Proshno

Edit warring

You're adding content to Quantum mechanics, Interpretations of quantum mechanics, and Superdeterminism against consensus, and edit warring over it. This is bound to get your account blocked. If you want to obtain consensus to do your changes use the talk pages. Tercer (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are eliminating a major loophole of Bell's theorem. Regardless of consensus and opinions, using Bell's theorem to prove whether particles fundamentally behave randomly (i.e., do not behave deterministically) itself is logically fallacious, since it relies on circular reasoning, as it requires the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen randomly. If the particles behaved deterministically, measurement settings could not be chosen randomly in the first place. Proshno (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not a major loophole. It's a stupid idea that almost nobody take seriously. In Wikipedia we care about what is written in scientific papers, not what appears in YouTube.

In any case, that's besides the point: here I'm just warning you that you are edit warring. If you want to discuss content use the talk pages of the articles. Tercer (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know there's a word for that, because from my perspective, you were editing something out, because, as you just explained, you think something is stupid.

You said, "In Wikipedia we care about what is written in scientific papers, not what appears in YouTube."

> I didn't learn about it from any YouTube videos. I came up with it independently, although I didn't know there are other people who have worked on it, and there is a name for it. There are scientific papers published about it, and one of the authors is a Nobel winner, Gerard 't Hooft. Please see links below.

Secondly, you said, "almost nobody takes seriously", which is also incorrect.

> Einstein and Schrodinger believed in local hidden variables, and nobody would think they are stupid.

Finally, I pointed out the logical fallacy, and you did not refute the logical fallacy. As someone who edits scientific articles, one must have a consistent logical reasoning. Since you could call it "stupid" even after being shown that it's logically fallacious, I don't think we're engaging in a respectful conversation.

Please understand that scientific articles on Wikipedia are about being logically correct. It's not about making appeal to authority or consensus. You probably know that the the motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific academy in the world, is: "Nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it). It's not like I'm editing out any of the consensus of the physics community. I am simply adding another perspective that points a logical fallacy of Bell's theorem. You may not like it, but you do not have the right to edit it out simply because it's a minority point of view (You probably know that the existence of atom itself was a minority point of view until 1900).

1. The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548.pdf
2. Rethinking Superdeterminism: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full

Proshno (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia. Its articles are entirely based on appeal to authority and consensus. They are not based on being "logically correct". Please read WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:TRUTH to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. Tercer (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not. I did not edit out the statements based on appeal to authority and consensus. What I did was added a few additional nuanced sentences that point out that without these sentences, the narratives of facts make it appear as if it's already agreed by consensus that local hidden variables can be completely ruled out, whereas that is not really the consensus at all. I consider it a major loophole, but I did not write "it's a major loophole" in my edits of the Wikipedia articles. I called it a "major loophole" while having a conversation with you, and I showed you why it's a major loophole. In reply, you just called it a "stupid" idea. You do not have the right to call a position "stupid" while having a conversation with a stranger. This is disrespectful.

Regarding my statement, "scientific articles on Wikipedia are about being logically correct", I think that was a bad phrasing and I should have said Wikipedia articles are about being logically coherent for readers. Without the additional sentence that I mentioned, it would have misled readers to think that local hidden variables can be completely ruled out, which is not the consensus or the opinion of the authority at all.

I don't understand why you completely omitted one single sentence that I added in the article Quantum Mechanics. I simply added the sentence "However, Bell tests cannot close the superdeterminism loophole, therefore, local hidden variables cannot be completely ruled out." in the article under the paragraph about hidden variables. This is something stated by John Bell himself. Without this sentence, the paragraph ends with the sentence: "Many Bell tests have been performed, using entangled particles, and they have shown results incompatible with the constraints imposed by local hidden variables." This is an incomplete description of local hidden variables and can potentially mislead a reader to think that local hidden variables can be completely ruled out.

I was stating that you cannot omit a statement if its omission gives an impression that the opposite is true. Your editing out the single sentence that I added makes it appear to any uninformed reader that local hidden variables can be completely ruled out. This is contradictory even with consensus (including John Bell himself). None of Wikipedia's policies allows such logical inconsistencies which result in incomplete description of something and which, in turn, gives the impression that the opposite is true according to consensus.

This was simply one sentence at the end of a paragraph about hidden variables in an entire article about Quantum Mechanics. You could have suggested different phrasing, but adding this sentence was not giving any undue weight to local hidden variables.

I did not use any sentence from original research. Regarding verifiability, it would have made sense if you asked me to cite the sentences, which you did not. The third link you provided mentions this: "Verifiability: In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source." I'm sure Gerard 't Hooft's published source is reliable. The fact that you've concluded I don't understand how Wikipedia works instead of asking me questions again shows that you do not have any respectful attitude towards having a conversation with a fellow editor. Proshno (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that adding "superdeterminism" in the table in the article on Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics can debated.

I can add this sentence back to the article Quantum Mechanics with a citation to John Bell's statement, but we can continue discussing about the edits in the two other articles. Let me know if that works for you. Proshno (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper place to argue about content is the talk page of the article in question, not your user talk page. Another editor has even started already a discussion about your edits in Quantum mechanics, see here Tercer (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Please read my response here. Proshno (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)