User talk:JudgementSummary

Clockwork universe theory
Please address the issues mentioned at Talk:Clockwork universe theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

wrong redirection of search "mechanical universe"
I have no idea how redirection is set or changed in Wikipedia. But it is working improperly for the search "mechanical universe", which leads here and offers no disambiguation link. Theres a famous science documentary series "The mechanical universe", I should be able to reach it with the search "mechanical universe" --93.140.101.210 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions with respect to the Isaac Newton article
The comment that Isaac Newton established the Clockwork Universe Theory contradicts statements made in the "Isaac Newton" article. That article makes these statements:

Isaac Newton "warned against using them [his theories] to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock" "Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system" Leibniz is said to have "lampooned" Newton. Leibniz described Newton's view using the clock metaphor, "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time." The best way to resolve the contradiction between these articles is to examine primary sources. Jeffhawkey (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics and chaos theory
Just as quantum mechanics does not imply that the world in itself wouldn't be deterministic (since there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics, some postulate determinism, some postulate indeterminism and some are agnostic in this respect), saying that we (with our limited knowledge) cannot calculate future quantum events, chaos theory does not imply that the world in itself wouldn't be deterministic, it just says that we (with our limited knowledge) cannot calculate future weather events or some other "chaotic" events. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues with claiming that "God does play dice" has been scientifically proven
As far as I know, the interpretations of quantum mechanics do not make testable predictions, they just explain the philosophy behind quantum mechanics. I am not aware that any interpretation of quantum mechanics has been falsified (this is a consequence of the previous sentence). Saying that Bell's theorem decided the matter of determinism in 1964 is misleading, since it would mean that Robert B. Griffiths, H. Dieter Zeh and William C. Davidon were complete fools (which I assume is false). Saying that quantum mechanics did not fail in its predictions is not an argument against some interpretations of quantum mechanics, since as far as I know none of them claimed that its predictions would fail (see first sentence in this paragraph). There is a world of difference between what experiments seem to indicate and what has been scientifically proven. Therefore, the claim that "God does play dice" is unproven to this very day. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC) And claiming that the experiments have offered definitive proof in this respect is calling 't Hooft names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

