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: 1541
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: 242
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: 1541
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: 242
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: 1541
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: 1613
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: 242
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: 152
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: 242
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: 1541
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: 1613
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: 1541
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: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 79 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library