> Whether actual scientists hold a view is not an argument (nor did I try to use it as one), but it is relevant to pointless random online arguments because it can help us spend our time better and not waste it on debunking things that nobody who knows what they're talking about actually believes, as I was trying to help you do. You yourself said
I don't agree here, argument from authority is not an appropriate argument. If you do not have particulars for an argument, then you shouldn't really have a strong opinion on the topic.
> Who are you quoting here? The article you linked doesn't say that QM is "completely wrong" (just that it's not as good as QFT), and neither does anyone in the HN discussion, so I'm not sure what text you're referring to.
? The article I linked has a headline that's clearly misleading, and not only that, QFT is BASED on QM. You start with some Lagrangian and fields, impose QM restrictions via commutation relations, and perform calculations. What exactly do you think QFT is?
> Actually Hossenfelder is a well-known critic of the idea that simplicity and beauty are requirements of truth, and your remarks aren't supported by the text of the article, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here either.
What exactly are you trying to argue here? You started off dismissing my comments, and now you're defending Sabine for "beauty" and "truth". Beauty and truth relative to her, Sabine? Okay?
I don't agree here, argument from authority is not an appropriate argument. If you do not have particulars for an argument, then you shouldn't really have a strong opinion on the topic.
> Who are you quoting here? The article you linked doesn't say that QM is "completely wrong" (just that it's not as good as QFT), and neither does anyone in the HN discussion, so I'm not sure what text you're referring to.
? The article I linked has a headline that's clearly misleading, and not only that, QFT is BASED on QM. You start with some Lagrangian and fields, impose QM restrictions via commutation relations, and perform calculations. What exactly do you think QFT is?
> Actually Hossenfelder is a well-known critic of the idea that simplicity and beauty are requirements of truth, and your remarks aren't supported by the text of the article, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here either.
What exactly are you trying to argue here? You started off dismissing my comments, and now you're defending Sabine for "beauty" and "truth". Beauty and truth relative to her, Sabine? Okay?