False claims
Please do not insert false claims at Clockwork universe theory. Are you calling 't Hooft names? How do you dare? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Misunderstanding the Mathematics of "Interpretations"
Bell's Theorem purports to be a mathematical proof that any deterministic formulation/theory/interpretation of quantum mechanics MUST statisfy a certain inequality. ALL experiments indicate that in the real-world, quantum particles violate that condition. If the real world was in any way deterministic, the experimental results would be different but unfortunately they are not. There is ample EXPERIMENTAL evidence for indeterminism. [see the book for laymen "Fabric of the Cosmos" which gives an easy to understand description of the issues involved]. And if you will read the excellent work of ‘t Hooft you will see clearly that he claims only to perhaps be able to map deterministic formulations to some stochastic aspects but admits to being unable to calculate even the hamiltonian. Without even that, he can not, and does not, claim that he has a "deterministic" replacement for quantum mechanics that can calculate anything. His work suggests avenues for further research but does not claim to eliminate the well-established and well-verified indeterminism. I share some of the angst over the strange world of the microscopic, but misrepresenting the experimental evidence and especially putting false claims into the mouths of `t Hooft and others does a disservice to all. And what exactly do you hope to accomplish? Do you prefer to fantasize that the world splits at each instant of time into nearly an infinity of parallel universes [whose math is shaky and whose proof is by definition impossible] or rather to simply note that each individual quantum event behaves stochastically [indeterministically] which is clearly shown in the equations and leads to predictible and verifible results? The article is not about fantasy and science fiction but rather about science fact. There are reasonable objections to IN-determinism but the claims made in that regard in your paragraph under "criticisms" are unscientific and logically incorrect. What you might argue instead are 1. Maybe there are non-local theories (allowed by Bell's theorem) which violate Special Relativity and transpose cause and effect but which are then deterministic which we might discover in the future. 2. Maybe there are technical difficulties with Bell's theorem experiments that introduce some subtle as yet undiscovered invalidating error. 3. Maybe there are strange religious arguments (which seem to be the gist of your objections) that require determinism even in the face of modern scientific evidence. 4. Maybe someone will invent a deterministic re-interpretation/formulation/theory for quantum mechanics [not so far] and ALSO discover a math error in Bell's work in the future. But maybe I don't understand what you are thinking. Perhaps this will help. No interpretation of quantum mechanics is able to predict anything we can measure based entirely on deterministic principles. Some have bits of determinism introduced at great fantastical cost, but all also have large parts remaining that are purely probabilistic. Only when we start by assuming indeterminism throughout do we get simple but accurate verifible predictions. It is not what I would have wished either but seems, from overwhelming evidence, to be simply true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgementSummary (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Bell's Theorem
Only a total moron who has read Bell's theorem would disagree with indeterminism if Bell would have definitively solved the problem. Therefore you call four or five top physicist "total morons". As far as I know, the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics have not been refuted. If they have been absolutely refuted, do present evidence, you cannot just throw your own opinion and expect readers and editors to take it for granted. It cannot be claimed that there is scientific consensus that the world in itself would behave indeterministically. All we know is that the maths of quantum mechanics is indeterministic, but this says something about our limited knowledge of the world, not over the world itself. What we know is that quantum mechanics and relativity theory cannot both be true, but we don't know which is false. That is the problem: one of them is false, but we don't know which. The issue of determinism has not been settled yet, since there is no consensus on the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. Otherwise it would not be an "interpretation", i.e. a philosophical view of scientific results, but one interpretation would be part of empirical science (i.e. a scientific fact) and the others would be refuted. I suggest reading Loopholes in Bell test experiments, especially "To date, no test has simultaneously closed all loopholes." Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In less than half an hour I found three problems with your claims: Loopholes in Bell test experiments, Superdeterminism and De Broglie–Bohm theory. So, your stance is really weak and unsupported. You cannot seriously claim that "science has proven indeterminism" while these doors to objections are left wide-open. Science has not proven anything in respect to the debate determinism vs. indeterminism. It is just that indeterminism receives more press, that's all. Science has not spoken yet upon this matter. I don't actually claim that the world in itself is deterministic. What I claim is that we don't know if it is so or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Quote from Mark Twain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem Revisited
I don't believe any discussion or argument is enhanced by name calling and would suggest your ideas should stand on their own merits rather than on ad hominem attacks. I recall the line from Shakespear's Hamlet about someone who "doth protest too much." What I believe you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent is that Bell's theorem makes NO CLAIM whatsoever as to determinism or indeterminism. Rather it proves mathematically that there are EXPERIMENTAL consequences for either, that can be tested in the real world. To reiterate, it demonstrates there are experiments we can preform that will prove the reality of either determinism or indeterminism. We don't have to rely on so-called "interpretations" whose nature is another issue. And you also misrepresent the sense of the argument in that 1. if Bell's theorem is VIOLATED by experimental results, the world is IN-deterministic. 2. if Bell's theorem is found to be valid, the world is DETERMINSTIC.... So you have even got the direction of it wrong and should change your article which ever way you come finally come down on determinism. So I will restate what I believe are reasonable objections to the obvious indeterminism of quantum mechanics 1. Maybe there are non-local theories (allowed by Bell's theorem) which violate Special Relativity and transpose cause and effect but which are then deterministic which we might discover in the future. 2. Maybe there are technical difficulties with Bell's theorem experiments that introduce some subtle as      yet undiscovered invalidating error. 3. Maybe there are strange religious arguments (which seem to be the gist of your objections) that require determinism even in the face of modern scientific evidence. 4. Maybe someone will invent a deterministic re-interpretation/formulation/theory for quantum mechanics [not so far] and ALSO discover a math error in Bell's work in the future. I thought you had followed this outline in your last submission but then you misstate the results. I would also assert that you misrepresent "intrepretations". The seminal paper on the issue, defining the term, was the EPR paper by Einstien which I gave in my section. It is highly technical but the gist is that it claims quantum mechanics is "incomplete" and DOES NOT offer different equations. In this sense "interpretations" are not like translating one language to another, but rather start everything from completely different mathematical equations. To get determinism, somehow you have to derive the wavefunction [AT THE CORE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS] from some other equation rather than assuming it to start; because the wavefunction in itself is manifestly indeterministic. [I don't believe anyone has entirely done this especially as there is no experimental evidence and are mathematically incomplete in themselves.] I see this misrepresented often in the popular press. Maybe you want to study this and devote some of your otherwise admirable zeal to correcting the record when you are better versed in the subject. In light of this I don't believe your objections are reasonable; but then quantum mechanics is very controversal in the public mind; but much less so in science; our job, I believe, is not to restate muddled and obviously wrong assumptions about it... but to be factually and scientifically accurate. [plse also excuse the somewhat rambling tempo of this as I have been up all night... thx] JudgementSummary (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, JudgementSummary. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clockwork universe theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prime mover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No.. thank you much for your unheralded and tireless attempts to keep the syntax correct... please keep up the good work. I didn't appreiate there were several, not one, link to my reference. JudgementSummary (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring on Clockwork universe theory
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

