Re: The bet. Details to be ironed out.

[Steve Presse]

Edited for clarity.

The bet. Let's iterate and then finalize.

1)  I or someone else suggest impartial Editors--tenured faculty in physics/math/or physical chemistry. R&B settle on one within 1 week.

2) I or someone else provide the selected Editor with a cover letter and 3 manuscripts. No external links to websites allowed on any doc.

3) R&B make a list of referees to be excluded by the Editor. Cap it at 5 each (journals rarely accept very long lists of referees to be excluded). The Editor promises not to send Bryan's 3 manuscripts out for evaluation out to these referees. The Editor must select faculty in physics/math/or physical chemistry as referees. These must be research active (e.g., have published at least 1 paper in each of the last 3 years). No armchair physicist.

4) Treat this like a journal submission. Bryan's 3 manuscripts cannot be edited post submission. The Editor (not Bryan) takes the feedback from all referees and ultimately decides whether a fatal flaw has been identified. Unlike other referee work, the referees are specifically asked to identify flaws (and not comment on stylistic issues, sufficient citations, formatting etc...). The referees can remain anonymous if they wish.

5) The Editor is to be identified by Sep 15th. The 3 referee reports are due back Dec 1st. The Editor's final decision is due Dec 31st. The money order to be sent by Jan 15th.

6) The bet is for X euros. The referees and editor are paid 0.05X as an honorarium from the total X.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 10:07:45 AM UTC-7 Steve Presse wrote:

The bet. Let's iterate and then finalize.

1)  I or someone else select 1 impartial Editor--tenured faculty in physics/math/or physical chemistry.

2) I or someone else provide the Editor with a cover letter and 3 manuscripts. No external links to websites allowed on any doc.

3) R&B make a list of referees to be excluded by the Editor. Cap it at 5 each (journals rarely accept very long lists of referees to be excluded). The Editor promises not to send Bryan's 3 manuscripts out for evaluation out to these referees. The Editor must select faculty in physics/math/or physical chemistry as referees. These must be research active (e.g., have published at least 1 paper in each of the last 3 years). No armchair physicist.

4) Treat this like a journal submission. Bryan's 3 manuscripts cannot be edited post submission. The Editor (not Bryan) takes the feedback from all referees and ultimately decides whether a fatal flaw has been identified. Unlike other referee work, the referees are specifically asked to identify flaws (and not comment on stylistic issues, sufficient citations, formatting etc...). The referees can remain anonymous if they wish.

5) The Editor is to be identified by Sep 15th. The 3 referee reports are due back Dec 1st. The Editor's final decision is due Dec 31st. The money order to be sent by Jan 15th.

6) The bet is for X euros. The  volunteers and editor are paid 0.05X as an honorarium from the total X.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Steve

A start, but for me I must approve the reviewers.  Also since this approach is entirely new, people misunderstand and think their misunderstanding is my error.  I will need to answer misunderstandings if raised.  Links will be allowed.  I have videos which will help the reviewers.  No anonymity of reviewers.  I want substantial contact with the reviewers.  The reviewers must prove they understand my work.  The reviewer must find a fatal error.  The editor's decision is only a recommendation.   

Stuff like that but we are premature to do it now.

Bryan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4ee441a6-369a-4d1d-8b58-c55532ba2c97n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

The reviewer has found a fatal error. Your model does not work.

End of story.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YyeupGAvhYqHBMvch1mOHDVRKt6jSqOv9PbgcdV1h5ktQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se

[Steve Presse]

Bryan, it will be up to you and Richard to decide the rules.

But as a frequent editor and referee myself I would argue that multiple conditions are unacceptable: 

1) "The editor's decision is only a recommendation. " That's not acceptable. If objective referees identify errors and you refuse to accept it, then Richard is at a disadvantage.

2) "The reviewers must prove they understand my work. " That's not acceptable. There is no way to quantify this to your satisfaction except to agree with you.

3) " I want substantial contact with the reviewers.  " Completely unacceptable! But you and Richard can argue this one out. You select the Editor and should rely on their substantial expertise.

4)  "I have videos which will help the reviewers. " What will you pay them in honorarium per hour?

p.s. I would still argue that, in fairness, Richard is at a disadvantage because you did claim Bryan that you would convince most of the community by way earlier than January. We are resorting to this necause you paper cannot get refereed in a Physical Review or other normal journal with IF>5.

[Richard Gill]

No, Bryan. You’ve already had two years for misunderstandings to be raised and for you to correct errors. You already said there are no errors. 

We settled on two years, two years ago.

Should I understand that you are withdrawing from our existing bet, but would like to make a new bet with a different time horizon? How about eight years from now? I will be 80 in 8 years. I do not want to saddle up my heirs with the responsibility of paying up while I am happily pushing up daisies, a quite real possibility. You might win but you might find it hard to get money from me.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Aug 2023, at 22:08, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YyeupGAvhYqHBMvch1mOHDVRKt6jSqOv9PbgcdV1h5ktQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

This seems quite prescriptive and deviates from the bet doesn't it?

How about one agreed adjudicator/editor ( or panel of 3) who will decide if Bryan has met the conditions of the bet.

How they do that, who they consult etc. is up to them.

Bryan and Richard could provide evidence of their case to speed up the process.

Before this happens Bryan might want to collect favourable reviews for evidence by whatever means he sees fit. 

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/51087c1a-8fe8-48c3-9204-795a32523b66n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

I am not trying to change the basic bet, just the reality that reviews are long.

I am not surprised that your angst at losing, as is clear by the number of times you bring the bet up, and just like you often twist what others say to discredit, so in this case you want to wiggle out but try to say it is me. Wrong, it is you.  I am fine. 

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

The timescale was an integral part of the bet. It was very challenging even if the science was correct.

I don't see or hear Richard capitulating on the original bet. 

Are you capitulating because you can't meet the timescales or are you going to honour it?

I think the bet was good for science and it will be valuable if it goes through to a conclusion for all to see.

In January if you need two more years, then you can settle up with Richard and I'll make a new bet with you, with a Dec 2026 deadline.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YxSQR1EYjc_xB3RQgPrVjaHChJCP6ajY65cD5OaQUy60g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark

Please read the treads. You read what you want to hear, not what is said.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Indeed, I have not capitulated on the original bet.

I interpreted some of Bryan’s recently written words as implying that he wanted to change the terms. I’m glad we can stick to Jan 2024 and get this behind us.

R.

Sent from my iPhone

On 24 Aug 2023, at 13:25, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote: