suggestion as to how to resolve the inconsistency in the place where it first arises. Of course, that only leads to a new problem further on.

BTW here is a new Nature paper with some new entanglement records. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1976-7
Entanglement of two quantum memories via fibres over dozens of kilometres
Yong Yu, Fei Ma, Xi-Yu Luo, Bo Jing, Peng-Fei Sun, Ren-Zhou Fang, Chao-Wei Yang, Hui Liu, Ming-Yang Zheng, Xiu-Ping Xie, Wei-Jun Zhang, Li-Xing You, Zhen Wang, Teng-Yun Chen, Qiang Zhang, Xiao-Hui Bao & Jian-Wei Pan
Nature volume 578, pages 240–245(2020)
A quantum internet that connects remote quantum processors should enable a number of revolutionary applications such as distributed quantum computing. Its realization will rely on entanglement of remote quantum memories over long distances. Despite enormous progress, at present the maximal physical separation achieved between two nodes is 1.3 kilometres, and challenges for longer distances remain. Here we demonstrate entanglement of two atomic ensembles in one laboratory via photon transmission through city-scale optical fibres. The atomic ensembles function as quantum memories that store quantum states. We use cavity enhancement to efficiently create atom–photon entanglement and we use quantum frequency conversion to shift the atomic wavelength to telecommunications wavelengths. We realize entanglement over 22 kilometres of field-deployed fibres via two-photon interference and entanglement over 50 kilometres of coiled fibres via single-photon interference. Our experiment could be extended to nodes physically separated by similar distances, which would thus form a functional segment of the atomic quantum network, paving the way towards establishing atomic entanglement over many nodes and over much longer distances.


If Christian's theory is correct, does that kill the dream of quantum internet?
Richard D Gill
 

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:41 am

Richard D Gill wrote:
As I read Gill's critique, he points out what he sees as a mathematical inconsistency in Christian's analysis, ...

There is no inconsistency in the analysis of my local model of strong correlations, mathematical or otherwise. The model has been published in three highly respected international journals:

1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2

2) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

3) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453

And as I noted above, I have pointed out the mistakes in Gill's arguments many times before, and especially in my latest response: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... -12-16.pdf

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby gill1109 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:29 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Richard D Gill wrote:As I read Gill's critique, he points out what he sees as a mathematical inconsistency in Christian's analysis, ...

There is no inconsistency in the analysis of my local model of strong correlations, mathematical or otherwise. The model has been published in three highly respected international journals:

1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2

2) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

3) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453

And as I noted above, I have pointed out the mistakes in Gill's arguments many times before, and especially in my latest response: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... -12-16.pdf

If Christian's pedagogical paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578 gets published, I'll try to get my response to it, https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338, published too. For the time being both are on arXiv, and interested persons can judge for themselves. By the way, I am interested in this work because Christian may well have hit the nail on the head in his fundamental observations about torsion. And secondly, Geometric Algebra is such a wonderful tool.

The arXiv administrators moved my paper to the same section of arXiv as Christian's paper. Which is very reasonable. And led me to discover several other fascinating but "off-beat" works there.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Fake Critiques by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall Debun

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:18 am

gill1109 wrote:
If Christian's pedagogical paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578 gets published, I'll try to get my response to it, https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338, published too.

According to the philosopher Karl Popper the [ ignoble ] motivations someone has to criticize someone else's work should be separated from the [ poor ] quality of their arguments. ;)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library