Black Harvard Professor and The Economist 15 year study

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You change your arguments when cornered.
And then change what is said back to you.

You are a fraud.

My argument from the beginning is that occam's razor is not a proof. My example was QM. All this other stupidity is all you.

[pgardn]

Quantum mechanics being more complex than newtonian mechanics belies occam's razor else Newtonian mechanics could explain quantum behavior which they cannot. It is what it is. In the context of said discussion the explanation I had given was simpler than the formal definition. The butthurt is crossthread.

I do like now that you guys have given up on trying to prove me wrong and have now gone back to ignorance as virtue. Ridiculing someone for trying to 'talk smart' as if the alternative is preferred is absolutely delicious.

This is WRONG.

Newtonian mechanics does not explain quantum mechanics because it cannot deal adequately with what is now known, not because it is simple. Newtonian mechanics deals with idealized point masses or extended bodies. It has nothing to say about electromagnetic waves or tiny forces in atoms since neither were even known at that time. No one even knew about atoms much less electrons and tiny sub atomic particles. What you have written above is a clear misunderstanding of science especially the history of science.

Furthermore QM does adhere to Occam's razor quite beautifully. It predicts the behavior electrons and other "tiny" phenomena by suggesting a range of possibilities as well as impossibilities which makes it quite elegant(beautiful in its simplicity). Just because the math is difficult does not make the outcome sloppy containing unnecessary explainations.

Do you get it?

You think because something is mathematically difficult it somehow contains extraneous explainations is silly. This is what you have basically written above. QM is difficult to visualize physically as were othe physical phenomenon way back in the history of science. You might claim, looking back from today, Newton's first law obvious because it is today. Well it's not obvious to observations at that time or even today. How many things do you witness today when you walk outside that are moving in straight lines at constant speeds? The third law is clearly not obvious even today as given by sample surveys. Both of these ideas are used to do Newtonian mechanics, which is not difficult mathmatically because it is set up in problems where many real world forces are left out to make it doable. The ideas of the 1st and 3rd laws are used to be able to carry out the math most simply stated in the 2nd law which still holds today.

We will continue to mathmatically model physical phenomena and the models will change. We will find some mathmatical models used today will NOT suffice for future predictions based on those models. You do not necessarily live in an enlightened period where things are more difficult because YOU happen to live in THIS period of modeling. In Newton's time people were NOT merrily walking down the street drawing free body diagrams claiming how simple his ideas were. Or the math.

Now.
Enough.

There are only so many times I can repeat myself.

[vy65]

Went from being completely false/for the intellectual lazy to you can't exclusively rely on it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Went from being completely false/for the intellectual lazy to you can't exclusively rely on it.

I said it was a crutch for the intellectually lazy and proves nothing. I was speaking of you, dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is WRONG.

Newtonian mechanics does not explain quantum mechanics because it cannot deal adequately with what is now known, not because it is simple. Newtonian mechanics deals with idealized point masses or extended bodies. It has nothing to say about electromagnetic waves or tiny forces in atoms since neither were even known at that time. No one even knew about atoms much less electrons and tiny sub atomic particles. What you have written above is a clear misunderstanding of science especially the history of science.

Furthermore QM does adhere to Occam's razor quite beautifully. It predicts the behavior electrons and other "tiny" phenomena by suggesting a range of possibilities as well as impossibilities which makes it quite elegant(beautiful in its simplicity). Just because the math is difficult does not make the outcome sloppy containing unnecessary explainations.

Do you get it?

You think because something is mathematically difficult it somehow contains extraneous explainations is silly. This is what you have basically written above. QM is difficult to visualize physically as were othe physical phenomenon way back in the history of science. You might claim, looking back from today, Newton's first law obvious because it is today. Well it's not obvious to observations at that time or even today. How many things do you witness today when you walk outside that are moving in straight lines at constant speeds? The third law is clearly not obvious even today as given by sample surveys. Both of these ideas are used to do Newtonian mechanics, which is not difficult mathmatically because it is set up in problems where many real world forces are left out to make it doable. The ideas of the 1st and 3rd laws are used to be able to carry out the math most simply stated in the 2nd law which still holds today.

