User talk:Thomas h ray

June 2012
Hello, Thomas h ray. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT a sockpuppet, nor do I have a conflict of interest. I resent the very charges. If innuendo is your modus operandi, we need to explore YOUR motives. Thomas h ray (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reply in the SPI case itself rather than here. Also note that I am making no innuendo, I'm not being indirect, I am being direct by launching this SPI and WP:MEAT puppetry investigation. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Interintel for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. "JamesBWatson," Since the verdict was obvious from the beginning, there is really no need for you to make pretense that a "battleground mentality" is all mine. FYI, I have been a professional writer-editor for 40 years and have collaborated on countless projects without suffering the innuendo and character assassinations of anonymous "editors," and neither have I engaged in such behavior toward others. I'm willing to share the shame with you, but I won't accept it alone, nor debase myself with unearned deference. If I were really the belligerent and pompous soul that you accuse me of being, it would show up in my Wikipedia editing history, but of course it does not, in all the years that I have supported this undertaking. But that aside, you reveal *your* true motives and demonstrate your lack of neutrality in your parenthetical comment -- indeed, it is you, not I, who does not understand the nature of a constructive proof. More, though -- because I know fewer than a half dozen people and only two mathematicians who are intimately aware of the bitter dispute regarding the proof of Bell's theorem involving its nonconstructive nature, I suspect you were steered to make this comment in order to subvert impartiality, as I have noted the other editors/administrators have done in this forum (see how easily innuendo works both ways?) In any case, let me offer you a "reliable source" on constructive proof, Daniel Solow:  In the explanation of proof by contradiction -- (which is actually a yet stronger proof than the proof by double negation that Bell's theorem relies on) -- Solow writes:

"Suppose you wish to show that at a party of 367 people, there are at least two people whose birthday falls on the same day of the year. If the construction method is used, then you would actually have to go to the party and find two such people. To save you the time and trouble, the contradiction method can be used. In so doing, you can assume that no two people's birthdays fall on the same day of the year, or equivalently, that everyone's birthday falls on a different day of the year.

"To reach a contradiction, assign numbers to the people in such a way that the person with the earliest birthday of the year receives the number 1, the person with the next earliest birthday receives the number 2, and so on. Recall that each person's birthday is assumed to fall on a different day. Thus, the birthday of the person whose number is 2 must occur at least one day later than the person whose number is 1, and so on. Consequently, the birthday of the person whose number is 367 must occur at least 366 days after the person whose number is 1. But a year has at most 366 days, and so this is impossible, that is, a contradiction has been established.

"This example illustrates a subtle but very significant difference between a proof using the construction method and one that uses contradiction. If the construction method is successful, then you will have produced the desired object, or at least indicated how it might be produced, perhaps with the aid of a computer. On the other hand, if you establish the same result by contradiction, then you will know that the object exists, but will have no way of physically constructing it. For this reason, it is often the case that proofs done by contradiction are quite a bit shorter and easier than those done by construction because you do not have to create the desired object. You only have to show that its *nonexistence* is impossible! This difference has led to some great philosophical debates in mathematics. Moreover, an active area of current research consists of finding constructive proofs where previously only proofs of contradiction were known." (Solow, D. *How to Read and Do Proofs.*)

So of course, what Bell proponents have done is to prove the impossibility of the nonexistence of complete locally real results under the probabilistic assumption of equally likely outcomes -- it's like starting with the knowledge, taking Solow's example, that we already know that a room of > 366 people will have at least two people with the same birthday, and then "proving" it by experiment. This is attractive to most because it's easy to understand, and has the advantage of "proving" that nature couldn't have been other than it is observed, every time a measurement is taken.

I suggest Wikipedia administrators adhere to their own neutrality standards and resist capitulation to majority opinion. 173.162.53.225 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas h ray (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Bradbury: Am I to understand that administrators, most of them anonymous, may criticize me with impunity while I am prevented from making the case for what I perceive to be the most basic reason for my block: selective bias and capitulation to majority opinion? See my reply below for the difference between "democracy" and "democratic." I am perfectly willing to abide just criticism, and yet I have not heard a reasoned case for why my posts on the talk page should be considered "disruptive." Curious, too, why you consider my meager postings (which I confine to subjects I know well, rather than vandalizing or trivializing pages) should be judged "unnoticeable." Is good editing bought by the pound? So far as my support, if you deem it so unimportant as to demean it, it doesn't make me the poorer. Thomas h ray (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to acknowledge that I saw your unblock request when reviewing such requests. However, your two reasons to unblock seem to be (1) You are right about Bell's Theorem, and (2) You should be unblocked because otherwise, you won't continue the generous donations you were previously making.  I'm not able to overturn a block on either of these, because (1) I don't know enough math to evaluate whether you are right or not, and (2) The amount of money you have donated in the past or might donate in the future is irrelevant to a block, and (3) Neither of these is related to the reason for your block, which is that you are one of a number of accounts that all started passionately arguing the same point at the same time, causing disruption on an article which blocks were necessary to stop.  Since I'm not able to evaluate your first reason, there's nothing to evaluate in your second, and you don't address the reason for the block, I'm leaving the request here for the next reviewing admin to look at. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With due respect, the administrator FisherQueen completely misreads my request, and inserts her own perceptions of facts that are not in evidence. My dispute has nothing to do with whether I am right about Bell's theorem or whether I donate to Wikipedia -- on this very page, one can see that Richard Gill, who is an acknowledged expert in the subject, agrees with me that the metaphysical question is not settled, which should be reason enough to give that subtext some treatment on the article page. My protest has to do with the steering of consensus opinion, led by Gill with capitulation by the editors, who have made no pretense at neutrality, while falsely accusing me of "meat puppetry" and conflict of interest.  I am equally in my rights to make the same charges.Thomas h ray (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (I've changed the above into a straight comment - there should only be one unblock request open at a time, and replies to reviewing comments should not be placed in new unblock requests -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Note the SPI which found lots of evidence for meat puppetry:. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What evidence? I am not Interintel, and I have no affiliation with either Joy Christian or Fred Diether. The "evidence" is all in your arbitrary judgment, which I protest. I see plenty of evidence on the other side to insult and intimidate, including the reference to "vanity publishing" without any proof of it. I still want to see that statement supported, or withdrawn.Thomas h ray (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A cursory Google of your name Joy Christian/Fred Diether reveals regularly off-wiki links with Christian at various websites: . One of the clerks also noticed the similarity of arguments made by you, Christian, and Diether: they !vote with the EXACT same text to express their oppose,. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious about using this as "evidence" that I committed some offense on a Wikipedia talk page. Your editors also "use the same text" to express their views. I made no secret of my (partial) support of Joy Christian's research. How is the exercising of my free speech relevant to being banned from Wikipedia for "disruption" or "meat puppetry?" (Is that why you and other Wikipedia editors and adminstrators hide behind anonymity, to disguise your lack of neutrality in "off-Wikipedia" sites and prevent transparency in your dealings here?) The record shows that I acted in honest good faith to promote neutrality in the article, not to promote my own views. You neglect to note that I made not one single edit to the article page, even though I am willing to bet that I know far more about Bell's theorem than all of you put together. My conscience is clear. Thomas h ray (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Constructive/nonexistence, maths/metaphysics
Hi Thomas. You wrote "Local realism (or its impossibility) is not settled science in the sense of, say, relativity or even quantum mechanics per se. If the article on Bell's Theorem is going to deal with the metaphysical implications of the theorem in any way, it must honestly include the other side of the issue. Otherwise, cut the article down to Bell's inequality and its validation alone. Even then, however, it must be noted that the mathematical proof of the theorem is entirely nonconstructive".

(1) Sure, the possibity or impossibility of local realism is a meta-physical metter. I'd say that Bell's theorem is the metaphysical "theorem" that local realism and quantum mechanics are incompatible. Local realism is a metaphysical concept, not a mathematical concept, nor a physical concept. Certainly the wikipedia article on Bell's theorem must reflect the ongoing metaphysical debate. But according to Wikipedia principles, only on the basis of scientific publications which have got some degree of independent support. So far, no single reputable journal has published a paper by a reputable scientist supporting Christan's ideas. While quite a few "reputable scientists" have gone on record saying it is crap. Wikipedia has to wait till the mood swings. If Joy's theory has got just a tiny bit of good sense in it, you can be sure that sooner or later someone will do something positive with it. He's had a huge amount of PR. He's had his chance.

(2) Suppose we reduce the scope of Bell's theorem to it's mathematical core. I still fail to see how you can blame a non-existence theorem for being "non-constructive". Ever heard of "Reductio ad absurdam"? One assumes the contrary of what is to be proved and shows this leads to a contradiction. Do you have a problem with Pythagoras' proof that square root of 2 is irrational?

Anyway, this is wishing you a good time on Wikipeda. I repeat my advice to you to *read* and *understand* the principles. (The "five pillars", the definition of "Verifiability", the irrelevance of "Truth", and so on). Richard Gill (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard, you are qualified neither to give me advice on Wikipedia policies, nor lecture me on mathematical proof methods. (FYI: no proof by Pythagoras even exists for the theorem that bears his name.)  The proof for Bell's theorem, however, which is the issue here, is actually by double negation, even weaker than reductio ad absurdum -- a proof by contradiction that you only wish supported Bell's theorem. You want me to show you? -- give me the proof and I'll give you the holes. Line by line. Thomas h ray (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pythagoras' alleged proof was allegedly secret, I know. There's an elementary proof of (the mathematical core of) Bell-CHSH on my Talk page. I use it in public outreach lectures (to school children,  artists, ...). It's based on ideas from Mermin, Maassen, GHZ, and others. Ie just simple logic, arithmetic, counting. Richard Gill (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Richard, I misspoke. I meant, that proof for irrationality of sqrt2 was not by Pythagoras.  There are, however, strong  constructive proofs for that theorem based on geometry, not arithmetic, and thus do not have to assume properties of numbers, just congruence of angles.  Anyway, I'm always of two minds about you -- I appreciate your good work on the one hand and I deplore your exclusionary politicking on the other.  I am especially sensitive to its encroachment on this democratic institution, maybe more than I should be, which has got me lumped into a category of "Bell deniers," which I am demonstrably not.  Anyway, there's nothing wrong with your proof (having seen it -- thanks -- I'm reminded that I have seen it before; it's just that the method is by double negation (and I can explicitly show that), while -- just as with the proof for the irrationality of sqrt2 by arithmetic assumptions vs. geometry -- a successful constructive alternative would be stronger.  It is not sufficient to say that no such constructive alternative is possible, unless there exists a stronger proof structure for Bell's theorem than double negation.  I haven't seen one, and that's my beef about pretending that Bell-Aspect settles the question of local realism.  We need to be honest about the gaps and not gloss over them.  And that's why I think that references to the dispute belong in the article. Thomas h ray (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the metaphysical question of local realism is not settled at all! And Joy's (although in my opinion failed) attempt is just the latest in an ongoing stream, and this fact needs to be reported honestly, neutrally, and in conformation with basic Wikipedia policies. (I would prefer that common sense trumped all principles about peer reviewed primary, secondary an tertiary sources, but in society we have to agree on rules. We can change them from time to time. Or create new wikipedia's with different rules). So the article should not give the impression that the matter is now settled. There is a nice exchange between Joy and Boris Tsirelson on the latter's talk page. Boris argues that (if Joy's maths were correct) Joy hasn't disproved Bell's theorem but gone in the opposite direction: replaced quantum theory with a yet more weird theory. In mathematical terms: Joy doesn't have a counter-example to Bell's theorem: he has different assumptions. And I don't mean the domain of the outcomes of the measurement, I mean the notion of correlation. One can embed the points -1, +1 in any space one likes. It doesn't have any impact on my proof at all. Joy's innovation is his notion of correlation. I'm disappointed he won't admit this, and disappointed he won't admit to ever making an algebraic error. As Boris said, the error could be fixed. It wouldn't change anything. Since Joy has redefined correlation, he can do that again. I've several times suggested how he might do it. Richard Gill (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Richard, This is encouraging! I have never conceded "disproof of Bell's theorem" anyway, so we are on the same page.  I also have the highest regard for Boris Tsirelson and his research program, so I am looking forward to whatever that dialogue produces.  A point of note -- Tsirelson's foray into a Hilbert space model ("Tsirelson's problem") reinforces my conjecture (I would prove it if I could) that no Banach or Hilbert space formalism can explain the global nature of quantum correlations in a local measure scheme.


