Because classical mechanics is set of forces and assumptions about nature which can't explain matter.

You can quickly get to gravity and the nuclear/electrical forces from observing the world. The lack of diversity in basic building blocks (atoms, merely in the hundreds of types) and the limited types of bonds disproves another type of force - the world would look completely different.

Given that, how can you explain chemical bonding (and all the macro properties that entails in huge observable variety) without quantum? What possible principle could you come up with from the classical world - consisting of waves, continuous forces, non-discrete fields and point of matter - that could explain chemical bonding as we see it?

Perhaps this creature wouldn't call it QM, but the description would be near-identical to QM and the violation of classical a certainty.
Smart people from that era took absurd philosophy about God seriously too. Smart people take all kinds of things seriously. Hell, smart people clung to the aether decades after it was shown to be unnecessary (the nature of the aether is such that it can't be disproven - which should have been a clue).

They took it seriously for a simple reason - it fit with the math and allowed them to posit away conceptual difficulties they had around imagining "waves" being transported through nothing. The last is why it was posited. There were no grand intellectual reasons for the aether. It was a clown's invention, and indeed, the number of things it was absurdly posited for by smart people - see the criticisms quotes I posted above - shows the cognitive flaw it's derived from. That you think people had good reasons for believing in it is unjustified, imo.
Perhaps. But the fact that people were openly mocking it at the time, that absurd contortions were made by very smart people to cling to the notion of the aether or get around problems, should be a clue.

I mean, much the history of physics is one of people being unable to question basic assumptions, until someone smart comes along and does just that in some new way. An intelligence won't have these low-level cognitive flaws that humans have; they're a direct result of lacking the processing power to easily go a level higher or model beyond a second or third level of abstraction/assumption questioning. They're a direct consequence of rigid habitual thinking - look at the abuse I'm getting from the olds in this thread, for example.

That's because you're thinking of "classical mechanics" in the way that you were taught. You're not thinking of the possible "classical mechanics" that this intelligent being might be able to create.

Clearly, you're a genius among morons. One day, a future being will look back at this thread and admire you for the depth of insight and intelligence you have brought to the conversation.

(Of course, the difference is that those scientists that were thinking in new ways brought actual knowledge and observation to the table. They didn't simply suggest that it was possible that everyone else is wrong, but they proved their case by making a substantive argument. There has been little to no substance in your posts, which is a gigantic problem for your theory. You just keep waving your arms and assuming your conclusions.)

And you can prove that?

Sorry, I'm gonna stop here. But huh? Of course I have no idea how to do that. Just like I have no idea how to look at a cup of water and figure out the weak the force. The whole point of your OP was that hyper intelligence can do things that seem like magic to us. And I seriously doubt your arbitrary restrictions on magic.

The vast number of theories that I my mere intelligence is capable of (if I weren't already knowledgeable of what has been disproven) creating that are entirely consistent with what my senses tell me that are logically consistent.

I'm nowhere nearly bright enough to come up with a ton of them. I assume that a brighter being would come up with gazillions more than me.

No. Quantum mechanics (including the Pauli Exclusion Principle) is exceedingly silly and needlessly complex as an explanation of what my sensory organs provide. It is nearly too complex given the actual experimental data that you are disallowing our hyper-intelligent being access to.

String theory makes more sense (given that I've gone to a Blue Man Group show), as I've actually felt vibrations. **** vibrates. Yeah, that must be it. I've got some data about vibrations. And I don't hear **** from outer space, so there must be different mediums that sound propagates through and light propagates through since I can see **** from outer space.

That is quite the long list of claims. Would you mind expanding on them and instead of making a list of bald-faced claims try to actually make a coherent argument as to why even one of them is true?

Now you're just playing silly semantics. I think if you define "classical mechanics", you'll realize it's an impossibility to get from there to "classical" model of all we observe in the world. Classical places restriction on what we can use.

I mean, perhaps you could posit 1000 different nuclear forces all in exact quantities, plus some spooky non-quantum "disappearance" model to describe what we see around us without quantum - I'd bet long odds against it but I'm not smart enough to know - but there is no simple set of principles that get us to a classical world. An intelligence would reject those ultra-complex, specially constructed, glued-together representations - it would look for the simplest and most elegant answer - and quantum is the least-assumption-or-special-pleading-required answer for what we see around us.