We will continue to mathmatically model physical phenomena and the models will change. We will find some mathmatical models used today will NOT suffice for future predictions based on those models. You do not necessarily live in an enlightened period where things are more difficult because YOU happen to live in THIS period of modeling. In Newton's time people were NOT merrily walking down the street drawing free body diagrams claiming how simple his ideas were. Or the math.

Now.
Enough.

There are only so many times I can repeat myself.

I got it the first time. As I have pointed out you haven't caught up, dimwit.

That was pretty stupid. The only cause considered is occam's razor which is being rejected. I never claimed that it was not able to explain quantum behavior because it was too simple. I said it was more simple and therefor occam's razor was demonstrably unable to prove something.

Your logic sucks. Just because something is negated doesn't make the opposite true.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You make is as simple as possible and no simpler. Simpler for the sake of simpler is not how it's done.

[vy65]

I said it was a crutch for the intellectually lazy and proves nothing. I was speaking of you, dimwit.

Incorrect. Should I repost what you said?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Incorrect. Should I repost what you said?

Here was the initial exchange.

The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.

Occam's razor is an excuse for the intellectually lazy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates the falsity of it completely. My explanation was simpler than the two part wiki definition much less the one using formal logic so even by your own standard youre wrong. You can say that it isn't complete but what your not able to do is exclude it. You suck at deduction. Most people do but youre supposed to be a lawyer, Counselor Crayola.

and parroting my own argument back and not being able to make your own.

It is completely false as a proof.

[vy65]

The person qualified to comment on this issue posted:

What?

All any physics does is model observations to a mathematical form. And then use the math to predict other behavior if possible. Occam's razor should not even be mentioned in your spewing above as it tries to narrow choices. Probability is used in Quantum Mechanics automatically making it more appropriate as reasonable IMO.

And you bringing this bs in the middle of a political argument makes me think you are slightly to severely autistic (looky, I'm fuzzy, I covered a range of possibilities, get it, get it?, see I'm clever)

I haven't seen a response from you that directly engages this point. In fact, you started backtracking to the position of Occam's Razor not being sufficient to prove anything (a claim not made at all) once this post was made.

So, here's an opportunity for you. Respond to the post above and explain why it is incorrect and Occam's Razor is a, to use your word, "falsity."

In your answer, be sure to explain why pgardn's assessment on probability/eliminating unlikely outcomes is incorrect. Thanks!

[pgardn]

Quantum mechanics being more complex than newtonian mechanics belies occam's razor else Newtonian mechanics could explain quantum behavior which they cannot. It is what it is. In the context of said discussion the explanation I had given was simpler than the formal definition. The butthurt is crossthread.

I do like now that you guys have given up on trying to prove me wrong and have now gone back to ignorance as virtue. Ridiculing someone for trying to 'talk smart' as if the alternative is preferred is absolutely delicious.

I got it the first time. As I have pointed out you haven't caught up, dimwit.

That was pretty stupid. The only cause considered is occam's razor which is being rejected. I never claimed that it was not able to explain quantum behavior because it was too simple. I said it was more simple and therefor occam's razor was demonstrably unable to prove something.

Your logic sucks. Just because something is negated doesn't make the opposite true.

The bolded is flat out wrong.

Do I need to post why AGAIN?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The bolded is flat out wrong.

Do I need to post why AGAIN?

You need to look up the meaning of the word 'else' and try again.

If occam's razor was a proof then something being more simple would by definition be proved by virtue of it being more simple. If I can show something more complex being rigorous to observation as opposed to a more simpler paradigm which does not then OR is demonstrated to be not a proof.

The deterministic classic mechanics cannot explain the probabilistic quantum behavior whereas the more complex QM does match observation. Therefor OR is not a proof.

No one of what you said disputes any of that. You can repeat yourself like an idiot if you would like.

[pgardn]

You need to look up the meaning of the word 'else' and try again.

If occam's razor was a proof then something being more simple would by definition be proved by virtue of it being more simple. If I can show something more complex being rigorous to observation as opposed to a more simpler paradigm which does not then OR is demonstrated to be not a proof.

