Seℏ

After a set up for the SBLJ angle was fully worked out, the airBLJs and hall BLJ were unified and able to be controlled on the fly, & after failing to find anything that can improve the strategy, I am happy to release my complete Ultimate DDD skip strategy youtu.be/xl90_Y1r9Xs?si…

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago Everyone thinks that. That doesn’t change the fact that you can construct an effective quantum field theory that treats the low energy degrees of freedom. Even in this view, there would be a new notion of “gravity” means in the “pregeometry,” which may also even be “prequantum”.

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago that gravity is therefore the kind of thing standard quantum formalism should apply to. It is not. Gravity, in my view, is a consequence of emergent geometry from a pre-geometric quantum ontology.

From an expert in the field: this notion of QM and GR being fundamentally at odds is overstated. 👇

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago What’s your opinion on phonons then?

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago No. In my view gravity isn't fundamentally quantum at all. spacetime geometry & gravity are emergent features of the classical domain. The mistake is assuming that pre-measurement quantum reality exists in classical space and cont.

@bcubeddd But the odyssey is about an exceptional man, that’s nolan’s favorite subject

there is no way that film won’t be ass. Nolan can’t really make a film without a gimmick (amnesia/sleight of hand/dreamslop/spaceslop/timeslop/Batman…) and the Odyssey isn‘t really gimmickey

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago Do you think what they’re calling IR quantum gravity is a limit of “true” quantum gravity?

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago but the core of my argument is the IR model rests on unsubstantiated conceptual premises, about the applicability of quantum formalism, the status of observables, localization, and classical background structure then treats results as if they established something about gravity

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago I can see how that can be confusing if someone isn’t clear on what the “infrared” part of the claim is doing for the claim.

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago Saying “we know how to quantize gravity just fine in the infrared” is just sloppy misleading language and that is what I replied to. It suggests that gravity itself, spacetime geometry in the GR sense, has been placed within a quantum framework in that regime.

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago It is the case if you know what quantize in the IR means. You don’t like the phrase because you want that to mean something we don’t lean when we say it.

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago a formalism is being applied in a domain where its conceptual warrant is still in question, and then the success of that formalism within its own setup is used to claim that gravity has been quantized in the infrared. That is not the case.

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago Your objection isn’t semantic it’s just with the phrasing?

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago My objection is not semantic; it is that the broader phrasing overstates what the formalism actually establishes.

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago No, that’s why we call it IR specifically, because it isn’t the “actual quantum gravity” and we all know it. This is unfortunately semantics.

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago No you are missing the point or redressing it as semantics. The formalism is being applied from within a conceptual framework that already assumes what is at issue, and then its success inside that framework is being treated as if it established something ontological.

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago Some people have argued that perturbative gravity isn’t actually gravity, yes. I think this is an issue that only stems out of not being clear enough with definitions, like not specifying “IR”.

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago Calling it quantum gravity is the issue under dispute. The formalism may be quantum in its treatment of perturbations, but that doesn't mean gravity itself is what's being fundamentally quantized, rather than modeled by quantum corrections within a classical background setup.

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago I know what you’re saying. That is what IR quantization is. You’re using the term “fundamentally quantum” to describe non-perturbative quantum gravity, which no one is claiming exists.

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago I’m saying that even as perturbative QFT, it presupposes a classical geometric background and quantizes only fluctuations about it. So it does not establish that gravity itself is fundamentally quantum; it applies quantum formalism within an already classicalized regime.

@bcubeddd @Samuel_Gregson Hey some of the people actually into it also have psychotic illnesses. The deficit with these people is in their ego, they just crave being part of the small group of “actual knowers”. If only actually learning physics made you part of a small group of people…

@Samuel_Gregson I lowkenuinely think most people into physics are schizophrenic and the actual physicists are the minority that isn’t

No it hasn’t. Lol

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago No I’m not, I completely get what you’re saying, I’m just saying your hang up is only rooted in definitions, not anything substantive.

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago you're still missing the point!

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago That’s what IR quantization of gravity means. That’s how perturbation theory works.

@WKCosmo @Cosmalano @DeivonDrago Your response misses the target. you're replying as if I said the perturbations are not geometric. But what I'm saying is, the formalism presupposes a classical geometric background and quantizes only perturbations relative to it. This is different from what you think I said!

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago That’s what IR quantization means. Youre trying to say it’s not QG because it’s not non-perturbative quantum gravity, which doesn’t exist. The only reason there seems to be any debate is because of a vague use of the term QG. But perturbative QFT is still a quantum theory…

@Cosmalano @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago Infrared quantum gravity does not quantize geometry in its ontological sense; it quantizes perturbative excitations of a geometry that has already been assumed. That is the pressure point.

@DeivonDrago @Lptomov82 @WKCosmo That’s beside the point. Anyone trying to go from Newtonian gravity to GR would be making a massive leap. Same with the leap from classical mechanics to QM. It’s commonly believed the leap from GR to QG will be the same, but it’s conceivable that from QM to QG will be a leap too

@Lptomov82 @WKCosmo You till have strong continuity of empirical predictions in that limited domain.

@Shaktidass18 @WKCosmo @DeivonDrago That’s what IR quantization means

@WKCosmo @DeivonDrago But notice, the background itself is left classical and unquantized, they quantize the ripples, not the geometry. This actually concedes my point.

@marisinsub I also use that strat

メモ用

@BigManTheBest @LiteralMem3s The original seems to have already been literal

@LiteralMem3s The original image has swastikas for those who can’t see

@bcubeddd @Shoggathic There was also no experimental evidence for relativistic gravity in 1907. In another era, these people would have fought to stop GR from being formulated.

There is no experimental evidence for quantum gravity. We can procrastinate on this problem until such time as evidence arises… or we can let the talented and hard working scientists who are passionate about the topic actually do their jobs without tedious and dramatic whining

@47fucb4r8c69323 @davidbessis This is dumb as hell (please start using this sentence with AI obsessives btw)

The more I look at this the more impressed I am and the more I realize how grateful we should be to Tao. 1. He acknowledges ignorance: this is something academics almost never do since their cultural capital is tied up in them knowing things. But he can since, well, he's Terence Tao. 2. He is explicitly acknowledging his use of GenAI to fight the stigma of using AI. If the child prodigy turned UCLA prof who studied with Erdos uses AI, it is legitimate technology. (please start using this sentence with AI skeptics btw) 3. He is also showing how AI is best used: as a kind of syntactic tool that finds connections in possibility space and has access to a larger library of information than our brains can. There's more here but the cool internet thing is a list of three. I often lament Tao has too playful of a mode of operating, feeling like he plays with linear algebra when he should be doing foundations of mathematics. But not only does this moment prove my view wrong, it also proves just how much Silly Business Theory #SBT is right: in the future the best work, the greatest progress, and the most valuable innovations won't come from people laboring under the false consciousness of Protestantism and Marxism that asserts work must be hard and serious to produce value. The best work is going to come from people playing and having fun. We're on the cusp of a near utopian explosion in human potential and quality of life. And you're bearish?!?!?!?!??????!?