JudgementSummary, you've reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours. Your edits are unconstructive and unwelcome on Wikipedia. — Wing gundam (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wing gundam, you have now erased my work 4 times without serious discussion. Each time I restored my originals and then you immediately and sumarily deleted them again.   Indeed you erased most of the entire article without discussion just a few days ago without any discussion...  I am trying and still would welcome your specifics but they are not forthcomming....  Maybe we need mediation...? JudgementSummary (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed the first two times you did that, I filed a complaint on your talk page and you had the good grace to appologize the first time. Maybe we could get back to that happy medium somehow without you continually erasing stuff in the night... just a thoughs... thanks..JudgementSummary (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's beyond this now (see the next section). In my judgement, your horrible POV/OR essay does not belong on WP and was so clearly vandalism that I blanked it.

I had the "good grace" to kindly explain to you in the talk page exactly how it was unencyclopedic.

"... specifics but they are not forthcomming..." — are you trolling? I have repeatedly told you that (in your monstrous "Objections" sections) you develop arguments that are NOT FOUND in your sources. This is WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * This is the most fundamental issue with your content.
 * You must find a source that develops exactly the argument you've developed, and connects it to clockwork universe theory by name.

Days ago I began polite and apologetic, but your complete lack of comprehension has forced me to file a notice on WP:ANI.

—Wing gundam (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Involvement in WP:ANI discussion
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your WP:NPOV/WP:OR edits on Clockwork universe theory. Thank you. —Wing gundam (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome the chance for mediation of any type.... would also have welcomed any meaningful specifics on the subject talk page... much better than wholesale deletions thanks....JudgementSummary (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to help
Look, you need to learn how to edit. You are putting back unsupported material such as referencing the Big Bang which is a post clockwork universe concept. Nearly everything you are now putting in is going to be reverted and before long you are going to end up with escalating blocks. Being taken to ANI so early in your editing career is not a good sign.

I strongly suggest you self revert now, and raise the additions you want to make on the talk page. But get one resolved at a time on the talk page before editing the article. Snowded TALK 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the article before I started adding stuff about 5 months ago... everything after this is my editing... there were some criticism sections but those were moved to "determinism" and then deleted.. I will rewrite my contributions and reintroduce shortly... so your argument is not with me.. and I would recommend you do a dictionary search on the subject and you will see the objections are precisely on point...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Foolish. I suggest you read WP:BRD which requires you to discuss any change you raise on the talk page if they are disputed.   Snowded  TALK 06:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you just remove 95% of the entire article... And your point by point discussion is where on the talk page? Just a thought... thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the entire damn Talk page. There was unanimous consent to "remove 95% of the entire article". Your edits are universally considered BIASED. If you re-add your sections, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please don't waste our time with your travesties. — wing  gundam  10:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi JudgementSummary! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:42, Monday, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi JudgementSummary! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:44, Monday, September 12, 2016 (UTC)