2,538 reputation
1232
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 8 months
seen 18 mins ago

1h
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, I did not predict a variance at all: you are inserting the word "humor" for "scientific dishonesty", "intentional misrepresentation", "total disinterest in communication to resolve misunderstanding", and "rhetorical evasion of specific questions".
2h
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, you continue to be scientifically dishonest by evading the point. And of course you know that I never said that I can predict the variance in Mercury's age based on the stated equivalence...
5h
reviewed Approve suggested edit on why do many appliances not run on A.C?
5h
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, "Mercury is X old" is effectively equivalent to the statement "The hypothesis that Mercury will exist tomorrow has been validated 365 days a year for the last 5 billion years."
5h
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, so you are saying that if we compare the set of all objects that are +1 billion years old to the set of all objects that are less than 1 nanosecond old, without any other knowledge our expectation should be that a sample from both sets are equally likely to give up the ghost in the next nanosecond as in the next billion years? You are playing dumb, because (forgetting statistics theory for a moment) in an empirical frequentist sense this is obviously false, and I'm not sure I understand the point of your pretending to be oblivious to this fact. The proof is in the pudding.
20h
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, your statement about "trust" and psychology seems to be indicating a confusion about what science is. That the sun rises is a scientific hypothesis that is tested on a daily basis and bayesian reasoning can be used to quantify that expectation.
20h
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, your first sentence is only true if 1) there is truly only one sample, and 2) there is otherwise zero knowledge of the nature of the distribution the sample is taken from. Pretending that neither of these conditions are met here is glib. In the case of mercury or the sunrise, there are many samples in the past so condition 1 is not met, and 2 is not met because we have general physical understanding about the set of possible distributions being sampled from (this is something any beyond-freshman-level book on statistics should cover).
21h
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, you are just listing things that would reduce our uncertainty, which is irrelevant to the point. To make the point simpler: if you didn't know any science, but knew from experience that the sun rose and set every day, would you be willing to bet 5 cents that the sun would rise the next day? Of course you would. It's a winning bet. Obviously if we knew more we could be more certain. In the case of Mercury, simply knowing that the sun has been stable for billions of years and mercury has not collided with a similar sized object for billions of years, etc, etc, does convey real info.
1d
comment Do doomsday arguments influence doomsday hypotheses?
@CuriousOne, in the example given it's not true that there is an absence of "any other knowledge." In fact in most similar examples one can, without knowing details, make well-motivated general assumptions about the distribution being sampled (in this case, distance from sun) that inform this type of argument (it is continuous to start). Certainly it is true (without knowing details of orbital mechanics) that if Mercury has been in a stable orbit for ~5 billion years the prior probability that the orbit will become unstable in the next million is very small. Such analysis is not "nonsense."
Sep
10
reviewed Approve suggested edit on ${1 \over T} e^{-i/T}$ for Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution
Sep
7
reviewed Approve suggested edit on Why the amount of entropy increase to a system is less when heat is added to a higher temperature system than to a lower one?
Sep
6
reviewed Approve suggested edit on Finding the current in a parallel circuit
Sep
6
reviewed Approve suggested edit on Do photons change velocity instantaneously?
Sep
3
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
3
comment Dark matter a medium for light propagation
@anna v, yes, ridiculous that you have too much pride for scientific and pedagogic honesty. I can quote from Jackson or Landau all day: "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately." The electromagnetic field is absolutely mandatory given relativity, and has nothing to do with QFT. That said, it is completely specious to say that QFT is not "necessary" for answering the question. There are no "classical" qualifications made here. The question is about nature, and if QFT tells us something relevant about nature then so be it.
Sep
3
reviewed Approve suggested edit on Has the collapse of wave function due to observation been recorded?
Sep
3
reviewed Approve suggested edit on Magnet spinning between two other magnets
Sep
2
comment Dark matter a medium for light propagation
@anna v, they don't need a source, are you aware of electromagnetic radiation? Do you know the definition of "field" when you say "electric field" and "magnetic field"? Of course these guys are frame dependent which is why one should even classically talk about the 4-potential and the EM-field rather than its frame-dependent components. This is stuff you should know, which is way this discussion is bizarre. Are you really trying to argue that "electromagnetic field" is a non-classical concept?
Sep
2
comment Dark matter a medium for light propagation
@anna v, you are being stubborn and specious to no positive end. Even classically the EM field is a field, and fills all space by definition of "field," regardless of whether it has zero amplitude.
Sep
1
comment Dark matter a medium for light propagation
@anna v, classical fields are not the background of the question. The question is about nature generically, which we know is not classical.