Re: CMBR

On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 8:01:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 7:52:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> I've asked this before but can't recall the responses, so bear with me. >> At the time of recombination, when H atoms formed, is the CMBR the

Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:03:10 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 1:57:12 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 5:38:33 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 5:27:51 AM UTC-5, Alan

Re: Holes in Bayesian Statistics

Right. But the paper treats the theory as an hypothesis to be evaluated by a Bayesian inference. In that case the distribution is just a datum. That is happens to be probability distribution is irrelevant. Brent On 4/10/2020 2:39 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: I did my Ph.D. in probability

Re: cosmic isotropy of expansion questioned

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:26:50 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:48 PM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >This could be a game changer in cosmology. >> > > > https://phys.org/news/2020-04-basic-assumption-universe.html >> > > That is really weird! If this turns out to

Re: Holes in Bayesian Statistics

I did my Ph.D. in probability theory, and every probability measure - distribution function - density function - transition matrix - - there ever was in all the courses I ever took was deterministic. @philipthrift On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:20:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > The

Re: Reductionism?

I think she is saying that, like biology, it may not be useful to look at smaller and smaller components (e.g. strings?) even though your theory is that things are made of smaller components. I suppose an example might be that gravity emergent from the stat-mech of matter fields, in which

Re: Holes in Bayesian Statistics

The theory predicts a definite distribution. The paper refers to this distribution or that distribution as the observation. At the level of distributions the theory is deterministic. Brent On 4/10/2020 12:40 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: What does "not probabilistic" mean is this is the case:

Re: cosmic isotropy of expansion questioned

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:48 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: >This could be a game changer in cosmology. > https://phys.org/news/2020-04-basic-assumption-universe.html > That is really weird! If this turns out to be true then by Noether's theorem wouldn't that

Re: The Natural Number Game

> On 10 Apr 2020, at 11:37, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, at 09:00, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 9 Apr 2020, at 13:49, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote: >>> >>> This is a lot of fun: >>>

Re: The Natural Number Game

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, at 09:00, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Apr 2020, at 13:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> This is a lot of fun: >> https://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/~buzzard/xena/natural_number_game/ >> >> I suspect most of you hear will enjoy it. >> > > > It can help people to learn to

Reductionism?

I do not understand at all what this final "conclusion" means (or the theory-method distinction is really really): So the next time a particle physicist tries to tell you that we need higher energies to probe shorter distances because that’s where progress will come from, remind them that

Re: The Natural Number Game

It would take a week to learn Lean to see what is going on: *Lean Game Maker usage guide* https://github.com/mpedramfar/Lean-game-maker/blob/master/USAGE.md @philipthrift On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 6:49:52 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > This is a lot of fun: >

Re: The Natural Number Game

> On 9 Apr 2020, at 13:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > This is a lot of fun: > https://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/~buzzard/xena/natural_number_game/ > > > I suspect most of you hear will enjoy it. > It can help people to learn to prove

Re: Holes in Bayesian Statistics

What does "not probabilistic" mean is this is the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation In 1926, just a few days after Schrödinger's fourth and final paper was published, Max Born successfully interpreted Ψ as a probability amplitude, whose modulus squared is *equal