"Quantum Cognition" should probably be taken into account in sound assessments?

[Neuro]

Non-double-blind studies with subjective sound judgments are often not accurate.
The order of rated sounds matters in simple "blind tests". Something a proper double-blind study is not affected by.

 

[kemmler3D]

I think the upshot of this would simply be that randomizing the order of a blind (or double-blind) test is probably a good idea.


As an aside, I trust this woman on psychology even less than I trust her on physics, which is not much. She's a bomb-thrower who believes in theories that I consider crackpot at best, namely superdeterminism, which many consider to be a poison pill for the entire concept of science, let alone physics.

 

[Snarfie]

It's the question when determining takes place of a double blind listening test this raises the question when will the wave function collaps just after the test or when the outcome is presented. If you think you understands this it means you dont't understand this. Now we are back in a superposition. Does this makes sense

 

[Curvature]

I think the upshot of this would simply be that randomizing the order of a blind (or double-blind) test is probably a good idea.


As an aside, I trust this woman on psychology even less than I trust her on physics, which is not much. She's a bomb-thrower who believes in theories that I consider crackpot at best, namely superdeterminism, which many consider to be a poison pill for the entire concept of science, let alone physics.

I like listening to her videos outside of physics, which I'm not very interested in, and her reasoning always seems lucid.

How much stock should I put in your criticism? Would you be able to discuss your views with her and match her expertise in physics, or are you making informed but non-expert points? The latter doesn't make your argument invalid. I'd put myself in that category for most of my posts here.

One last thing: in science, and for intellectual pursuits generally, it is easy to disagree on larger framing perspectives and conclusions. What's much more difficult to discount is the ability to research, parse data, understand intent, reconstruct arguments, and so on. A person incapable of the latter set of detailed moves is not worth much time. The former, where you disagree on the bigger picture, is fine by me.

Are you saying that she is incapable of the reasoning necessary for science generally?

 

[SIY]

I think the upshot of this would simply be that randomizing the order of a blind (or double-blind) test is probably a good idea.


As an aside, I trust this woman on psychology even less than I trust her on physics, which is not much. She's a bomb-thrower who believes in theories that I consider crackpot at best, namely superdeterminism, which many consider to be a poison pill for the entire concept of science, let alone physics.

Once she strays outside her actual specialty, she's... not smart (I'm assuming she knows something about quantum gravity and cosmology, but I'm not adept enough to judge). She's wandered into mine a few times and absolutely beclowned herself. I am constantly reminded of Gell-Mann amnesia.

I wish she'd unclench her teeth now and then, but that's a criticism of style, not substance.

 

[kemmler3D]

are you making informed but non-expert points? The latter doesn't make your argument invalid. I'd put myself in that category for most of my posts here.

I'd like to be able to claim "informed but non-expert"...

I just find the concept of superdeterminism to be crazy on its face. It basically asserts that outcomes cause their own causes through some unknown mechanism that is often referred to by scientists as a "conspiracy". No joke, superdeterminism implies that maybe cancer risk isn't random, maybe you engage in risky behaviors because you're going to get cancer. If that doesn't sound like it makes sense, well... I agree.

In my non-physicist opinion, it's a worldview that gives up on the entire concept of science as we know it. I can't explain it that well, but this article gives a pretty good explanation: https://bigthink.com/hard-science/superdeterminism-free-will/ and this one is shorter: https://mateusaraujo.info/2019/12/17/superdeterminism-is-unscientific/

I also don't really like her constant carping about particle physics not solving quantum gravity yet. I guess discovering the higgs boson was not enough for her and she thinks that entire branch of inquiry is a dead end. That's an OK opinion to have among professionals, but she's been loud about it to the general public, which is already much too inclined (IMO) to paint normal scientists as grifters, liars, and incompetents. I don't find her engaging in that type of rhetoric (even by second degree) to be helpful.

Are you saying that she is incapable of the reasoning necessary for science generally?

Not at all, she's probably a pretty competent scientist in most ways. I don't have any real reason to think otherwise. I just think superdeterminism is just as much pseudoscience as she says many-worlds is, and I don't care for her general attitude. She's like another Michio Kaku with an axe to grind.

 

[Curvature]

She's wandered into mine a few times and absolutely beclowned herself.

Can you give an example? What's your specialty?

I'd like to be able to claim "informed but non-expert"...

I just find the concept of superdeterminism to be crazy on its face. It basically asserts that outcomes cause their own causes through some unknown mechanism that is often referred to by scientists as a "conspiracy". No joke, superdeterminism implies that maybe cancer risk isn't random, maybe you engage in risky behaviors because you're going to get cancer. If that doesn't sound like it makes sense, well... I agree.

In my non-physicist opinion, it's a worldview that gives up on the entire concept of science as we know it. I can't explain it that well, but this article gives a pretty good explanation: https://bigthink.com/hard-science/superdeterminism-free-will/ and this one is shorter: https://mateusaraujo.info/2019/12/17/superdeterminism-is-unscientific/

I also don't really like her constant carping about particle physics not solving quantum gravity yet. I guess discovering the higgs boson was not enough for her and she thinks that entire branch of inquiry is a dead end. That's an OK opinion to have among professionals, but she's been loud about it to the general public, which is already much too inclined (IMO) to paint normal scientists as grifters, liars, and incompetents. I don't find her engaging in that type of rhetoric (even by second degree) to be helpful.



Not at all, she's probably a pretty competent scientist in most ways. I don't have any real reason to think otherwise. I just think superdeterminism is just as much pseudoscience as she says many-worlds is, and I don't care for her general attitude. She's like another Michio Kaku with an axe to grind.

Thanks. I'll check those out.

I thought this was a well done popular science piece she wrote: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547/

 

[kemmler3D]

Can you give an example? What's your specialty?

Thanks. I'll check those out.

I thought this was a well done popular science piece she wrote: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547/

I think this article is reasonably well-written, but I don't think this kind of statement is uncontroversial:

the cosmic microwave background emerged long after the Big Bang Event, if the Big Bang Event happened. The cosmic microwave background is merely evidence for the expansion of the universe

That's not my understanding of the CMB. The CMB is considered circumstantial but strong evidence for a singularity-like event, because given that it's so uniform, it implies that everything was in physical contact at some point in the past, and if spacetime has been expanding the whole time, (the evidence we have points in that direction) it strongly implies everything came from a single point.

That's where the entire idea of the singularity came from in the first place, so to act as if they're not logically connected seems very odd to me.

Writing as if these were two separate and unrelated questions is definitely not normal.

Secondly, she mentions modified gravity as if it were a good explanation for what we see with Webb... AFAIK modified gravity is still considered more "crackpot" than "breakthrough" science. AFAIK It's completely unable to explain structures larger than single galaxies and also requires the concept of "tired light", which we have no evidence for.

 

[Anton D]

I just find the concept of superdeterminism to be crazy on its face.

You can't help it.

Pardon my terrible tautology joke: I will slap my own forehead....

 

[SIY]

Can you give an example?

Her recent rant about plastic on YouTube, for one. Polymer science is one of my specialties and I've won several million in grants from NIH to study their environmental and health effects.

After about 4 or 5 minutes, I couldn't take any more and tapped out.

 

[kemmler3D]

You can't help it.

Pardon my terrible tautology joke: I will slap my own forehead....