Is this another free logic example? We don't minimise surprise as I understand. The brain rewards surprises in learning. Young children in particular pay most attention to novelty.

I suspect your goal was to be sarcastic and to ridicule what I said, please correct me if I am wrong. — Athena

:100:

What was the point you wanted to make? — Athena

That I think your friends and neighbours being murdered in the streets might give you something more to aim for than

screaming what they want others to think... like a horde of barbarians sacking Rome. — Athena

But it's disappointing to hear that this was your motive for protesting on behalf of the homeless. I imagine others taking part did it because it was the right thing to do, not out of an egomaniacal impulse to impose their will on others for the sake of it.

Now everyone is in the streets screaming what they want others to think, and part of not feeling heard is smashing windows and ransacking the city like a horde of barbarians sacking Rome. — Athena

Yeah, screaming "Stop murdering us in the streets" like the bunch of fascists they are :vomit:

np. Although "bullshit" is a recognised technical term here. I think Banno knows the origin.

many of the criminals who've been found to have low IQs are in prison precisely because they have low IQs — TheMadFool

And, worse, mental health problems. Most serial killers were abused as children. Most homeless people have mental health problems. This is what's sickening about people with privileged upbringings claiming a la the Monopoly effect that they're just hard-working and those left behind just don't want it enough.

I'm not sure what poker has got to do with this discussion though. — Cartuna

the temptation is to throw good money after bad, to feel pot committed. — Kenosha Kid

The analogy is with continuing to engage with someone long after you've realised they're not bound by normal debate conventions, like knowing or caring wtf they're talking about.

Not upset, just not averse to calling a spade a spade, and I've learned the hard way when to draw a line. There's an element of newbie poker involved in discussions with strangers... the temptation is to throw good money after bad, to feel pot committed. I've learned not to do that, especially with people peddling made-up physics (my field). Not personal, perfectly clinical. :smile:

That's the one I'm talking about. Bohmian mechanics. — Cartuna

Bohmian mechanics is not a collapse interpretation.

That's exactly where it doesn't come from. — Cartuna

I think the only thing to be learned here is that you parrot stuff you've heard of without any comprehension. I'll revert to my usual mode of just pointing out for the sake of others when you're bullshitting.

A measurement causes collapse though. — Cartuna

In collapse interpretations only.

This should cause EM radiation, which isn't observed in a double slit experiment with electrons, like there is no electric moment observed for s-orbitals in atoms. — Cartuna

No, it shouldn't cause EM radiation. Collapse simply changes the state amplitudes. You're back to thinking that physical properties themselves are somehow split. When collapse takes you from a*E1 + b*E2, for instance, there's no transition from E2 to E1. That wouldn't be collapse, that would be a process.

The medium in which the particle flows represents the wavefunction which litterally makes the Brownian move erratically and seemingly randomly. — Cartuna

There's no randomness in Bohm, that's the point. There's _chaotic_ behaviour: which trajectory the pilot wave forces the particle is extremely sensitive to small, hidden differences in initial state, but is deterministic.

An electron in an s-orbital has no angular momentum, and to associate spin with a continuous flow of current flies in the face of all modern conceptions of spin. — Cartuna

That's precisely where the magnetic moment of a charged particle comes from.

Perhaps there is a more fundamental theory to consciousness. — tom111

There's systems more fundamental than conscious systems. Consciousness only occurs in biological systems. One would expect therefore that a complete theory of biology would be more fundamental than any particular theory of consciousness, though one would also expect the latter to be easier to create models from.

it's a mirage of the inborn need of notion of fair share — god must be atheist

:up:

Exploring this point a bit more, one of the capacities of human intelligence is an ability to model larger social networks. So yeah I think higher intelligence, larger social models, broader application of notions of fairness.

There is just no scientific evidence the orthodox view is the correct one. — Cartuna

Obviously there is, since consensus in science is built around evidence. Where there is no evidence, there is no orthodoxy. The correct interpretation of QM is still up for grabs, but that doesn't mean that any theory is as good as any other. One example is that God selects outcomes of quantum events.