 * There were at least two things that first attracted me to Christian's framework when I was introduced to it: 1) the higher generalization of Euclidean space; 2) continuous non-probabilistic measure function. A mathematician tends to dismiss topological language for local phenomena right off the bat -- and I get that.  Topology describes global properties of space.  By using parallelization, however, JC manages to define a limit (S^7) to a generalized 8-dimension Euclidean space. S^3 being just one of infinite Hopf fibrations in S^7, then, allows us to "localize" measures on the manifold of S^3 -- which is the limit of our measure space, and to which S^0, S^1 (line, plane) are also parallelized.  Joy doesn't make a distinction between physical space and measure space, and I think that's a mistake of omission, because a mathematician cannot work in a continuous framework without boundary conditions.  On the other hand, I understand the reason -- I think Joy feels that such a distinction would destroy his program by demarcating quantum and classical domains.  Which it would, if the boundary condition were arbitrary.  I find that it isn't arbitrary.  I've approached the problem in several ways now, and have not found a way to escape Joy's "infamous" argument E(a,b) = - a.b.  As an input argument to a measurement function involving a continuous range of input variables from an initial condition, it's the only argument that works to reproducee quantum correlations.  Which brings us (finally) to the question of what quantum correlations are.  In answering that question, we also discover why such correlations cannot be other than local:


 * In my ICCS 2006 paper (which I acknowledge that you regard as nonsense) I refer to a continuous projection between S^1 and S^3, as a way of explaining the role of S^2 in a well ordered measurement (i.e., from a non-arbitrary initial condition). The statement is to show that the S^3 product of S^2 X S^2 is a discrete representation of a continuous well ordered measurement function.  That is, considering the parallelizable spheres which are all simply connected -- S^0, S^1, S^3, S^7 -- we find that the trivial simply connected spheres (S^0,S^1) in relation to the non-trivial S^3 produces fluctuating values on the S^2 pairs (which are not simply connected).  S^2, the 3-ball of S^3, is our space of record, i.e., reference geometry, while the measure space S^3 allows proper continuous function, time reversible dynamics.


 * The equator of S^3, on which Joy's measure results are realized, admits only solutions of + 1, - 1 and i. With the input argument (he calls it a "correlation function," terminology that I question, since it is not a mathematical function, but no matter), every measure in a bounded length of time returns either + 1 or - 1 on a "left hand" or "right hand" sphere, S^2.  That is manifestly local.


 * Because we are working in a coordinate-free geometry, however, we do not know left from right -- we only know that + 1 on the one hand guarantees - 1 on the other (all points of S^2 map to a copy of S^2 to form S^3). These are the correlations that Joy identifies with correlated particle properties -- at every scale, without boundary between quantum and classical.


 * I agree 100% with all that Boris has written on his Wikipedia talk page. Most especially with "Either you waive your author rights on the S^3/S^7 physics and kill Bell theorem, or you keep your author rights on the S^3/S^7 physics and withdraw your claim against Bell theorem."  That is precisely (although less compactly and elegantly) what I have said to Joy since Day 1.


 * Boris and you don't understand what Joy is saying and Joy doesn't understand what I am saying. I do, however, understand what Boris is saying.  Perhaps somewhere in that relation, we can reach a common understanding.  At least, both you and Boris acknowledge that Joy's work is nontrivial.  That is eseentially what I have been saying all along, too.  I'm reminded of that Pink Floyd tune that has Stephen Hawking's electronic voice intoning, "It doesn't have to be this way ... as long as we keep talking."  Here's to an increasingly productive dialogue.  (Tsirelson has an amazing talent -- no, a genius -- for reducing a problem to its essentials.)