The deterministic classic mechanics cannot explain the probabilistic quantum behavior whereas the more complex QM does match observation. Therefor OR is not a proof.

No one of what you said disputes any of that. You can repeat yourself like an idiot if you would like.

Where did I say it was a proof? I said it was a method of removing extraneous information.

Again you pull this and reword and wiggle.

Read AGAIN what you originally wrote.
Its WRONG.

[pgardn]

Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics try to explain very different things as I already explained.
You don't understand history.

[pgardn]

You make is as simple as possible and no simpler. Simpler for the sake of simpler is not how it's done.

The methodology to determine the possibilities of outcomes in QM may be difficult. The findings using QM are quite elegant. You continue to confuse the two.

[DarrinS]

You guys should leave that poor kid alone. Not fair.

[pgardn]

You guys should leave that poor kid alone. Not fair.

I think fuzz would make a decent politician.

He dodges, ducks, misrepresents, restates others words, is disingenuous...
And I really don't like doing this on a basketball site in the political section.
I totally stop reading the back and forth between posters, so when he does this with others I really had no idea he would try and pull such immature cowardly crap.

Others should really skip this stuff or find it in a science thread. I would. It's tiresome.

[spurraider21]

You guys should leave that poor kid alone. Not fair.

Sad!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did I say it was a proof? I said it was a method of removing extraneous information.

Again you pull this and reword and wiggle.

Read AGAIN what you originally wrote.
Its WRONG.

You interjected yourself into another argument. The argument you interjected into was that being said. I already linked it. Need me to do it again? Having to go around the same thing over and over again is like dealing with an alzheimer's patient.

[DarrinS]

I think fuzz would make a decent politician.

He dodges, ducks, misrepresents, restates others words, is disingenuous...
And I really don't like doing this on a basketball site in the political section.
I totally stop reading the back and forth between posters, so when he does this with others I really had no idea he would try and pull such immature cowardly crap.

Others should really skip this stuff or find it in a science thread. I would. It's tiresome.

Agreed

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agreed

Please point to something that I have misrepresented like you did when you claimed a graph the be from BEST when it was in fact from an oilco think tank and then refuse to give the link where you got it from.

[DarrinS]

Please point to something that I have misrepresented like you did when you claimed a graph the be from BEST when it was in fact from an oilco think tank and then refuse to give the link where you got it from.

You mad?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You mad?

Nope. No point to it but it's sad you would wish that I was. Schadenfreude is for emotional cripples.

Just asking you to support your claim. I can point out how you are unreliable. You cannot do the same.

[DarrinS]

Nope. No point to it but it's sad you would wish that I was. Schadenfreude is for emotional cripples.

Just asking you to support your claim. I can point out how you are unreliable. You cannot do the same.

I don't need to go searching through ancient threads again to support anything. It wasn't my claim -- I was just agreeing with another poster's opinion of you. If you want to go dig up some old graphs you think I misrepresented, no one is stopping you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't need to go searching through ancient threads again to support anything. It wasn't my claim -- I was just agreeing with another poster's opinion of you. If you want to go dig up some old graphs you think I misrepresented, no one is stopping you.

Need is a relative term. You clearly have low standards, spos.

[pgardn]

Gee, pgardn, sounds like you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't happen to have some education in physics, would you? Something that goes beyond having a conversation about quantum physics with a guy once?

I really don't like to have these types of back and forths. 3 F'N pages or so.... ridiculous. I do know science as my job requires it. I believe I have a good grasp of the Union of all 3 subject areas. I do not know law well, even though my father is a lawyer. So I am not going to continually battle you on law as I just don't know it well enough. I am not going to go to the tech section and disagree with NoNo by spouting off crap about encryption of data as I don't know the subject well. I will play in the political section as it lends itself to opinion.

I will most likely forget a posters habits unless some particular issue strikes me. This site is a boredom playground (it seems to be for others as well) when I have to be patient in my job due to travel or be patient with results and issues. I do not get joy in offending people and I should probably just stop with more obstinate posters.

And I now realize I have already responded to you... and thus wasted more space. Nevermind.