The ground state of hydrogen has no electric moment (maybe if you could shake the proton, which would imply that the state is not a groundstate anymore though, like shaking the electron), but even if it had this would not constitute evidence. — Cartuna

That is the evidence, since in hidden variables theories like Bohmian mechanics, it _should_ have a dipole moment: two charges separated by space makes a dipole.

I already mentioned this. If an electron hops erratically like a Brownian particle, you would expect an EM field to come out of the wavefunction. — Cartuna

An EM field exists whether it's static or moving. That's what charge ensures. Where do you get this stuff? Hearing Brownian motion come up makes me think you're just grabbing at physics concepts at random in order to keep speaking for the sake of speaking.

But there ia no continuous flow of current. — Cartuna

Orbital angular momentum? Spin?

In Bohmian mechanics, in the ground state of hydrogen, the electron is at rest relative to the proton. — SolarWind

That's untrue even in Bohmian mechanics. The electron is still moving, the relevant point is there should be a time-dependent electric dipole from the two separated charges.

However, the electric dipole is not measurable, since any approach of an electric charge immediately sets the electron in motion. — SolarWind

You don't need to displace anything. Emitted radiation, for instance, tells you what the dipole moment is. Anyway, Bohm himself conceded that the charge distribution would have to belong to the pilot wave, not the particle, which is tantamount to giving up on the idea of point particles (charge being the most important particle property of electrons).

Where in my text you've quoted did I say R fired into a peaceful civil rights crowd? I was talking about his second victim. — Kenosha Kid

He was trying to get R's gun off him after R had just threatened a crowd and shot a man, yes. R's defense was that he fel
— Kenosha Kid

"KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — The first man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha was “hyperaggressive” that night, threatened to kill Rittenhouse and later lunged for his rifle just before the 17-year-old fired, witnesses testified Thursday. — Hanover

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read — Hanover

:up:

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read the facts. Instead it's just a continual correction of your factual errors. — Hanover

?

Reminder:

Yes, I shot an unarmed man, but only because I was worried he'd take the gun I brought to threaten him with off me and shoot me with it."
— Kenosha Kid

Bullets has just been fired, so your insistence that R just opened fire on a peaceful civil rights crowd doesn't reference this case.
— Hanover

Where in my text you've quoted did I say R fired into a peaceful civil rights crowd? I was talking about his second victim. — Kenosha Kid

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read — Hanover

:up:

What data do you have that the Kenosha protest was mostly black? — Hanover

That he took a machine gun to a protest against police murdering black people? That the group he approached with said gun was largely black? — Kenosha Kid

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read — Hanover

:up:

It wasn't a machine gun. — Hanover

Fine, I'm pleased to report I don't know jack shit about guns.

The second person had knocked him to the ground, beating him in the neck with a skateboard and was wrestling his gun away when shot. — Hanover

He was trying to get R's gun off him after R had just threatened a crowd and shot a man, yes. R's defense was that he felt, if his gun was seized, he'd be shot with it. The judge had instructed the jury to consider only R's described perspective, and not whether R had good reason to believe that his assailant had good reason to disarm him.

Then R must be color blind because all three people he shot were white. What evidence do you have for this claim? Someone with a "D" next to their name told you? — Harry Hindu

That he took a machine gun to a protest against police murdering black people? That the group he approached with said gun was largely black? That said, I did cause a mispeak in my edit. I originally wrote "shoot people". So to clarify, he "did shoot people".

Stupid. People that think there is an active shooter typically run from the scene, not towards the active shooter. What did he expect to accomplish running at a man with a gun, if not to get shot? — Harry Hindu

And they chased him even after he proved his willingness to murder people by stopping his retreat to shoot Rosenbaum. Stupid, right, if self-preservation should override concerns about an armed murderer running about crowded streets. But maybe, just maybe Harry, these people are better than you and would risk their lives to try and disarm a murderous lunatic with a machine gun.

