Why do people protest #Vance’s idea that parents should have votes proportionate to number of their children as a horrible idea?
It is horrible, but by discussing its merits or lack thereof, they’ve let something else slide.
We need to #NipItInTheBud as unconstitutional. There is no such provision in the US Constitution.
That should be the first line of attack before the idea even starts to take hold. By skipping to a discussion of how bad it is, we forget it’s unconstitutional
This style of rhetoric is pervasive in #Project2025
It starts with seemingly simple ideas which resonate with conservatives but are controversial with liberals and progressives.
Then it QUICKLY builds up on that and introduces even more controversial ideas.
The creep is gradual, but unmistakable. Most people look at the end result and start debating the merits of that end result.
Meanwhile, a #divideByZero has already happened in earlier paragraphs and pages. #NipItInTheBud.
Here is a humorous example that “proves” that 1 == 2.
I’m attaching a screenshot that captures the essence of the argument that seems quite logical, but the conclusion after the creep is garbage because a #divideByZero has already happened by the time you reach the final result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbliihTJ4v4 [Turn off sound if you don’t speak #Hindi. The screens are all in English — no subtitles needed]
I started noting the subtle but unmistakable creep in the #Project2025 rhetoric in this pinned thread ➡️ https://mastodon.social/@rameshgupta/112751032011681146
I stopped after a while because the #ZeroDenom pattern is visible early on — Inductive reasoning alone is enough to prove what utter garbage the whole document is, with no need to do an exhaustive read.
I’ve seen very high quality discussions on the lack of merits of proposals in Project 2025, but I’ve not seen a single one that tries to #NipItInTheBud.
⬆️ >> #ZeroDenom Here is a humorous example that “proves” that 1 == 2.
Time to move up from elementary algebra :-)
"…any form of #BellsTheorem lets one quickly and easily prove that 0=1"
via @chemoelectric https://masto.ai/@chemoelectric/113856316516264216
This leads us to see one of the reasons John Clauser does not deserve his Nobel Prize: he did not arrive at the same result as QM, yet did not consider his result an error. ALL MATHEMATICAL METHODS MUST ARRIVE AT THE SAME RESULT. Otherwise mathematics would be inconsistent! And, indeed, any form of "Bell's theorem" lets one quickly and easily prove that 0=1.
I have actual computer programs that simulate the experiment ‘local realistically’ and produce the exact correlation function predicted by quantum mechanics! And, because a computer is an actual electronic device, these constitute physical experiments, not mere mathematical models. They are empirical disproof.
Thus Bell’s ‘theorem’ cannot possibly be anything but silly pseudo-mathematics.
Go see my GitHub. Link in my bio.
The usual way a Bell fanatic deals with this, of course, is to refuse to look at my programs. :)
@SeanaG @rameshgupta Incidentally, I have some education in random process analysis (at a graduate school level), which John S. Bell would NOT have had ANY of (at any level). That is why he made the mistake of treating conditional probability as a function representing a causal process, which is AN EXTREME NO-NO in random process analysis.
This is Bell’s ‘encoding of local reality’. It is AN EXTREME NO-NO that in every field of science except physics people know not to do.
As a community, the physicists of today is beyond redemption. They do not believe mathematics has to be internally consistent. When it isn’t, they consider that a mere ‘loophole’ that can be closed by experiment.
Nor do they believe they actually have to study any of its subjects. They believe they can simply wing it. Then they can ‘peer review’ the results themselves, rather than bring in actual experts.
There is also this little matter: quantum mechanics itself predicts there will be no CHSH violations. But the literature is careful to avoid publishing the actual predicted outcomes of the experiment. They are difficult to calculate by quantum mechanics, but easily calculated by ordinary probability theory. Mathematical consistency ensures these are the same numbers. And they have the same correlation function as what is misnamed the ‘quantum correlation’.
The electromagnetic field has the same correlation function, according to classical coherence theory. It must, because mathematics is consistent! But only in obscure literature will you find this correspondence to EM field theory mentioned. It is itself disproof of Bell, because it shows a contact-action process (the EM field) producing the ‘quantum correlation’ function.
>> I have actual computer programs that simulate the experiment… and produce the exact correlation function predicted by quantum mechanics!
That exclamation gives away the game.
A computer simulation is just that — a simulation.
>> And, because a computer is an actual electronic device, these constitute physical experiments, not mere mathematical models. They are empirical disproof.
A computer simulation is NOT a physical experiment. It is NOT empirical disproof.
I don’t have to watch the video, because I know exactly what stupid logical error Bell made! It was one of the dumbest errors a person can possibly make. So I know with certainty that Bell revealed NOTHING.
A lot of people have excused it as being due to this or that understandable confusion. E.T. Jaynes, for instance, did that. Bah! It was a moronic error. If Bell’s reasoning were so, then siblings could not resemble each other!
A computer is an electronic device that operates in real time. It is made of electrical switches that usually operate according to a heartbeat clock. Thus this is a physical experiment.
If you dispute this you can simply be ignored as a person who ignores the facts of the situation. When my computer programs run they are real time experiments. They are switches operating in real time in particular order.
This is what is so frustrating. People are purposely so fricking stupid.
>> A computer is an electronic device that operates in real time… Thus this is a physical experiment…
…Even in an RTOS, it operates in NEAR-real time(scheduling & context switches).
One can craft programs that simulate ANY physical phenomena but WEAKEST link is the code. Why should people trust YOUR code?
>> People are purposely so fricking stupid.
Personal insults are not endearing. A simulation can simulate a physical experiment, but it is not one itself.
@rameshgupta Oh, stop it. I am not insulting you, I am making an observation that you are being stupid on purpose.
You know you are being stupid on purpose, so it is no insult. You KNOW IT.
You haven’t looked at my programs, after all. You merely spread innuendo that they are bad programs, when they are very good programs, far better than Alain Aspect’s lab experiments with their very dodgy data analysis.
@rameshgupta And what kind of person actually suggests that a computer can operate instantaneously or backwards in time, which is what ‘not operating in real time’ in this context would mean?
Whatever you are talking about must refer to what librt.so deals with and again shows you are making no attempt to understand the subject.
@rameshgupta You are trying to be clever and so gain social status, but that is not how to be a truly intelligent person who understands the world around them.
Social status is worth nothing. One dies and it goes away. All the work of the quantum physicists of today will eventually be discarded as garbage, and they will be laughed at and their names either mocked or forgotten.
But true understanding of the world lasts potentially forever, and makes a person immortal.
>> what kind of person actually suggests that a computer can operate instantaneously…
Exactly your kind of person who insists his simulations run in "real time" — who looks at inner workings of RTOS and disregards the time it spends monitoring processes, scheduling threads, & performing context switches.
You comment on people's inner thinking, such as when they're "trying to be clever," to "gain social status," "being stupid on purpose"…
I impute no such motivations on you.
Ramesh #NotGoingBack
SeanaG
Barry Schwartz 🫖