The bolded is so silly as to be not worthy of a response.

It's not that some of the thread is useful, mostly by accident, but that you flop about like a fish out of water when challenged by the obvious fundamental flaws that you dish out. And this style is constant across posts and threads. After a year or two of this same hash it becomes apparent that you have learned or absorbed very little from all the effort put out by SMP or others on this site/forums. It is disingenuous at the least and also saps energy out of the good posters, and increases the noise ratio to that of the PU forum.

Dessin d' enfant, Aaron, BTM2 and even masque, once discounting the verbosity, have made corrections and given explanations and pointed out the flaws in your augments and assumptions. To no avail.

A streak of what I would term anti-science and anti-intellectualism, so prevalent in much of American Culture (DS falls victim to this also if only jokingly), permeates your posts. You can't admit your own ignorance, a common and fundamental flaw of many. And it is why your critical thinking skills are sub-par, especially about science.

And you will remain in this static mode. I predict you are incapable of change, based on the available evidence in your posts. But I could be wrong.

What I posted was obvious, but now we're in a semantics game. So define classic mechanics and we'll go from there. I said:
I'm opening to hearing a better one.
No, the whole point of my OP is that a super intelligence can notice patterns better than we can, and connect them on a higher, broader and deeper level than we can. It's not "anything goes" just because it's smart. There's no "magic".
Do you have a better description?

Only to your limited mind.

Except that this is pretty much what physics is. It's just a bunch of pieced together representations of things we observe. That you want to pretend like QM is a magical answer to explain all of reality just shows how constrained your thinking truly is.

Not at all - they've made good points all. The point of this thread was to get exactly those criticisms and possibilities, before rigid thinkers came in and started trolling.
Neither of these have made a good point. And Aaron is pure abusive troll in this thread - zero content (I have at least provided some as well as the OP) - yet you're attacking me. It's biased and weird.

That's just an incredible claim. I reject a lot of softer research because of science, not in spite of it. Science requires replication and correction for bias, and most peer reviewed research lacks this, so the degree of credibility we should give it is small. I realize that's upsetting to a person who puts a lot of stock in this stuff, but it's a very rational position.
I've frequently admitted my own ignorance. It's you who can't admit ignorance, or the ignorance of those who put forward studies. It's my consistent position that we know little in uncertain fields, and what we claim and think we know (and the credence we give to to that) is far higher than what we actually do know.

My critical thinking skills are at least equivalent to the friends you're defending here. Anyway, I'm ignoring the trolls from now on - it'll reduce the noise.

This is a very Trumpian response.

Sorry, I kept going. But this is pretty ludicrous. Einstein openly mocked quantum mechanics (god does not play dice), Feynman openly mocked string theory (how many dimensions ya got today?), Kronecker openly mocked Cantor on power sets etc. Pretending that people mocking an idea in the past meant it was dumb and is a huge clue that it's wrong is again the sort of superficial, shallow thinking you seem to have perfected.

That's not mocking, on the contrary, it's an expression of a deep conviction of how he believes the world is. Einstein took quantum very seriously, even contributed to it, but felt like it wasn't the "final answer".
And most of string theory is mockable (heck, there was even a Sokal style hoax where a nonsense, meaningless paper got accepted and published). We don't yet know if it is different to the aether (large parts of it are definitely a modern aether), so you've proved nothing here
No clue on that. But I agree with your general point that valid ideas have been mocked.
You said huge, not me? I said the mocking and the absurd contortions that you had to create to keep the aether going should give a clue that maybe it *was* possible to see the aether for what it was, given the knowledge at the time (you're claiming it isn't). You are the one claiming that we're using hindsight bias and that there were excellent reasons for believing in the aether and no way to tell it was bunk...I'm suggesting that there probably was. Just as there is for much of string theory today, although the practitioners don't see it.