Yes, I shot an unarmed man, but only because I was worried he'd take the gun I brought to threaten him with off me and shoot me with it."
— Kenosha Kid

Bullets has just been fired, so your insistence that R just opened fire on a peaceful civil rights crowd doesn't reference this case. — Hanover

Where in my text you've quoted did I say R fired into a peaceful civil rights crowd? I was talking about his second victim.

Do you mean I have to stop questioning the orthodoxy? — Cartuna

No, you're not scientifically unorthodox, you're ascientific: your beliefs concerning nature are not impinged by scientific facts.

There is no scientific evidence for the orthodoxy. I defend a hidden variables view. — Cartuna

I've already given an example: the electric moment of ground state hydrogen.

what does it mean in that context? That I have a chance of ending up in following parallel worlds? Which makes it still hard to believe though that mass is conserved, but you can distribute it nicely. — Cartuna

I'm not sure you quite grasp MWI, or superposed states generally. Even if no branching occurs, and a particle's superposition of being here or there remains coherent, it still has a mass. You don't need branching or collapse to encounter issues like superposition.

The witness admitted he was shot in self defence. That is basically the same as saying (in that instance) he wasn’t guilty. I didn’t mean to imply he said anything about his guilt regarding the deaths. — I like sushi

But you did say that. And, no, the paramedic did not say he was shot in self-defence. He said he had a gun pointed at Rittenhouse and thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. Which of course he was.

It was a pretty clear cut case — I like sushi

It was a very clear cut case. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people, did so, but was acquitted by a jury instructed to ignore anything Rittenhouse did to cause concern to others.

This cognitive dissonance was imposed by the judge. By instructing the jury to only factor in R's testimony as to his own headspace, there was no room for logic, or rather no means by which a breach of logic could be a barrier to an unjust acquittal. The jurors were forbidden from considering the fact that R's second victim had more reason to suspect R -- who had a gun -- would shoot him in cold blood than that [EDIT] second victim -- who had no gun -- would shoot R. The armed R didn't even need to feel threatened by his unarmed victim (i.e. the jury did not need to make sense of that), he merely had to claim that he did. Since nothing but his claims could be considered, the judge ensured a prejudiced jury, and an inevitable miscarriage of justice.

The defense is obviously preposterous. Consider a terrorist being acquitted with the defense: "I detonated the bomb I planted in the building, but only because I was worried they'd find it and blow my house up with it." Stupid, no? But exactly the same kind of stupid as: "Yes, I shot an unarmed man, but only because I was worried he'd take the gun I brought to threaten him with off me and shoot me with it."

I'm talking about the interpretation. — Cartuna

You just asked about evidence. Try and at least follow your _own_ end of the discussion.

What scientific evidence you are talking about? — Cartuna

Check the title of this thread ;)

Why should I make an argument? I just belief it. Juat like you belief your stuff about the wavefunction. I don't see where God and evolution enter here. — Cartuna

You don't see where God and evolution enter into the realm of fundamental beliefs that conflict with scientific evidence? Curious...

I never said it did. Why you focused on that puzzles me given that I gave a blow by blow account of what I learnt from watching the trial directly after those two sentences. — I like sushi

You claim the witness said he was not guilty. That is untrue.

A partìcle can be in all places it likes. But not at the same time. Call it a fundamental belief. — Cartuna

I did, because it is. You're not making an argument here, you're just reasserting outdated beliefs. There's nothing more here than someone insisting that evolution is untrue because God made everything.

Science is driven by observation, and observations (such as the double slit experiment) do not favour your beliefs. Bohmian mechanics doesn't solve your problem either, since Bohm was obliged to move particle properties from the particle to the pilot wave to explain experimental outcomes (such as the zero electric moment of ground state hydrogen), and because the pilot wave itself is a field, i.e. a thing that's already in multiple places at once.

What we learned from Bohm was not that particles are points, but that we should keep an open mind.

