Talk:Bell's theorem
click to view what has been said on this topic
|
---|
"STOP HERE. What follows is all messed up." I love it! Guy, you are deeply engaged in the learning process, an aspect of "research." Being willing to be wrong is what can enable you to find breakthroughs. Keep it up. I'm cheering. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply Okay, Guy, this is really cool and a great example of what is possible on Wikiversity. However, there is a possible issue. It's not clearly neutral. It's your opinion and, yes, original research. There is an easy fix, that allows you to fully develop your ideas, solicit and possibly actually attract participation, deepening the resource. It involves creating the mainspace page as a rigorously neutral page about Bell's theorem. It still does not need to meet the full w:WP:Verifiability standards, at least not as drafted. Consider it like a lecture you might give to students where you are communicating, not your own ideas, but what is widely accepted and known, and that could be verified if needed. Then this would be an essay underneath, as a subpage, attributed to you, and where anyone else may collaborate with your consent. You mention your view on "psychic phenomena." The term is quite undefined, but it's obvious that "psychic phenomena" exist, the issue is how they are interpreted. What, indeed, is the "psyche"? The mind? Does it exist? Where? How? In my training, "patterns of neurons firing." I think we would agree that there are neurons, and that they "fire," and that this sets up patterns. Are the patterns "real"? Or is the Mona Lisa just some oil paint? Then there are some experimental results, commonly considered not to exist (as by you, for example!). The results exist. The issue is, again, interpretation. There are some beginning approaches mentioned in Parapsychology. Essentially, there are results we don't understand, and people then make up explanations, typically in order to defend what they already believe, which is very normal for humans. These are ontological questions that have occupied great minds for a long time. And the somewhat related scientific issues occupied many as well. If you have a solution, that's fantastic! Now, here is how I can assist: I have some background in physics, I sat with Richard P. Feynman in the classes at Cal Tech, as a freshman and sophomore there, in 1961-63. However, I never completed my science education, obtained no degree, and I was away from the sciences for many years. I'm now very involved with the cold fusion research community, and just had a paper published in a major mainstream multdisciplinary journal. That was fun! (and a challenge!) I'd love to see an article on Bell's theorem, that explains it for a lay audience. In fact, I just was reading Feynman and his comments on the double-slit experiment, and was thinking about starting a resource here on that? We also could explore what I might all the "oovy groovy New Age appropriation of quantum mechanics to "explain" things like free will. I.e., pseudoscience. Which, by the way, doesn't mean "wrong." It means "not testable." We want explanations so badly that we will invent them, instead of just recognizing there are things we don't know. Feynman is being reported as saying "I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than have answers that cannot be questioned," which certainly sounds like him, but I'm skeptical that he actually said that. Feynman was the largest single individual influence on my life. So ... how about we create these? I'm the ignorant student, you are the professor. However, I'm the kind of student who will ask you questions and tell you when I think you are wrong, or, more accurately, now that I have a level of sophistication, that your explanations have not yet convinced me, or that they are not likely to be effective in explanation to a general audience -- or to experts with different opinions. I may advise along those lines, but you remain free to take the advice or not. This quality has been of high value in my discussions with the cold fusion community. Experts say what they think and I tell them how it lands. Some of them dislike this, but the best, the world's foremost experts, may get irritated on occasion, but have consistently, over the long term, expressed appreciation, because my perspective and stand leads them to become clear. Hence I've been acknowledged in major papers, you know, "appreciation for conversations." I actually suggested at least one of these papers, possibly the most important. If you like, I'll set up the structure. Were you a newbie, and were it not for the recent flap, I'd just do it. The goal is to allow full exploration and expression and deep research, without conflict. Game? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
|
click to view what has been said on this topic
| ||
---|---|---|
The question is asked on the resource what should be the mainspace page. Several answers are proposed.