The success of predictions in physics disproves this I think. Despite the claim that you could come up with "vast numbers of theories" (something I would dispute), our hit rate is simply too good with our predictions from the theories we do posit for it to be chance. The world is fundamentally simple, and made up of simple rules. The simplest solution has often turned out to be forward predictive (simplest in the sense of, requires the fewest assumptions). That says something fundamental about both the world, and what reason and parsimony can unveil.

What is silly about QM?
What is complex about QM, let alone "needlessly" complex? I think you're confusing the math and pedagogy and the conceptual difficulty with the underlying reality. QM is about as simple as it gets.

Well this is right off the rails - quantum is the simplest and easiest explanation for what we see. In fact, you could think of it as the simplest possible description of what we see.

Me too, and I'm not a fan of string theory.

Masque has gone into more detail on most of them. But sure. I'll put some more detail into it.

Wat? How is this any different from the aether theorists?

Of course. But how come he's not a ****** stuck in 19th century ways of thinking for trying to preserve classical ideas?

This is wrong....I'm assuming you're talking about the Boghvanadovs? or whatever brothers? The papers were mostly gibberish and they got published in a journal nobody reads because nobody cares.


No. Anything "is" possible. But thats pretty boring.

I agree with all of this. You figuring out the aether is bunk back then is basically the same as you figuring out string theory is bunk now.

The obvious answer is electrons through a double slit. You already talked about how wave motion is human invented nonsense, so its obvious what we should see after they pass thorough the slits, right?

I'm no expert but I think that you would need at least a million 1800s consulting for at least a year per move to be favored over Kasparov (or to duplicate those computers that beat him).

After making my assertion, I looked into it and we do have some data here. Kasparov actually played a game against 50,000 opponents online, and after four months, he defeated them in 62 moves (a long game). Kasparov hailed it as, ""the greatest game in the history of chess. The sheer number of ideas, the complexity, and the contribution it has made to chess make it the most important game ever played." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasp...rsus_the_World. Anyhow, that seems to prove me wrong, but it turns out Gary admitted to reading the group's message board and watched their strategy develop, which I think invalidates the win.

Recently a group of 6000 people beat a Grandmaster, but only after first losing twice (the second game he played blindfolded!). http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/twitc...imon-williams/ These games were played consecutively over a four hour period, and so the group were not given the advantage of days per move to brute force out calculate him, and they still beat him once.

What about if everything he looks at or knows about decays twice as fast we know it should, simply because a googolplex to the googolplex power came in?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

A bit of a blow for the theory our eyes are innately ****.

Our entity could use this for producing a theory of how at least our neighborhood in the universe looks. He could register all the colors and brightnesses of the stars, compare them to each other and maybe get to something like this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzs...ussell_diagram

With his capacity he could compare all visible stars at once, look at the average color when subtracting the bias the atmosphere induces. Probability distribution, seeing the milky way, etc, would help for getting the picture.

Having the diagram above would be a nice starting point for trying to figure out more.

Would like him to be allowed to make fire through friction though, then he could get a general picture of how colors behave at different temperatures.

'Perfect' eyesight would still require a brain that can correct for appearance fallacies misleading it's reason. Which requires an intelligence sufficiently capable of an awareness and faculty to change it's reasoning and a will to sense beyond what it's eyes can see.

Correcting for under-estimating and over-estimating intelligence is also a capability to consider. Sufficiently intelligent to accurately estimate it's own intelligence is on consideration.

Naturally.

Otherwise it wouldn't be smart, as I view smartness. It would be a stupid nerd.

Being aware of your own shortcomings is paramount, it's often the only way to overcome them.

You're overrating Kasparov imo. Kasparov vs the world was a very tough match for him plus he was able to listen in on the other team's analysis.

Perhaps. You could be underestimating some intelligence of having shortcomings. Which shortcomings contribute to making mis estimations about physics from plain sight observations would be the particular concern going along with that route.

The human eye is incapable of detecting color at night, silly.

You've never seen the colors of the stars?? They're stunning. Come to outback Australia one day...it's an amazing experience with zero light or trees, the heavens horizon to horizon, no human structures within 50 miles and no towns within hundreds of miles. Like being in natural cathedral, it's one of the wonders of nature. You can see thousands upon thousands of stars of all different colors, and at center of it is the huge milky way.