But it still assigns probabilities to branching points. — Cartuna

It assigns branch widths according to the Born rule.

How can a particle be at several places at the same time and how can it be pure chance (whatever that means without a deterministic substrate) that determines? — Cartuna

The fundamental belief here being that a particle cannot be in more than one place. Remove the belief and the question vanishes. All that remains is to falsify or verify that belief.

MWI doesn't say it's pure chance. Chance plays a role only in QM interpretations with collapse mechanisms.

Try watching large portions of the actual trial. He was clearly not guilty and the guy he shot (who didn’t die) also said so. — I like sushi

No, the guy he shot who survived admitted he'd pulled a gun on him. This alone can't acquit him. For instance, of the murder of the two unarmed men.

That's exactly what I mean. But it is no literal description. — Cartuna

That's just a fundamental belief. For all we know it's spot on. (I don't believe so either, but I don't claim to know things that haven't yet been determined.)

Yes. Like. — Cartuna

It would look like Bohmian mechanics because it is Bohmian mechanics, developed by Bohm and Dirac.

My point is that the the MWI is caused by the wavefunction being seen as a mathematical entity. — Cartuna

That's not right. The wavefunction is a mathematical entity. MWI came from taking that entity as a literal description of the universe.

If it was decided back then to start a search for a deeper theory, which de Broglie proposed more or less (by means of physical pilot waves), who knows what the theory would have looked like these days? — Cartuna

It would look like Bohmian mechanics.

A socialist, an individualist and a fanatic walked into a thread...

You couldn’t point to a single soul that you’ve protected save for yourself. — NOS4A2

Are you talking about Covid, or generally? In terms of Covid, it's all about probabilities. By vaccinating myself at the earliest opportunity, I've reduced the probability of passing the illness onto others. True, I don't know who those others are, but that wouldn't ever be the point for me. Of course, I might not have saved anyone, by sheer luck. But I can't take responsibility for luck. I can fort my own actions.

If you mean generally, I think I've spent a well above average proportion of my life helping others.

Of course there is a problem, but the puerile and weak solution is to let the state dictate how to solve it. — NOS4A2

Better than letting Fox News dictate how to solve it. Unless you're an employee of Fox News.

I'd say the weakness is in not doing the right thing to protect others. Not weakness in terms of might. Not even moral weakness, or weakness of argument. Just weakness in terms of having shit for brains.

The first shot fired was by a pursuer and Rittenhouse shot back 2.5 seconds later. It was entirely self defense. — Hanover

That doesn't even match Rittenhouse's testimony.

He arguably could have been and perhaps should have been shot down by police. — tim wood

Yes, that's the weird thing. If police encountered an armed man who wouldn't disarm, they'd shoot him, and that would be fine. And R didn't want to be disarmed so shot his disarmer, and that's fine. I guess the ethic is: as long as somebody is shooting somebody.

Ah!

No, I've always been pro-vaccine and against acting to spread disease. I was a huge proponent of condom fascism during the 80s.

Here's another:

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/quantum-double-slit-experiment-done-with-molecules-for-the-first-time/4014819.article

You used to obsess about fascism and racism until the exact moment it took power. — NOS4A2

What does that even mean?

Iirc the self-defence argument was that R's first victim tried to get his gun off him, and R 'felt' that he'd be shot with it. Which is interesting. If you wish to murder someone, do give them time to try and stop you first, then it's self-defence.

So something like G = g + g S G is recursive, because you can take the whole RHS and substitute into the G on right:

G = g + g S G
= g + g S ( g + g S G )
= ...

ad infinitum.

Whereas something like

du(t)/dt = u(t)

has to be solved iteratively, but isn't expandable recursively as above. Something like that may have exact solutions, whereas G has to be solved as a power series and terminated arbitrarily.

Are all iterative processes self-referential? Maybe someone else brought this up previously. Is that the same kind of self-reference we're talking about? — T Clark

All recursive ones processes are, and calculation of the Greens function is recursive. But no, not all iterative ones.