Okay, so the title’s a bit harsh, but this PRL by Starkman and Trotta (Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006) ) is an interesting read.
O brave new quantum world!
O brave new quantum world!
Okay, so the title’s a bit harsh, but this PRL by Starkman and Trotta (Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006) ) is an interesting read.
If I had known that facts that are obvious to anyone familiar with subjective probability theory were worthy of publication in the world’s most prestigious physics journal then I’d have a lot more PRLs to my name right now.
Yesterday I posted (respectfully) about the Cramer/Nagourney experiment on Scott Aaronson’s blog.
But I forgot to mention the most important thing, namely, how seriously fun & cool it will be for folks to stop by Warren Nagourney’s lab, and see a credible attempt to build and operate an ansible.
But Dave, in our universe the fundamental constants are such that the anthropic principle can not only live, but thrive! In other universes that is not the case.
It is because…..it is! Sheesh, more like scientology than science…..
Is it possible that AP mistakes ‘nature’ for ‘natural science’?
‘Nature is earlier than man,
but man is earlier than natural science.’
-Carl Friedrich Freiherr von Weizsaecker
If I had known that facts that are obvious to anyone familiar with subjective probability theory were worthy of publication in the world’s most prestigious physics journal then I’d have a lot more PRLs to my name right now.
Matt, whenever I see a paper like this one, I don’t know which to be more annoyed at: that people got so much attention for saying something trivially true, or that the people to whom they were responding got so much attention for saying something trivially false.
I don’t see anything in this paper that the anthropic cultists couldn’t hand-wave away.
I have some experiments that sort of prove their resoning is wrong, will tell them first though…
meanwhile trust me it’s wrong!
my spelling of reasoning was wrong too! 🙂