Two, the EPR paradox is resolvable in modern physics by allowing non-locality in entanglement, but having a no-communication theorem that prevents exploiting it to break special relativity.
I didn’t say he wasn’t overrated. I said he was capable of physics.
Did you read the linked post? Bohm, Aharonov, and Bell misunderstood EPR. Bohm’s and Aharonov’s formulation of the thought experiment is easier to “solve” but does not actually address EPR’s concern, which is that mutual non-commutation of x-, y-, and z-spin implies hidden variables must not be superfluous. Again, EPR were fine with mutual non-commutation, and fine with entanglement. What they were pointing out was that the two postulates don’t make sense in each other’s presence.
Cowen, like Hanson, discounts large qualitative societal shifts from AI that lack corresponding contemporary measurables.
Einstein was not an experimentalist, yet was perfectly capable of physics; his successors have largely not touched his unfinished work, and not for lack of data.
While it is interesting at first glance, some caveats are called for here.
One, Einstein’s achievements were sort of overrated, see these comments for details:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GSBCw94DsxLgDat6r/interpreting-yudkowsky-on-deep-vs-shallow-knowledge#6HPjxMvTnP9JeibXZ
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GSBCw94DsxLgDat6r/interpreting-yudkowsky-on-deep-vs-shallow-knowledge#icmCewLmXnxgtmANP
Two, the EPR paradox is resolvable in modern physics by allowing non-locality in entanglement, but having a no-communication theorem that prevents exploiting it to break special relativity.
I didn’t say he wasn’t overrated. I said he was capable of physics.
Did you read the linked post? Bohm, Aharonov, and Bell misunderstood EPR. Bohm’s and Aharonov’s formulation of the thought experiment is easier to “solve” but does not actually address EPR’s concern, which is that mutual non-commutation of x-, y-, and z-spin implies hidden variables must not be superfluous. Again, EPR were fine with mutual non-commutation, and fine with entanglement. What they were pointing out was that the two postulates don’t make sense in each other’s presence.