I like it when we dismiss papers without actually reading them. Makes it much more easier. Come on HN! Keep up with the pseudo-intellectual mid-brow dismissals.
> Penrose did important work on
the nature of black holes ~40 years ago. At one point in time he was a real physicist.
> why otherwise intelligent people would be drawn to what I consider to be obvious pseudoscience.
More so; Scientific papers have structure - reading them linearly from beginning to end, just that you skip the end, may not tell you anything about what the authors propose.
The beginning (like the introduction and method stuff) generally is a build-up where you connect the contribution with the contemporary knowledge, but it is only in the final discussion and conclusion parts that you will find the argumentation.
Picture yourself reading a Hercule Poirot story by Agatha Christie, but stop reading just as Hercule summons all the participants into the living room to wrap up the story. Would you then criticise Christie for writing a bad story :) Of course, the story could be bad with weak character narratives and a lousy plot, but would you not want to know whether the butler really did it before giving up?
The comment is explicitly not a dismissal. "I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I know of quantum mechanics and QFT (standard undergraduate course load) I didn't see anything wildly misguided."
And it taught me some valuable information about entanglement.
But go ahead, keep it up with criticizing the tone.
> Penrose did important work on the nature of black holes ~40 years ago. At one point in time he was a real physicist.
> why otherwise intelligent people would be drawn to what I consider to be obvious pseudoscience.
> I didn't read the whole thing,