The h Bar

Allie

00:00

so when you say dimension N, youre saying the dimension of the hilbert space?

ACuriousMind

yes

Allie

i see, so for an infinite dimensional hilbert space, the remaining eigenvectors would just be an (infinite) basis of states orthogonal to the state vector, that, together with the state vector, span the entire hilbert space

Silly Goose

is the reason that the parity (?) of the number operator commutes with quadratic terms in c/a operators because if the c/a operators always come in pairs, then you can only ever (i) not change the particle number or (ii) raise or decrease by $2$, which obviously leaves the parity invariant?

ACuriousMind

@Allie that's true in both finite and infinite dimensions, but yes

Silly Goose

by parity of number operator i mean $(-1)^N$, which I think maybe is not the correct word but im not sure

Allie

00:02

yay thank you

lol u are being authoritarian

ACuriousMind

@SillyGoose in the interest of fairness: my counterargument as written doesn't make a lot of sense, either - I said something very silly there but you didn't catch it :P

Silly Goose

did someone say silly

hm wait what is the silly thing

ACuriousMind

00:19

@SillyGoose the particle at rest is not $p=0$

Silly Goose

hm i still do not follow

ACuriousMind

$p$ is a four-vector constrained to the mass shell $p^2 = m^2$

Silly Goose

oh relativity

ACuriousMind

and indeed, for any two such vectors you can always find a Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$ such that $p_1 = \Lambda p_2$ ($\Lambda$ is not necessarily a pure boost); this does not mean I think your construction with the iterated $K$ makes any more sense to me but the argument I gave there isn't an argument

Silly Goose

i implicitly was thinking of galilean in the quantum instance, in which case your counter argument does actually hold right

Allie

00:30

hmmmm

so does the (spinless) second order reduced density matrix $\rho(\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2)$ represent the probability of finding any of the N-1 electrons at $\mathbf{r}_2$ given that one electron is at $\mathbf{r}_1$

but like the probability distribution integrates to $N-1$

so that each of the other electron's probabilities integrates to $1$

Silly Goose

what a funny notation :P

Allie

04:50

awww

boring night

Allie

05:14

also i think I should have written that as $\rho(r_1r_2, r_1r_2)$

Allie

05:38

hi john

John Rennie

Morning :-)
Probably very early morning for you!

Allie

ehhh

i consider it night

im reading this nice book i want it so badllyyyyy but its $200

isnt that a shame

John Rennie

05:54

$200! What's the book? Is it printed in pure gold? :-)

Allie

parr and yang dft

no its a fucking softcover...

i wish i had it

im enjoying it

John Rennie

06:09

Ah yes. The Z-Library has the pdf but the physical book is £202 here.

Tobias Fünke

06:57

hi

@Allie it is quite complicated, actually, and that matter is often wrongly presented in many textbooks.

regarding the normalization, see my answer to an analogous question here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/695049/…

One paper discussing the probability distributions for identical particles is M. Testa: "Identical particles, projectors and probabilities".

Allie

@TobiasFünke so what i said wasnt correct?

Tobias Fünke

The point is that you physically may ask something like: what is the probability to find $k$ out of the $N$ (indistinguishable) particles in a region $\Omega$. Then this is not a reduced density matrix

Allie

07:12

then what would be?

Tobias Fünke

See e.g. G. Sperber "Analysis of Reduced Density Matrices in the Coordinate Representation .I. Definitions and Basic Formulas"

no, but what you said is correct

(I did not check the normalization, though; there are different conventions and I cannot recall right now which one is the correct in this context)

Allie

oh okay i was gonna say i think this paper says what i initially thought

but thanks for the reference!

im gonna head to bed and read more closely tomorrow. have a good... day?

Tobias Fünke

okay, good night :) yes, it is 8 am here

E.g. Sperber gives the probability to find $2$ particles in $\Omega\subset \mathbb R^3$ and the other $N-2$ particles in the complement $\bar\Omega$ to be (ignoring the spin) $\frac{N-2}{2}\int_\Omega \mathrm dx_1\, \int_\Omega \mathrm dx_2 \int_{{\bar\Omega}^{N-2}} \mathrm dx_3\ldots \mathrm dx_{N} \,\Gamma(x_1,x_2,x_3,\ldots,x_N)$ with $\Gamma$ the density matrix of the $N$ particles.

Naively, I'd guess that if we make $\Omega$ smaller and smaller and thus $\bar \Omega\to \mathbb R^3$, until $\Omega$ is only a point, so to say, then we can approximate the above quantity by the $2$-RDM (care for the normalization, though)

Although e.g. Stefanucci and Leuween give in their book (appendix B) give the probability with the $2$-RDM without the $1/2$ as far as I can see...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they give $p(x,y)$ and not something integrated over a region or so, but idk right now

Allie

07:48

Huh, why would you find the probability of finding 2 electrons at the same point?

I really need to go to bed i probablt misunderstood LOL

Tobias Fünke

@Allie ? I never said so

Allie

Well you said the formula was for finding 2 particles in a region omega

Tobias Fünke

But in any case, I think Sperber's equation is correct (if I did not introduce any mistake in typing). I also saw other references giving this equation. And since you are a chemist: People work with "maximal probability domains", if you search for it, you'll find some sources I guess

@Allie yes

Allie

If you shrink that region to a point, dont both those particles have to be that exact pointt?

Tobias Fünke

ah yes, probably what I said made no sense in this form. You are right

I just thought about how one could recover the expression for the 2-RDM... but yes, you are right, it was silly I suppose

Allie

07:52

Ok good night bestie

Tobias Fünke

In any case, what I wanted to point out is that working with the 2-RDM from the beginning (only in this context, regarding probabilities) seems not so plausible to me. Because the physically relevant quantity, at least for my naive soul, is the one by Sperber, which you don't get by integrating the 2-RDM, as far as I can see

good night

maybe one could say that starting from the 2-RDM (with the N-1 normalization), and integrating over a (very) small region $\Omega$, and dividing by $1/2$ (or in general $1/n!$?) due to the symmetry of the distribution function, one resembles the equation by Sperber, approximately (since the RDMs integrate over the whole space)

$N-2$ normalization ofc*

Ryder Rude

08:07

hi

Tobias Fünke

morning

Ryder Rude

do you think of the universe as a platonic mathematical object like a manifold

Tobias Fünke

08:27

ah yeah, indeed. and then if we not integrate over the same, but over disjoint regions for the 2 particles (and thus not taking the 1/2 factor), we should also resemble the corresponding formula Sperber gives, again approximatively since we integrate in the 2-RDM over the whole space

Herr Feinmann

Zustandsdichte

Tobias Fünke

08:53

Bremsstrahlung

Salve, Ragazzo!

yes I learned a new Italian word. Ragazzi, Ragazzo Ragazza

also Fratello

Herr Feinmann

@TobiasFünke aahahahahah this one killed me

It means "brother", but you can use it as "brother" in the "bro" sense

Tobias Fünke

yes Ik :p

Herr Feinmann

@TobiasFünke This makes you sound 60yo though D:

Tobias Fünke

hahah

I heard "fratello" and was like "ah, makes sense. Just like in french with the ending changed to ello"

(pls don't hate me)

Herr Feinmann

I mean, that's true. Same etymology

Tobias Fünke

09:03

(I mean as in" fraternité")

Herr Feinmann

Frater in latin

Tobias Fünke

yes

okay, I g2g now. Have a nice day, see you later

Herr Feinmann

Have a nice day, bye

Ryder Rude

12:39

do you think theistic (like Spinoza's) ideas have any explanatory power for explaining our observations?

Slereah

12:53

I haven't observed God sonfar

Ryder Rude

@Slereah i am thinking that, in the atheist materialistic universe, things like the existence of humans is pure accident. while in ideas where nature is attributed a purpose (like Spinoza's or Schelling's philosophy), the existence of humans is the intention of the universe

Herr Feinmann

@Slereah I thought you loved drugs

Slereah

I can't observe accidence v. purposefulness

@HerrFeinmann spinoza was abstract deistic god

It's no drug-induced spirit visions

Ryder Rude

@Slereah i mean that the atheistic universe has no explanation for the state of the universe. it can't be explained in terms of a simple set of premises

e.g. it is consistent with the atheist universe to have a state where no complexity exists and time evolution is trivial

the atheist universe explains time evolution using simple premises (which are the equations of physics), but it doesn't explain the state of the universe in terms of simple premises @Slereah

Slereah

What is an "explanation"

Ryder Rude

13:02

an explanation for something is a set of premises from which that thing follows. a "good" explanation is when the premises satisfy parsimony

sorry. i think I should say "small set of premises" instead of parsimony

Slereah

Would God be a smaller set of premises for that

Ryder Rude

when the premises are small and compactly describable, i say the explanation is good

@Slereah suppose the universe intends for things like conscious beings to exist. then it serves as some explanation for why the state of the universe is the way it is

Slereah

I don't think you can derive the initial conditions of the universe from "God exists"

Ryder Rude

so by assuming "intention" ,we gain some explanatory power

Slereah

u have medieval peasant brain

@RyderRude why do you have this specific scope

Ryder Rude

13:06

@Slereah yes, i recognise that. The God idea is too vague to derive the exact initial conditions. but still, it helps rule out some forms of materialistic universes where nothing interesting happens

Slereah

This doesn't "explain" the distribution of hydrogen in the universe

Maybe the explanation should be a Desire for Specific Hydrogen Distribution

The greatest good of all

Ryder Rude

Lol

Slereah

All this does is just recast some set of initial conditions as preferred in some human-specific terms

Ryder Rude

@Slereah the way i arrived at this argument was by considering the current understanding of the universe. Zthe current understanding says the universe is explainable from he premises : "initial conditions + diff eqns" (contd...)

Slereah

It has zero explanatory power

Ryder Rude

13:09

(cond...) now the diff eqns can be written on a t shirt ,but the initial conditions are too arbitrary. so the current understanding of the universe doesn't satisfy the criterion for an explanation being "good"

so i thought, can we do better than this? it is possible that in the future, we discover some laws which constrain the initial conditions as well. That would be an improvement

Slereah

The differential equations are just as arbitrary

You suffer from the typical brain worm of imagining that the universe has to be "likely" on some uniform distribution of physical laws

This is insanity

Ryder Rude

sorry. what I mean is that the diff eqns can be written on a t shirt. while the initial conditions are too much non condensable information

Slereah

You cannot apply probabilities like that

Why should brevity to be written [a notion that is entirely system dependent] be important

That is a fake rule

Ryder Rude

this rule is pretty much something I take as a given...

the smaller the premises, the better

Slereah

Yes, see my mention of medieval peasant brain

I don't even require the universe to be intelligible at all

Ryder Rude

13:13

do you not agree that, if in the future, we found a deeper theory which equations put a huge constraint on the initial conditions, if would be an improvement over the current understanding of the universe?

if u agree that this would be an improvement, then you agree with my rule?

Slereah

It would be nice, but I don't think it is necessary

The universe would be nicer for physics if it was one dimensional

But I don't think it is

Ryder Rude

i too don't think it is necessary, yes

but since we recognise that it would be an improvement if it were true, then are we not justified in looking for such explanations of the universe?

Slereah

That way crankery lies

you should avoid trying to tell the universe what to be

Ryder Rude

i think Schelling has also expressed these ideas... it is not necessarily crankery

Slereah

Plenty of people have expressed similar ideas

Ryder Rude

13:17

Schelling identifies the universe with God's body and attributes a purpose or intention to the universe

Slereah

Doesn't make it any less cranky

Ryder Rude

maybe..

anyway, thanks for discussing

Slereah

I personally think the universe would be better if classical physics was true, but believing it to be true just for that would make me a crank

Tobias Fünke

13:32

@Allie oh, re-reading my comments above, you must replace $N-2$ with $N(N-1)$--I don't know what my brain did there lol

Tobias Fünke

13:42

@Relativisticcucumber oO whut

Slereah

@TobiasFünke America is an insane land of madness

Tobias Fünke

:d

Herr Feinmann

14:34

Quantum technologies are 😭

naturallyInconsistent

14:44

meowth

Tobias Fünke

nvm

ACuriousMind

already on it :P

Tobias Fünke

hehe yeah, thanks ACM

ACuriousMind

Please just go to a philosophy chat room if you want to keep bringing up philosophy out of nowhere.

@HerrFeinmann hmmm?

bolbteppa

15:06

eigenbrane

Noun: eigenbrane (plural eigenbranes)

An operator that, when applied to the boundary of a brane, produces that same brane tensored with a fixed vector space.

ZeroTheHero

interesting podcast on academic fraud.

bolbteppa

nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00716-2

Is that part of the story

Herr Feinmann

@ACuriousMind I finished the theoretical part, now I should learn about quantum technologies using superconductors

I couldn't care less :P

ACuriousMind

I...don't really know what "quantum technologies" means

do you just mean practical uses of superconductors?

Herr Feinmann

Oh yeah, some CM people call practical use of CM "quantum technologies"

At least the ones in my uni

ACuriousMind

15:16

people love "quantum X" buzzwords, I guess :P

Herr Feinmann

Quantum coherence is the worst

Because I don't have an idea of what is exactly means!

They use it to mean that there are observable quantum macroscopic phenomena

It's definitely the opposire of decoherence

Ryder Rude

Mindscape 241 | Tim Maudlin on Locality, Hidden Variables, and Quantum Foundations

►

Tim and Sean are discussing the origin the of "shut up and calculate". They say Bohr's original idea was "say some incomprehensible stuff and calculate", but when the idea arrived in America, it became "shut up and calculate"

bolbteppa

There is apparently so much fraud that the above example was not even mentioned :p

Ryder Rude

as in, Bohr did try to give answers to the questions. but when the idea arrived in America, it transitioned to "don't ask those questions" :P

Silly Goose

@bolbteppa close to home for me :-)

bolbteppa

15:30

Be careful :p

Silly Goose

@HerrFeinmann decoherence has itself become an immensely loaded term

Bml

Hi everyone. In this answer, how did the answerer obtain $T_i + \frac{T_f-T_i}{N}$? Can anyone help me out?

Herr Feinmann

16:02

@SillyGoose loaded and loathed :P

Silly Goose

@JohnRennie I recently purchased a $180 book, but to be fair it is longer than the bible :-)

Relativisticcucumber

16:19

wait @TobiasFünke and @ACuriousMind does ur response to my patriotic song message mean that there is no analog where u guys have lived?

i thought a lot of countries had something like this

that would make it even more weird

Loong

@Relativisticcucumber presumably North Korea

Relativisticcucumber

@SillyGoose im seeing a pattern w u

first north korea then the US

ACuriousMind

16:46

@Relativisticcucumber The only "patriotic" song I was ever taught to sing was the national anthem, and we would not randomly just sing it. You might wager a guess why Germany in general is not big on symbolic expressions of patriotism :P

Herr Feinmann

Then there was this Prof of mine who once yelled at us because somebody's parent accused her of being a communist

bolbteppa

GPT completely and utterly fails massively when you bring it near the topic of Dykin!

I can't believe the gibberish this thing spits out

Herr Feinmann

Some lectures later she was singing a communist song with her hand on her chest

bolbteppa

Just ask it to draw say E6!

Herr Feinmann

Bolbteppa, have you seen my Latex Landau? :P

bolbteppa

16:49

No!

It drew G2 as A2 for me :\

@HerrFeinmann I seen it, I definitely prefer the old style whatever style it is!

Herr Feinmann

I understand, it has that old school aura

bolbteppa

If there was a latex package that wrote things that way, it's all I'd use :p

Allie

Hi

Herr Feinmann

You have been given the great duty of creation, bolbteppa

I think there is a bug in the mobile version. I thought I was confused but it turns out that @Allie has two profile pictures

I can see both the black and the golden one

mister nobody

do you guys mostly think climate change is a hoax like one hears in the media recently?

Allie

16:57

I just have 2 accounts

@misternobody 🤦‍♀️

mister nobody

which studies are most thorough in your opinion?

Allie

Im inclined to believe the overwhelming body of scientists who say its real as opposed to… the news…

mister nobody

@Allie can you either give substantive response or save you some typing

Allie

Ridiculous

ACuriousMind

@misternobody You can take your climate change denialism elsewhere.

Allie

17:00

Cannot believe people really think that

Silly Goose

well to be fair it is also ridiculous to appeal to authority when someone might be asking a scientific question. it should be very easy to find (on the part of mister) or to give (on the part of interlocutors) sources that provide empirical evidence for climate change

@Allie scientists can certainly be absolutely wrong about topics they are not experts in

Allie

Yeah he can do that on his own if he wants. It’s out there

@SillyGoose yeah, Im talking about climate scientists… 🙄

ACuriousMind

@SillyGoose It's another case where bad faith actors have poisoned the well thoroughly - every time I've engaged someone who was "just asking questions" about climate change they were just attempting to push their denialism. Might there be people who ask these questions in a random internet chat earnestly? Yes, but the probability is vanishingly small.

Allie

Exactly

Silly Goose

@Allie but an appeal to authority (which is what you did) is the same level of wrong as blindly believing the news

4

(in my opinion)

Herr Feinmann

17:04

@Allie Ah, the funny thing is that it makes me ping you both at the same time

Silly Goose

well yes it is a different case if they actually were not planning to engage in a discussion and just wanted to attempt to convince others about a belief that they hold in the face of empirical evidence that says otherwise

Allie

@SillyGoose yeah no

Herr Feinmann

Allie

@HerrFeinmann :3

Silly Goose

@Allie "yeah no" is also not a response that says anything :P

but it seems you do not care about this point so i will disengage as well

Herr Feinmann

17:06

Is denialism pseudoscience? :P

Allie

You cant just debate and logic your way out of these things, it never works. Not with a person who won’t do the work to look through the evidence themselves.

Listen to innuendo studios videos

I love catss

Relativisticcucumber

@ACuriousMind ok to be fair i am not sure i'd call it random. it was like part of the classroom routine. ironically i dont think ive ever sang the american national anthem in my life. i feel like thats reserved for people who can actually sing xD

mister nobody

thanks for adding me back after being unfairly kicked out

i still think @ACuriousMind should apologise

Ryder Rude

nvm

mister nobody

yes, and insulted me

Allie

17:14

Lol

Ryder Rude

@misternobody oh

Allie

Im hungry

Ryder Rude

@misternobody did you get kicked for a few minutes

mister nobody

here is the evidence: physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/14870/…

Allie

I’m gonna read about DFT today

mister nobody

17:15

it does not matter, i am not a climate denialist, and that was completely rude

Allie

LMAO

Relativisticcucumber

@ACuriousMind acm, can i ask why you jump on this message in this way? im not advocating that climate change is false, but i dont find the question posed unreasonable so im curious.

ACuriousMind

I kicked them for a minute. Since there is already a meta post I ask everyone to keep the discussion there, and not here.

mister nobody

lol, im fighting against them, but im not so narrow minded

Relativisticcucumber

not trying to doubt your authority just wondering

naturallyInconsistent

17:15

@SillyGoose You should have checked that the very definition of the appeal to authority fallacy is in that the authority is false. Appealing to a true authority is NOT a fallacy.

Allie

Hi nI!!!

mister nobody

@Relativisticcucumber thanks. neither i was

Allie

Meow meow

mister nobody

i've read the list of changes of my country until 2030 and gave them feedback

and that includes more strict measures, not less

Herr Feinmann

Zero is not gauge invariant

mister nobody

17:17

but i understand the moderator is not going to apologise

Relativisticcucumber

i feel like the atmosphere in this chatroom lately makes me afraid to have discussions tbh.

Silly Goose

@naturallyInconsistent can you cite a source that says this

Allie

Meow

Silly Goose

wikipedia disagrees with you

mister nobody

i've just raised a question about the doomsday clock yesterday, i doubt to be a climate denialist lol

in fact, 2025 includes climate threats in the clock

naturallyInconsistent

17:18

@SillyGoose yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Silly Goose

also i stated explicitly in my opinion it is a weak argument to appeal to authority (in the sense described in wikipedia)

Ryder Rude

i think the accusations of climate change denialism were too quick

Allie

Maybe so, but look at how the question was phrased

Maybe it was a language barrier thing though

Ryder Rude

yes. i think so

mister nobody

it was asked in purpose that way, so that anyone believing so would feel fine saying what they think

Herr Feinmann

17:20

@Relativisticcucumber because usually there is no way to argue with denialism, I'm pretty sure that was ACM's point

mister nobody

sorry, but he was and still is wrong

naturallyInconsistent

that particular phrasing deserved to be attacked rabidly as climate denialism. If you had a legitimate thing to discuss, it is up to you to phrase your discussion in a term that does not trip one of the most reliable indicators of climate denialism

ACuriousMind

Again, he made a meta post and I have answered it, please discuss it there and not here.

Relativisticcucumber

my issue is why do people like RR get to do what they do but users that seemingly do nothing wrong get attacked. and if someone questions any mainstream idea in an intellectual way they are also attacked. if we have the mentality "hbar isnt the place for this", that should apply equally to everyone

Silly Goose

@naturallyInconsistent so what is your response to the wikipedia's definition (which is what I use) and also to the fact that I even qualified my statement with in my opinion

Herr Feinmann

17:22

Yes, so I read ACM's action right

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose the wiki page also includes the part I said. I am specifically highlighting that part out.

Relativisticcucumber

i mean the main rule of hbar is that anything can be talked about, no? so saying "take your climate change denialism elsewhere" seems to be deciding that this is a topic that cannot be discussed here, and im asking what the basis for that is

why do i have to discuss this on meta and not here? is that also an arbitrary rule?

Allie

I dont think anything should be able to be talked about

mister nobody

@naturallyInconsistent i disagree, but i wont waste my time, sorry.

Allie

I dont want people debating whether homosexuality is a choice here

Silly Goose

17:23

@naturallyInconsistent can you point me to where on the wikipedia page

Herr Feinmann

Remember: this is never about people, it's about what they say

naturallyInconsistent

@Relativisticcucumber RR is routinely short-banned. Of course, I'd push for stronger penalties, as I have always done

Herr Feinmann

It's not a personal attack

@Relativisticcucumber I mean, at this point ACM warns RR daily and kicks him out weekly :P

mister nobody

it is a wrong action dude, that's the point, and it's rather simple.

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose the very 3rd and 4th paragraphs, hello

Allie

17:25

If someone said “
do you guys mostly think gender transition is irreversibly destroying childrens bodies like one hears in the media recently?”

mister nobody

people look a bit like climate denialists about being honest.

Silly Goose

"While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible, there is disagreement on the general extent to which it is fallible - historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.[3][4]

Some consider it a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge that is generally likely to be correct when the authority is real, pertinent, and universally accepted [1][5][6][7][8][9][10] and others and others consider to be …

Allie

i would never come back if that was tolerated

naturallyInconsistent

@misternobody no, you are wrong, and this is warranted.

mister nobody

lol

Silly Goose

17:25

i have no idea how these two paragraphs make your point?

mister nobody

I agree, lord.

Silly Goose

you were making an absolute claim about the meaning of "appeal to authority"

at the least these two paragraphs, which you are citing, actually contradict that with its qualifying statements "Some..."

naturallyInconsistent

@Relativisticcucumber who said that hbar is where "anything can be talked about"? I've never had that impression.

Silly Goose

let me remind you of verbatim what you said "You should have checked that the very definition of the appeal to authority fallacy is in that the authority is false. Appealing to a true authority is NOT a fallacy."

Relativisticcucumber

@misternobody i think you are in the right but i dont think the way you are proceeding is the most productive way to go about it

mister nobody

17:27

that i accept, i just got sad and angry

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose and im literally forcing you to realise that there is another stance on it that you hadnt considered in your opinion

Relativisticcucumber

im quoting the meta post rules: "Yikes, that's a lot! What can I talk about then???
Anything! As I mentioned earlier, conversations are not restricted to physics, though we do like to move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere. Don't ask about asking, just ask! Really, The h Bar is full of people who're interested in all sorts of things."

Herr Feinmann

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here: ACM did not attack mister nobody on a personal level, nor were his motivations personal

naturallyInconsistent

@Relativisticcucumber The part about "move the homework and meta-physics SE-discussions elsewhere" is very much a restriction from literally anything.

Silly Goose

@naturallyInconsistent you made a claim about the genuine definition of a fallacy. i made no such claim. you are literally wrong based off of something you cited to me. i am not sure what is unclear about the situation. you are now in this message making a distinct claim about the fact that there exist multiple considerations of whether appeal to authority is fallacy or not, which is fine. but that is completely different from your original claim.

Relativisticcucumber

17:29

i just dont think the events that ensued were appropriate or in accordance with the established rules of the chat. i believe that, as a frequent user, i should be allowed to question this type of thing when i see it.

ACuriousMind

@Relativisticcucumber It's me saying that certain ways of discussing a topic are not welcome here - not necessarily the topic itself. In this case I specifically wanted to prevent a specific unproductive pattern of discussion about climate change that I've seen play out (here and in other contexts) before.

Allie

Oh geez

Relativisticcucumber

@ACuriousMind i think that's reasonable but i dont believe your actions were the best way to achieve that goal

mister nobody

i said "which studies are most thorough in your opinion?" and still hold that

ACuriousMind

And yes, everyone is allowed to question this, but I would also ask everyone to consider whether jumping in on this cluttered discussion right now is productive

mister nobody

17:30

if there is any study that disagrees with climate change, I want to know it, not ignore it

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose your very assertion that Allie made a fallacious argument is the very reason why we had this conversation at all.

Herr Feinmann

@naturallyInconsistent meta physics discussions 🤔

Silly Goose

@naturallyInconsistent and you have ignored now for perhaps the 3rd time that i explicitly said in my opinion

Allie

Meow

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose and so im pushing back against your opinion. What's the relevance of it being your opinion?

Silly Goose

17:31

if you are not willing to actually follow an argument through and you want to keep jumping around and changing what claim you want to make or attack then i will also disengage with this discussion.

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose I have not been jumping around and changing what claims I'm making or attacking. What part of an argument are you claiming that I'm not following?

mister nobody

I just want to know if @ACuriousMind can simply say: I did a mistake, I'm sorry.

I don't need money

Ryder Rude

@SillyGoose i complete agree with this. Things like appeal to authority are a necessity. it is not infallible, but nothing is either. one can attack the specifics of the situation instead of attacking an appeal to authority as a general rule

naturallyInconsistent

@misternobody He had done that multiple times. This is not one of the situations he should be apologising for

mister nobody

Not a question to you, let him reply please.

If he doesn't want to, sure, I will know it from his words.

naturallyInconsistent

17:35

@misternobody He had. On the meta post you made. You will not likely get another reply from him on this topic, especially in hbar. It is extremely clear cut. If you want to have a productive conversation about your climate issue here in hbar, you can start it. But you will not likely get the apology that you do not deserve.

Relativisticcucumber

but that meta post makes the comment mister made seem unfair

Silly Goose

@naturallyInconsistent your first claim was that (1) appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. this is actually just wrong if you use the wikipedia's description, which is what you used as a citation. in particular, the wikipedia says to some it is not considered a logical fallacy. secondarily, it does not matter if it is a logical fallacy or not. my claim was that Allie was being a hypocrite, which is reflective of Sir Cumferences behavior recently as well.

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose I cited another source.

Silly Goose

it is annoying that all these people who claim to be champions of science are doing exactly what they are oh so upset about others doing

it is reflective of people in general who mask their real beliefs behind more just causes so that they seem better than they really are

@naturallyInconsistent you cited the two paragraphs to me later as supporting evidence. you are once again jumping to a completely separate point.

ACuriousMind

@misternobody No, as of now I do not believe I made a mistake. I'm sorry if you feel hurt but I don't consider a one-minute kick from a chat room a grave insult. I have nothing against you personally - I don't even know you.

Silly Goose

17:38

when you are in jeopardy of being incorrect, you jump to another statement or claim.

that is why i will disengage with this conversation now.

naturallyInconsistent

@SillyGoose I have not jumped. You said that I cited Wiki. I only cited wiki after you totally did not engage from the source I cited.

ACuriousMind

@SillyGoose dial it back on the personal attacks please.

Relativisticcucumber

i am writing a meta response that i believe reflects what actually happened @misternobody

Silly Goose

apparently mister nobody was just the archduke :P

Ryder Rude

ACuriousMind acted on a balance on probabilities. it was a 1 minute kick. i would've protested it if it was a suspension. but I'm not sure about the current situation

i think ACuriousMind is slightly in the wrong though

because the accusation was too quick

naturallyInconsistent

17:43

@HerrFeinmann jumping off from the heated argument we are currently having, if you ever see someone use that irl, remind them that they sound exactly like cold fusion advocates.

Ryder Rude

and the accusation was false too

so that alone should warrant an apology

because the accusation is false. but the reason u made that accusation at the moment might have been rational

Bml

Can anyone help me on my question?

Ryder Rude

but the accusation was false in the end, as @misternobody is not a climate change denialist

mister nobody

@Relativisticcucumber thank you

Silly Goose

@misternobody for what it is worth i myself did not have the impression that you were doing anything other than genuinely asking for evidence for a claim.

naturallyInconsistent

17:45

@Bml what answer are you even hoping for?

mister nobody

@ACuriousMind that's fine, i've requested the deletion and wish you the best moderating onwards

@SillyGoose thank you, i do personally suffer when people are unfair and unjust, and it does help.

Relativisticcucumber

@misternobody i have posted it

mister nobody

doesn't surprise me that you have -1 already from the bots

Bml

@naturallyInconsistent I asked: in this answer, how did the answerer obtain $T_i + \frac{T_f-T_i}{N}$? Can anyone help me out?

Herr Feinmann

@naturallyInconsistent I have an entire department doing that buddy

@ACuriousMind indeed

naturallyInconsistent

17:48

@Bml I already saw that. I'm asking you what do you think an answer that will satisfy you, would have to have.

Relativisticcucumber

tbh i think allie should have been the one kicked. we already know that user is a bully. the moderation is backwards here.

Bml

@naturallyInconsistent I would like to understand where that result came from. It is not intuitive...

naturallyInconsistent

@Bml What do you even mean by "not intuitive"? or "where that result came from"? It is the most obvious first choice to try of an attempt to have continuous change from one temperature to another.

Bml

@naturallyInconsistent "It is the most obvious first choice to try of an attempt to have continuous change from one temperature to another." Why? Could you expand on this?

naturallyInconsistent

@Bml I definitely can; but we need to know what you would accept. How good your maths / physics is, etc.

mister nobody

17:53

@Relativisticcucumber yeah, i agree, not to add that Allie was basically insulting me days ago (actually, on about all our interactions.), and had its comments removed

naturallyInconsistent

@HerrFeinmann why are you in a place that even has that? How fast can you run from there?

Relativisticcucumber

@misternobody i have blocked said user from the first convo i had w them. i suggest u do the same.

mister nobody

but then in find him/her reading the extended threads from my questions, interestingly. maybe it is a social study.

Relativisticcucumber

time for me to get to work. sorry this situation happened.

3

Herr Feinmann

@naturallyInconsistent quantum coherence, not cold fusion

mister nobody

17:54

@Relativisticcucumber have a good day, and thanks for caring.

Bml

@naturallyInconsistent Undergraduate level. However, if I don't understand something I'll tell you, no problem.

naturallyInconsistent

@HerrFeinmann remind everybody in the building that quantum coherence is one of those buzzwords that cold fusion advocates love to throw around. Hopefully they'll get annoyed enough to find a different name for the department instead.

@Bml Then, shouldn't you see that it is the linear interpolation between the two temperatures? Isn't a linear transition function the most obvious first choice to try?

Herr Feinmann

@naturallyInconsistent I will, after making sure I don't have them in my graduation committee ahahhaha

naturallyInconsistent

@Relativisticcucumber If you had blocked, you would have not been able to take the screenshot you took. Also, I'd totally agree with you that the room is insufficiently moderated; but I'd argue for more suspensions to remove the double-standard, rather than less.

@HerrFeinmann yes, that's important.

Transcript for