The third option allows high freedom in the development of resources, while site neutrality is maintained. It allows original research, opinion, discussion, presenting it in a hierarchy, and then the category system can cross-connect topics in a different manner. We also have Topic and Portal and School namespaces for other keys into the structure. (Similar devices can be used in those namespaces to maintain neutrality.) Bottom line: the top-level page, in any namespace other than User, and maybe Template, should represent 100% consensus, where possible. The top-level page remains open to editing, it is not owned by any individual. We currently have an experimental exception, which I think problematic, the community has not considered the issue; there are positive and negative aspects: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, which has an "Editor-in-Chief." Generally, I place, on a top-level article, a link to the Wikipedia article. The top level article may summarize the topic, and it may even go into depth, and I would prefer, in fact, to speak of a "top level hierarchy," like a wikibook. On Wikibooks, the top-level page is commonly a table of contents for the book, and chapters are subpages. The top-level hierarchy is neutral. Anything not neutral, but useful for even just one user, is moved to a subpage, to a user page, or sometimes to a subpage elsewhere. (Linking to user pages from a top-level hierarchy is questionable, but it might be done from a subpage that explicitly points to personal user work). The goal is that the top level, and whatever is not attributed or owned in some way, is neutral and open to editing. Want to work on a page without interference? Create or move the page to an essay or other attributed page, in mainspace, or just to user space. Link it neutrally. Easy-peasy. Comment will still be allowed in the attached Talk page, except in user space, a user may revert that. Contrary to what Wikipedians routinely think, our User space is effectively owned by the user, and custodians will support that. Usually! This page on Bell's theorem was started as a chatty exploration of a possibility. Guy moved it to a subpage, which he first called a draft. Bell's theorem/Guy Vandegrift. He then moved it to /Finding the correlations without quantum mechanics. I'm not completely thrilled by the new pagename, but being linked as a draft, and being identified on the page as Guy's project, is acceptable. I will usually put a very explicit comment at the top, that requests the page not be edited without my consent. (These little message boxes can easily be missed.) It just now occurs to me to request self-reversion of edits, which fits into some old ideas of how to allow "topic-banned" users to make constructive suggestions, and I've also used this when editing policies, where consensus should be found for changes. It is much easier to make a change than to describe it, often, and self-reversion -- which is quick and easy -- could be used whenever the change might possibly be controversial. Or just to maintain respect for the user to whom the page is attributed. Self-reversion has a history of increasing cooperation, under some conditions. So my intention here is to use this page to study Bell's theorem. It may start out messy. But this is ordinary wiki editing. If it becomes an issue, I would subpage my study (or someone else may do that). Eventually, the page will not look like my study, it will be a node presenting what is not controversial about Bell's theorem, supporting learning (including my own), and linking to resources such as lists of sources, and individual studies like Guy's. There has been a perceived conflict between free and unhampered development of a resource and open editing. This occurs when one attempts to develop and complete a resource in top-level mainspace. The thinking was still very Wikipedian, that there would be one resource on a topic. It was always easy" to develop a resource without being hampered: do it in user space. Move it when done. Very common. The use of attributed subpages allows it in mainspace. Subpaging allows a resource to become complex and deep, see Cold fusion. There are subpages there with extensive debates; the goal is to eventually refactor those (always linking to the original) to present organized results or delineation of issues. Landmark Education is an example of the use of explicitly named "sections." That resolved a budding edit war, and converted competition into collaboration. This was the first example I'm aware of the use of the technique to resolve conflict. Parapsychology was set up to avoid conflict from the beginning, it being normal in that field. See [1] for the page of a an organization set up for that, see ratwiki for a taste. So it did show, on [2]. It was easily handled because of that page setup. That SPA never edited here nor anywhere else, in spite of being invited to create balance here. This is common among skeptical Wikipedians who think of Wikiversity as a haven for fringe. No, we are far more like universities, where what is presently fringe (and what is even off-the-rails pseudoscience) may be studied, discussed and debated. The w:Demarcation problem is far from resolved. I just noticed: Jameskeptic Wikipedia block log and sock puppet investigation. My, my. Pot, kettle, black. Not our problem. We will not block Jameskeptic unless disruption here continues after warning. Meanwhile, an apparent skeptic did appear. See Parapsychology/Sources/WaterPlanet and notice how the skeptical content was rescued from a sandbox by a "believer." I know Steigmann from off-wiki communication, and invited him here. He is reasonably described as a believer, I'd say. However, look what he's doing! And see the discussion on User talk:WaterPlanet. To anyone who knows the history of these "wars" on Wikipedia, the civility of the conversation is striking. This is what Wikiversity can do. WaterPlanet has done the homework, and more. I notice the user was never formally welcomed. I'll fix that. Steigmann is learning. That is what happens when one sets out to create a deep Wikiversity resource. One becomes familiar with the material! Rigid thinking can start to soften, not because someone else is yelling at you, calling you names, impeaching your integrity, but because you know more. And then real conversations can begin. One can also see this in the discussions around Landmark Education. I bought a book at the suggestion of that critic. My understanding of the controversy deepened. What the critic learned, for sure, was that there are options available, other than fighting for dominance. That spread, I've cooperated on Wikiquote with this user, who is a sysop there, when things got very hot, and that he trusted me probably arose from our cooperation here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Moving discussion from mainpage to here[edit source]
Recent changes[edit source]I made a inter-wiki link to w:Bell's theorem, an article that makes no effort to provide those mathematical details that a college physics major would be looking for. Since the main thrust of Wikipedia is educational, I removed all the "research" aspects of the three links under the now deleted Bell's theorem/Guy vandegrift, and placed them at the top. These three subpages under "Calculations" are now conventional expository material collected from refereed educational resources. I hope that's OK--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
|
Suggested scope of the Calculation section and three subpages (Introduction-correlation-inequality)
[edit source]The Calculation section and three subpages (Introduction, Correlation, Inequality) are designed to introduce advanced ideas at the lowest possible level. Those who wish to change this focus should consider creating one or more parallel pages (i.e. Bell's inequality or Bell's theorem experiments or Bell's paradox) We could move the (Introduction/Calculation/Inequality) subpages if there is consensus, but please edit them in a way that makes the material more accessible. Consider subpages for exercises and quizzes. As with anything "wiki", this is just a suggestion and is subject to community review.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply