Tony Vladusich

I'm a computational neuroscientist & software engineer. Colors, photos, brains, nature, science, software & chess, preferably all at the same time!

Publications: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=IrVz6ewAAAAJ&hl=en
My Book: The Appearance of Things: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0HCVLM6T9

Public Key

npub18zuk6xjrxkqls45rrvm8mzezvcx6tacsqq0664v6569dg409m2rsvrxdht

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsr3wtdrfpntq0c26p3kdna3v3xvrd97ugqq8ad2kd2dzk52hja4pcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmnt24szwu

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Author Public Key

npub18zuk6xjrxkqls45rrvm8mzezvcx6tacsqq0664v6569dg409m2rsvrxdht

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-06 09:51:26 UTC

- reply

That is a very apt metaphor!

2026-07-04 11:16:18 UTC

- reply

Yeah, it's hard to be critical when there was literally no conception of science back then. Alhazen was an interesting figure who preceded Bacon by a couple of centuries. I love that Bacon was "regarded as a wizard". Now, that's one fucking cool dude! 🤣
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham

2026-07-04 04:48:52 UTC

- reply

Nice, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of him before!

2026-07-03 01:20:38 UTC

- reply

Glad you find it interesting.
I find the practice of defining a theorem prior to a definition somewhat distasteful! 🙂

2026-06-11 22:44:26 UTC

- reply

Probably up your alley?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0609447

2026-06-11 21:36:50 UTC

- reply

This is somewhat mind-boggling! Very nice.

2026-04-18 00:43:01 UTC

- reply

I fully agree!

2026-04-18 00:28:53 UTC

- reply

"I've never done anything like that before."
Well, that's a first, I actually caused somebody to use an LLM! 🤣
"I think he's using this term "thought" as a quick shorthand for the text generated"
I suspect you are correct. But it is nonetheless sloppy to speak this way, especially for somebody who is extremely expert in speaking in precise language.

2026-04-17 23:58:05 UTC

- reply

Of course there is nothing "magic" happening! (What would that even mean?)
The question is not whether they exhibit "strategic thought" or "agency" because nobody has a definition of that, so it's a pointless discussion.
The issue is that humans perceive such things in the outputs of these machines.
I think we should all be concerned about that sort of issue.
The perception of agency in machines misleads many people into believing the outputs are "true" or "correct".
Take, for example, this quote from Tao in the link you provided:
"Oddly, at no point in the published chain of thought does the von Mangoldt function make an appearance, so it sheds no light on how the LLM landed on that particular process. All in all, it's quite a chaotic internal thought process, with many dead ends, though to be fair many human mathematicians's thought processes during the initial stages of problem solving would likely also be similarly chaotic."
The use of words like "thought" here is extremely misleading and reflects his confusion about what is actually going on. The LLM "confabulates" (another dangerous anthropomorphism) a story about how it got to its output. There is no "chain of thought" happening there.
I do not think I am "blind ... to what this technology can do".
Quite to the contrary, I am quite aware.
I understand that you are really only interested in doing math there, as likely so too is Terry.
Yet I think we should all be concerned about the path humanity is taking here.
The argument that the machine can do something "much faster than I could" seems to be the main one used by grifters to undermine the rightful employment of human labour.

2026-04-17 22:52:33 UTC

- reply

Ok great, I've got a bridge to sell you too, pictured below.
I mean are you seriously arguing that these things are capable of strategic thought?
There no magic here. As I explained, it's a combination of training data, prompt data, context data, and skills data., all ultimately provided by humans.
The machine extrudes textual output that may or may not make sense to you.
Whether it makes sense to you or not is entirely coincidental to "reality".
Nothing more, nothing less.
Humans are programmed by evolution to see agency in things.
You, like so many others, are being seduced by your evolution.
Folks once saw agency in the Mechanical Turk.
You and Terry and others are all very smart people, far smarter than me, yet I cannot just watch on silently as you become soporifically seduced.
You may argue that these agents are just tools.
But you yourselves are now being used as tools.
In a war.
That war is being waged between the ultra rich, the tech bro grifters of the world, and everyone else.
And at huge cost to the intellectual property of humanity, the environment, and the socio--politico-economic systems of the world.
"Agentic" tools are being promoted as a magical panacea in just about every "problem space".
They are used in software engineering, just as in mathematics, so I am fully aware of their "power".
Yet where you see "originality" and "intelligence" I see the loss of human agency, opportunity, craft and, ultimately, peoples' livelihoods.
There will be a day in the near future when university administrators will "employ" agentic software to teach mathematics in classes, just because it is economically more viable than human labour.
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/116/422/418/858/991/414/original/d7ae59e4612eaa99.jpg

2026-04-17 21:13:02 UTC

- reply

"My tentative theory is that these models are still quite weak at developing strategy and constructing novel coherent narratives (as opposed to explaining existing, human-generated, narratives, for which they are now rather good at)"
"the proofs was (sic) already in the training data"
"The people who spend their serious time using large language models to solve math problems know this is not true."
Where did the proofs come from, other than the training data?
These are not thinking machines. They do are never going to be capable of "developing strategy". They are statistical textual extrusion machines who state can be biased by additional prompt data, "context" and "skills" data.
What else can possibly be happening here? There's no magic spark of intelligence that's going to spontaneously emerge.
It is complete and utter nonsense coupled with pure wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

2026-04-10 07:45:09 UTC

- reply

This is very interesting from a perceptual perspective.

2026-04-08 05:39:21 UTC

- reply

I’ve been reading Gravitation by MTW. They seemed very unimpressed with Minkowski’s ict formulation. They even devote a small section to its “banishment”. 🤣

2026-04-08 05:14:02 UTC

- reply

These “people” are the sacks of shit standing between humanity and the unthinkable. Will they act like human beings? Being sacks of shit, it’s not likely!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/

2026-03-06 23:16:00 UTC

- reply

"We had thought we'd found them all."
How would we ever know this?

2026-03-03 22:21:25 UTC

- reply

So he got within a factor of 2 just through dimensional analysis?

2026-03-01 21:00:47 UTC

- reply

This is literally the plot of Wag The Dog.

2026-02-28 23:08:51 UTC

- reply

😒

2026-02-25 05:11:04 UTC

- reply

“counter-revolutionaries”
🤣👏

2026-02-23 23:16:34 UTC

- reply

Or do as politicians do: Now, the real question is ….
And proceed to answer THAT question!

2026-02-23 22:15:55 UTC

- reply

🤣

2026-02-23 08:15:58 UTC

- reply

🤣 Nice metaphor. And totally fair enough! This sort of "blobby" discussion is my jam. I enjoy trying to find the form of the blobs. It's not for everybody and it's bloody hard work (sometimes you never see the punches coming!).

2026-02-23 07:40:02 UTC

- reply

If you want to see a real shit show, Google “nature versus nurture”. This argument has been going for over a century without resolution. It’s largely a poorly defined set of constructs. So nobody can ever agree because nobody ever understands what the fuck either side is saying. It’s such a common pattern in soft sciences. It’s a chicken and egg problem every time (not pardoning the pun).

2026-02-23 07:27:12 UTC

- reply

Lol. Well I’m glad something I’m saying does!!! 🤣

2026-02-23 07:26:17 UTC

- reply

I think you understand it perfectly well. Our models of the world are cognitive constructs, no more, no less.
I’m sorry if you don’t enjoy such conversations. But they sit at the heart of the endeavour we call science, whether you like it or not.

2026-02-23 05:00:38 UTC

- reply

These are reborn chicks. They know nothing. And the idea that they are born innately able to associate specific sounds to specific shapes is quite frankly laughable. See, for example, the entire history of animal behavioural studies.

2026-02-23 01:18:13 UTC

- reply

Riiigghhht. But you see my point, yeah?

2026-02-23 00:45:48 UTC

- reply

Can we make this mapping "concrete"? I say we fundamentally cannot and that any "resemblance" between cognitive and physical constructs is, in a fundamental and well-defined way, a "fiction of coincidentals".
When a magician saws a person in half, for example, we are perceptually convinced of the veracity of the act, although no such physical operation actually occurred (hopefully).
The cognitive and physical have thus become fundamentally dissociated by the visual performance of the magician.

2026-02-23 00:41:28 UTC

- reply

Of course, everything has a physical basis.
But to say one thing "cuts" another thing is a cognitive construct that bears some vague and unspecified relationship to the physical act of "cutting".

2026-02-23 00:39:26 UTC

- reply

My point is that sounds and shapes are cognitive constructs. Whether a chicken brain has evolved to create such constructs and associate them is the question at hand.
I say it's unlikely for the reasons given, and probably for many other reasons (you've pointed out one with the difference between the human mouth and chicken beak).
The problem is that we are taking as given the very constructs that require explanation. This is why psychology has been such an utter failure as a field; namely, the failure to clear delineate the physical from the perceptual and to identify the mapping form one to another (hint: there is none in the sense of a mathematical homomorphism).
This is the problem I tackle in my book, btw.

2026-02-23 00:22:10 UTC

- reply

Sure but language "requires" cognition and perception.
Constructs like hard and sharp are cognitive, not physical.

2026-02-22 23:51:24 UTC

- reply

How is that not linguistic? Sounds and shapes are cognitive constructs not physical ones!

2026-02-22 22:53:21 UTC

- reply

I’m calling BS on this one, even without reading the paper.
If you want to know why, search Google for Clever Hans.
I spent my PhD years studying honeybee behaviour. Animal experiments are very often biased by the human experimenter in unconscious ways.
It just seems too far fetched for me: A linguistic effect manifest in baby chicks? I doubt it.
Having said all that, I should read the paper and try to pinpoint specific weaknesses. But I’m busy and lazy.

2026-02-04 22:56:41 UTC

- reply

What do you think they are getting out of the relationship in return?

2026-02-03 23:21:38 UTC

- reply

Is Google paying you?

2026-01-15 05:15:38 UTC

- reply

To be fair, the headline does say "a" universe, not "our" universe! 🤣
Woit took a stronger view than you in his latest blog post ("just more string theory hype"), as I'm sure you know.

2026-01-15 01:14:32 UTC

- reply

But they seem so proud of themselves!
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/115/896/462/022/319/565/original/f31e02eeaa90ebb3.png

2026-01-13 20:50:09 UTC

- reply

Nicely spruiked!

2026-01-11 23:56:44 UTC

- reply

By “law of continuity” I am guessing Clifford meant a “continuity equation”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_equation

2026-01-10 02:29:20 UTC

- reply

I'm reading this version/translation:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

2026-01-10 01:51:41 UTC

- reply

BTW: I started rereading "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" the other day. Section 3 is the key part, but it's actually pretty hard to follow his reasoning, I find. He introduces a bunch of new coordinate systems that are hard to keep track of without any diagrams. It's surprisingly opaque given how clear most of his writing usually comes across.

2026-01-10 01:47:39 UTC

- reply

Indeed. I myself have had to satisfy myself with the joy of discovery.
Hopefully my forthcoming book will help to settle the record straight, though!

2026-01-10 00:19:47 UTC

- reply

Poor Voight!
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/115/867/935/293/924/938/original/c1edc8d8e6cae24d.png

2026-01-07 20:41:41 UTC

- reply

I for one would be very interested in your findings!

2026-01-06 10:37:35 UTC

- reply

What?! My first degree was in biology and I did not know that! Wild indeed.

2026-01-05 22:53:05 UTC

- reply

That’s a pretty ballsy paper!

2025-12-31 12:07:48 UTC

- reply

Axiometisation of any scientific field is a noble goal, just incredibly difficult!

2025-12-31 04:28:10 UTC

- reply

It was a fun video. The part on Kakeya sets was particularly interesting.

2025-12-31 04:27:13 UTC

- reply

“Hilbert's sixth problem was a proposal to expand the axiomatic method outside the existing mathematical disciplines, to physics and beyond.”
And beyond! 🤣 Good luck

2025-12-26 01:33:45 UTC

- reply

Do you know about the tritone paradox?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone_paradox

2025-12-22 00:35:20 UTC

- reply

My understanding is that visitors to the US now are routinely required to log in to social media accounts for border officials to peruse their content. Should they find material to their distaste then folks can be detained or deported. I don’t know the extent to which this sort of authoritarian control is actually conducted in practice nor whether it applies to US citizens. But I do know people who have cultivated fake social media accounts to side step the problem.

2025-12-21 21:26:27 UTC

- reply

I hope you've cultivated your fake social media accounts!

2025-12-21 21:13:47 UTC

- reply

You thinking of this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristica_universalis

2025-12-16 19:56:33 UTC

- reply

it's a joke

2025-12-14 12:20:55 UTC

I discovered this effect while tinkering around: I perceive vertical lines between the black and white disks, but only in my peripheral vision.
Edit: Updated with a stronger version.
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/115/717/907/680/177/720/original/8eee36138210463d.png

2025-12-12 23:45:23 UTC

- reply

Whoa! I did not know about projective invariants. Even psychologist James Gibson never mentions them despite creating an entire theory of vision based on the concept of … projective invariants. Weird. But that’s psychology for you. Always missing the critical point (projective humour there).

2025-12-12 23:41:05 UTC

- reply

It took me a few attempts before I understood your text. The genius of the Riemann sphere is how it simplifies the description of points at infinity by compactifying them to a single point via stereographic projection!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere

2025-12-04 07:13:32 UTC

- reply

It’s so weird how Nordström’s theory was kinda sorta right but ultimately not. I mean it predicted that mercury precesses but it predicted the wrong direction and magnitude!
I guess it proves yet again that Einstein’s intuition wrt physics was preternaturally refined. It seems he became more captivated by mathematics later in life?

2025-12-03 11:33:05 UTC

- reply

I don’t ever recall hearing the word spruik spoken when I lived in the US either. I think it’s likely much more common in the UK and Australia though. So you now have a nifty new word to spruik in front of your new Scottish friends!

2025-12-03 11:26:59 UTC

- reply

“Newtonian gravity is inconsistent with special relativity”
Right, I was not considering the other aspects of our universe that demand explanation not provided by Newtonian mechanics. When those are factored in then there is of course no contest. Thanks for the link, I will check it out. I love delving into the history of physics!

2025-12-03 00:31:19 UTC

- reply

"General relativity gets you gravity as well, but the math is far more advanced"
It also sheds the need in Newtonian mechanics to invent fictional forces and it let's us assert that ANY given reference frame can be considered at rest with respect to any other frame, which is a big win too. So I'd argue it is more parsimonious in this respect. Whether the added mathematical complexity is enough to offset these added bonuses is an interesting question but my gut feeling is that it does.
BTW, John: I see that you've put up the 4th lecture in your series on the Standard Model on YouTube but I've not seen you spruik it here!

2025-12-02 04:35:39 UTC

- reply

You mean aside from the special/general principle of relativity?

2025-11-13 03:53:19 UTC

- reply

Maybe something of this flavour?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609002

2025-11-13 03:16:02 UTC

- reply

John, when talk about gauge theory here are you specifically referring to fixing the Lorenz gauge or something different?
You motivated the connection between EM and gauge theory in terms of QM, but is this necessary? Can the motivation for fixing the Lorenz gauge be approached entirely classically? The wikipedia article seems to imply as much but then it also briefly mentions QM without any context, so it leaves me confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_gauge_condition

2025-11-13 01:32:27 UTC

- reply

"live the rest of their life haunted by this vision"
so it's a case of "you only olo once", hence yooloo

2025-11-11 10:46:28 UTC

- reply

It’s not that I don’t understand the mechanics of special relativity. I think I do, at least. I’m more interested in the question of how physicists interpret the Lorentz transform as v approaches c since t’ and (say) x’ become singular.

2025-11-11 04:33:12 UTC

- reply

So what is the standard thinking about the meaning of the blow-up of the Lorentz transform as an inertial frame approaches the speed of light? It’s just a physical impossibility? If so, how do massless particles like photons figure in this picture? Or is special relativity only strictly applicable to massive particles?
Apologies if these are dumb questions. I mostly just have dumb ones so that’s what you get …

2025-11-11 00:00:37 UTC

- reply

Yeah, I don’t have any specific ideas to follow up this “great idea”! 🤣
It seems like it could be fun to think about though if somebody can come up with a concrete example.

2025-11-10 11:11:44 UTC

- reply

I can’t find much info about him. Wikipedia says he got rich from a patent yet I found a link to what must’ve been the early 20th century equivalent of a Go Fund Me campaign because of his pending eviction from the family home! 🤣
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.83.2160.499.c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Mach

2025-11-10 10:40:59 UTC

- reply

Ha, I just discovered that Ernst Mach’s son was partly responsible for a quantum interferometer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%E2%80%93Zehnder_interferometer

2025-11-10 10:05:46 UTC

- reply

It would’ve been fascinating if he’d accepted the tenets of quantum field theory. I can’t help feel that there’s some beautiful thought experiment involving moving clocks near light speed or some such and the double slit experiment that could’ve been illuminating? I guess if there were somebody would’ve discovered it by now?