 * Best,


 * Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.16.52 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Democracy?
I see that in one of your edits you referred to "Wikipedia's claim to be a democratic institution". I am not sure where you think you have come across such a claim, but to the best of my knowledge Wikipedia has never made any such claim. On the contrary, the policy document What Wikipedia is not contains a section entitled "Wikipedia is not a democracy". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I read that page and also the link it gives to another page which warns against a tyranny of the majority. Which is exactly what a modern democratic process protects against, and what I also warned against. One uses "democracy"(noun) to mean majority rule. One uses "democratic"(adjective) to describe limiting rules, including imposition of majority consensus on subjects that have not been debated to conclusion. Thomas h ray (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, but it is possible, on the basis of what you say, that you are making a mistake which is very common among people new to editing Wikipedia. That is the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia's primary purpose is to allow everyone to have access to post their contributions. In fact, Wikipedia is a privately owned web site, the purpose of which is to create an encyclopaedia, and allowing public contributions is a means to that end, not an end in itself. The system of allowing public contributions as a convenient way of getting material for the encyclopaedia was introduced because the original version of the project (Nupedia), which tried to use formally peer-reviewed articles written by commissioned writers, never got enough contributions. Individuals do not have a right to contribute: they are permitted to contribute as long as it seems that their contributions are helping the project, that is all. What helps the project is, of course, a matter of judgement and opinion, and obviously there has to be a process for deciding what is and what is not acceptable. That process includes elements which are in some ways democratic, but it also contains elements which are not democratic. As I said above, I am not aware that Wikipedia has ever, anywhere, made a "claim" to be essentially democratic, as you seem to think. The fundamental point to realise is that Wikipedia is, as I have already said, a privately owned web site, and how it is operated is a matter for the owners to decide. They have freedom of choice anywhere on the spectrum from fully democratic to totally autocratic. They exercise that freedom of choice in the way that seems to them to best serve their purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, James. The flaw in your thinking, however, is that when privately owned institutions accept in kind and financial contributions, they give up certain rights to control the enterprise. An institution whose stated aim is to distribute credible knowledge, yet whose practice is to cultivate majority opinion, ends up being a cult of personality and thereby loses its credibility among knowledgable people. Loss of credibility sooner or later leads to loss of in kind contributions of suitable quality for publication, along with collapse of financial support. I seriously doubt that the owners are unaware of this. Thomas h ray (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and there's the prime reason that Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source in and of itself. The policies that you signed up for are not negotiable - they might evolve, and if you're a member in good standing you can have a say in that evolution, but for now, the only purpose you may use your talkpage for is to gain an unblock.  Clearly the most recent one is going to fail - perhaps you'd like to re-read wP:5P, then WP:GAB and repair it? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It has been my consistent and demonstrably true position that I am far more important to Wikipedia than it is to me. The "only" reason you have to criticize my behavior is to boost your own outsize egos at the expense of fair play. If your choice is to turn me from a Wikipedia supporter to a Wikipedia critic, then so be it. I have done nothing wrong, nor for which I will be held to account, or shame and ridicule. I represented no threat to Wikipedia's goals and policies in the past, nor do I in the present. As I have said or implied elsewhere, I do not wish to be associated with an organization without scruples. Hopefully, you might "evolve" in your own understanding of the facts, and judge without bias. If so, I will continue to participate. If not, I won't. Simple as that. 173.162.53.225 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to administrators, this account was also mentioned in the SPI case but not blocked since it is self evident that this is Thomas h Ray, can this account also be blocked? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. Of course this is me, you child. For some reason my signature isn't taking. Block away, and impress yourself with your power. 173.162.53.225 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your signature isn't taking because you are presumably not logged in. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could it be noted that IRWolfie- has, at least according to his userpage, a bachelors degree in physics with astronomy and is a Master's student. Referring to him disparagingly as a child is defined here as an attack and is not acceptable behaviour. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't even begin to understand what you imagine the passage you attribute to Daniel Solow has to do with my comment. It is about a case where it is possible to show how to construct a solution. What I was referring to was a case where showing how to construct a solution is impossible, because there is no solution. (Incidentally, though not relevantly, the passage contradicts itself. At first, Solow appears to think that a "constructive" proof requires one to actually construct a solution ("you would actually have to go to the party and find two such people") but later he thinks it is sufficient to demonstrate how such a solution could be constructed ("or at least indicated how it might be produced"). The latter is, in fact, what mathematicians mean when we refer to a "constructive proof".) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the subject with you. The only reason I engaged you in the first place is the strong indication that you were being steered to raise the question in contradiction to your implied neutrality. Thomas h ray (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)