User talk:Dave Kielpinski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username.

I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!


Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

22:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More welcome!

You might also enjoy the discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. -- linas 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And, I should say, glad to have you here. Personally, I've been wanting/planning on spending more time working on quantum computing, but keep getting distracted by mathematics that is three degrees removed. In fact, I vowed to be somehow employed in quantum computing in five years time, but so far my progress has been slow. Perhaps your acquantance will help me refocus a bit. linas 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied at length on my talk page. You can also continue the conversation here (as that way it might be less disjointed): I am "watching" this page (the "watch tab" at the top-right), so I'll notice when you write here. (Watching the talk pages of people you know is not uncommon. Its how people communicate.) linas 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your kind words

I just wanted to thank you for your encourangement with my research. It certainly is a chore, and I am getting a fine sense of why most people without credentials who try this kind of thing fail miserably. However, I seem to be getting ample opportunity to prove myself and my work. I assure you that I will keep on pushing and working to get it published. --EMS | Talk 06:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did I delete a reference to your article in Nature?

User:linas has said I deleted a reference to an article of yours on the Bell's theorem page. I don't see where, but if I did it was a mistake and I suggest you revert my changes.--CSTAR 17:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK caught it and fixed it. I reverted somebody's edits because they contained what seemed to me some strange comments such as "Wikipedia does not allow external references" etc..) In my haste I hope I didn't delete something worthwhile.--CSTAR 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I thought I'd introduce you two. CSTAR used to be the "defender at the gates" of the QM articles, keeping away the cranky/misguided edits. And, while CSTAR was away, Dave showed up and promptly nuked a couple of cranky edits in this same class of articles. So I figured you should meet, given the same set of general interests. linas 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Dave...

I removed some text you recently added to Consciousness causes collapse because you did not cite a source.

Certainly you have substantial expertise and your statement may qualify as an expert opinion, but WP policy requires any claims of scientific consensus to be explicitly sourced. I don't doubt that your statement may be true, but the threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability not truth.

Thanks, riverguy42 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, if you are going to continue to revert and make a claim of a consensus you need to cite it per WP:RS, specifically, see here:
"Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."
This is true irrespective of your scientific credentials or mine. As a scientist, you more than most should understand the reasons for WP:RS. riverguy42 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consciousness causes collapse

Hi Dave, I would be interested in hearing more about what you have to say about the CCC interpretation of QM. It sounds like you know something we do not. Could you go into how we know that CCC is not a possibility? Nhall0608 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, what else to you know about the hard problem of consciousness. Is there any other science, or any hints in science that we may some day be able to explain 'hard problem'. It seems to me that the physical world’s ability to give rise to experience 'consciousness' would be considered as fundamental as matters ability to give rise to gravity. Thank you Dave, I appreciate having an expert to ask these questions, Nhall0608 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Do you have anything to say on this? Nhall0608 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


copied from talk: You asked whether I have anything to say about consciousness causes collapse. You will find out what I have to say whenever the pseudoscientists infesting Wikipedia decide to let me edit pages about which I have expert knowledge. However, educating you one-on-one is not a good use of my time. Dave Kielpinski (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you can't reply to the above questions off the top of your head. If that is the case then is your expertise really conclusive on the issue of CCC? Nhall0608 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware that people were not allowing you to contribute to pages, that's not ok as opposing opinions should always have a place on every page. Let me know if I can be a voice for fair editing on any of the pages not letting you contribute. Nhall0608 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

copied from talk: Look, guy. I have spent fifteen years studying quantum theory, and not the kind you get from popular science books. It is not my job to bring you, personally, up to speed. Dave Kielpinski (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So instead of arguing the science, you argue I'm not worth your time? Doesn’t sound like you have any expertise on this specific topic at all. First of all I did not get any of the ideas from what you would call popular science books but from scientific literature and good sound reasoning. Second, by all means, don't waist your time giving me the nitty gritty, I'm not a layman, I'm a mathematician and engineer, just point me to any scientific article, experiment, or any type of lead at all that would give just the remotest evidence either against CCC being possible, or any hint of being able to explain the hard problem of consciousness elsewhere. That's all I'm asking. Considering that you consider your expertise specific enough to conclude CCC false, one would think you'd be able to do at least that for less energy than it takes to argue that I'm not worth your time.Nhall0608 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)