2025-11-10 05:54:32 UTC

- reply

Interesting remark from the first Goenner paper:
"If there is an enigma left in the scientific part of Einstein’s life, then it occurs here, in the area of unified field theory. As judged from his ambitious goals and as seen from the aspect of lasting scientific value, not only did Einstein’s endeavours – from the affine approach to the teleparallel theory – lead nowhere, but sometimes they were also quite behind what others knew already, as in Kaluza–Klein theory and in the area of spinors. Einstein also was not very fruitful in developing, conceptually, his particle model beyond the image of regular field concentrations. Einstein knew only too well how disconnected his various unified field theories were from the possibility of them being checked empirically. He, and everybody else working in the field, did not succeed in extracting from one of the unified field theories an example of a new physical effect of gravito-electromagnetic nature to be tested by experiment or observation. Unlike in his previous scientific career where he was most ingenious and prolific in devising (thought-) experiments, now Einstein’s physical intuition seems to have been buried under formal structural thinking."

2025-11-08 21:40:20 UTC

- reply

Those Goenner papers are an absolute goldmine! It's gonna take me a while to work through them.

2025-11-08 11:42:18 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the links and snippets! I also found this interesting article, which talks about Mach’s principle in terms of understanding why gyroscopes work.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-forgotten-mystery-of-inertia

2025-11-07 22:20:07 UTC

- reply

Oh man, things are getting murky!
The Wikipedia page for Mach's principle says:
"Because intuitive notions of distance and time no longer apply, what exactly is meant by "Mach's principle" in general relativity is even less clear than in Newtonian physics and at least 21 formulations of Mach's principle are possible, some being considered more strongly Machian than others."
To be honest, I've never really understood what is the actual statement of Mach's principle. Wikipedia just says it's "imprecise hypothesis" and gives the usual statement about centrifugal force, which mystifies me. I mean, we are just back to Newton's bucket question, are we not?
Surely this is all best understood in terms of the equivalence principle of GR? That is, in terms of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass: centrifugal force is then felt by virtue of the acceleration of points on the spinning frame with respect to absolute spacetime, no? Would centrifugal force not be felt in a universe with zero mass anywhere? I'd think that it would?
And this brings us to the really interesting part for me; namely, the statement of spacetime as absolute. Why should that be? Why is everything else relativistic except spacetime? But perhaps I am just wasting your time at this point ...
Interesting aside: Mach made important contributions to the study of vision! So too did Helmholtz (of the Helmholtz decomposition and principle of conservation of energy). In fact, Helmholtz is considered by many folks to be the founding father of modern vision science.

2025-11-07 08:56:50 UTC

- reply

Thank you so much for the wonderful response! I will now read what must be read.

2025-11-06 22:31:08 UTC

Questions for physics folks
Do physicists consider General Relativity to be a superior description of nature compared to Newton's laws in terms of its intrinsic ability to account for "fictitious forces", such as centrifugal and Coriolis "forces"?
Correspondingly, is it a correct statement to say that Newton's laws of motion only strictly apply in inertial frames of reference and therefore GR provides a more parsimonious account of the concept of "force"?
I've tried to find historical references that remark upon the ad hoc nature of the addition of "fictitious forces" to Newton's laws but it doesn't seem to me that physicists of the 17th - 19th centuries were overly concerned by these issues.
Is that a fair appraisal?
Note that I am not asking whether GR is a better description of nature than Newton's laws in general but rather with specific reference to the "fictitious forces" and the question of whether physicists actually considered them a fundamental issue that required a better or more parsimonious solution.
cc @npub1nf4…nqe4

2025-10-28 02:08:13 UTC

- reply

The FAQ is an amazing resource thanks! I’ve already spent some hours in it, look forward to learning lots more.

2025-10-24 21:59:24 UTC

- reply

I just meant that it’s one thing to have a qualitative understanding of things and another to be able to write down the equations and solve specific problems. The Feynman diagrams probably help to bridge that gap a bit, I guess.
When I was younger I intended to study physics at university but I needed to work really hard to stay on top of the mathematics. If a course like yours existed I might have stuck with physics longer.
Alas I switched to psychology and neuroscience and the rest is history. I don’t regret my decision one bit. I’ve stayed interested in physics my whole life and understanding physical principles has helped shape my understanding of neuroscience and psychology. Indeed that’s the very heart of the book I’m currently writing!
Anyway, thanks for the wonderful pedagogy. It’s appreciated by us dilettantes.

2025-10-24 10:01:15 UTC

- reply

I finally got around to watching the video. It's fantastic! I like the "fun course" approach. It provides me with an ideal illusion of understanding 🤣. Keep it up!

2025-10-23 20:58:54 UTC

- reply

Thank you! That makes perfect sense to me.

2025-10-23 09:30:30 UTC

- reply

Do mean free electrons in vacuum? It would seem weird for a free electron to emit a photon because such emissions usually involve energy transitions across orbits on the atomic shell, right?

2025-10-14 21:41:11 UTC

- reply

Any mention in the paper why 3 bursts and why those timings?

2025-10-08 21:10:00 UTC

- reply

In our own universe in this case!

2025-10-08 07:28:59 UTC

- reply

This discussion on Greg’s webpage about the dual to the Pythagorean theorem is fascinating. I used this dual idea in one of my papers modelling visual perception to prove the equivalence of two ostensibly different models of transparency.
The paper is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235777134_A_reinterpretation_of_transparency_perception_in_terms_of_gamut_relativity

2025-10-06 10:37:32 UTC

- reply

not yet ...

2025-10-02 07:59:04 UTC

- reply

It's looking that way (pun intended), yeah. This one is going into my book, I think! I remember my high school biology teacher making the claim that venal blood is blue and I've never been convinced one way or another. I think this demonstration probably settles the issue though.

2025-10-02 07:44:59 UTC

- reply

Some experiments using my own colour photo editing app. The app isolated different hues. Here I’ve isolated only the orange hue. You can clearly see the veins as bluish despite the fact that no pixel in the image is physically emitting predominantly short wavelength light.
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/115/303/454/394/745/022/original/7d982ba640bc1d2c.jpeg
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/115/303/454/395/612/311/original/44bf73ef2aa811fb.jpeg

2025-10-02 04:55:27 UTC

- reply

To be perfectly honest, I don't find this paper very convincing. Their argument hinges on some pretty dodgy perceptual modelling.

2025-10-02 04:08:18 UTC

- reply

Link to source PDF
https://www.ilm-ulm.de/fileadmin/files/literatur/1151.pdf

2025-10-02 03:53:45 UTC

- reply

Somewhat relevant but still unsatisfying explanation of blue veins. I’m still missing the part of the explanation that says why veins should ever reemit more short wavelength photons than long.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/11/04/4120712.htm

2025-09-23 09:07:15 UTC

- reply

So not related to your stuff comparing quantum and stochastic mechanics? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2035
He does talk elsewhere about Bell's theorem arising from the special case of the Markovian assumption that the evolution of system state depends only on the previous state. Apparently when that assumption is removed then he finds a route around Bell, but I don't understand the details of his argument.

2025-09-23 03:10:41 UTC

- reply

@npub1nf4…nqe4 do you have a view on Barandes’ work on quantum foundations?

2025-09-15 23:07:36 UTC

- reply

His work looks fascinating!

2025-08-19 03:24:30 UTC

- reply

Do we know that dark matter will actually behave in the same way as matter wrt black holes?

2025-08-09 09:49:07 UTC

- reply

Have you been listening to Lemon recently by any chance, John? 🤣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEcx9F_FW2U

2025-08-02 22:56:15 UTC

- reply

Yup, you did. I was just checking my understand. Thx!

2025-08-02 21:57:08 UTC

- reply

Wait, you are saying "the hydrogen atom is mathematically equivalent to a *chiral* massless spin-½ particle in the Einstein universe" and NOT that the hydrogen atom is equivalent to an atomic-scale Einstein universe itself?

2025-07-19 22:37:05 UTC

- reply

Oh, yes, I can relate to that! I've only recently started to "find" who I want to be. Interestingly, a diagnosis of autism a few years ago was a transformative experience for me. It helped reframe a lot things about my past but also helped me to better define who I wanted to become!

2025-07-19 21:16:31 UTC

- reply

How did you become "not yourself"? Genuine question.