https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRObpq4tA
Audience .... Friend's Friend's Friend. Worth a listen if you were ever a freak.
I didn't know this group. I Had a Dream live in 2013 , also good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVe6UJ3RKsM
opti: "In general, the problem encountered by Elroch and others is that metaphorical language is used to explain mathematical results and then people go and take the metaphors literally"
"So we get the ridiculous themes of there being literally many universes"
i dont think of many worlds as many physical universes. only one. but its abstract, kind of like consciousness or heat. in other words.. i think of it as an emergent from some sort of a none local "device" that include all the possibilities.
obviously it sound insane, and i dislike it. but logically its just as good as any other interpretation.
theres another idea that i do like, but it has nothing to do with many words.
the multiverse.. how do you even imagine a single universe? like a dust ball floating in nothingness? it just doesnt make any sense to me : )
Probably every concept we think of as "solid" and "real" is an emergent phenomenon, a sort of high level pattern that is very different to the underlying truth.
This applies even to time and space. It is now believed that the structure we see in our Universe can be emergent from the entanglement of states in a Hilbert space. This extends to our Universe being one branch of a Multiverse without the underlying "simple" Hilbert space structure being any more complicated than for a single Universe. "Spooky action at a distance" is the phenomenon that most strongly hints at this, with only part of the phenomenon fitting conveniently into our usual notion of events being related in a causal manner. While there is no breach of causality, you do need information outside of space-time (the impossibility of a local hidden variables explanation is proven result, by the breach of Bell's inequality).
Randomness doesn't actually average out. If you toss a coin a huge number of times, the proportion of heads will converge to a proportion (ideally 1/2) but it will not be precise at any finite number of tosses.
thats ur answer ??....just cuz ur theory doesnt work in reality isnt my problem, its urs.
OHH !....but u can always fallback on the spineless "....but w/ an infinite amount of tries it will" How in the he!! would u know that it will work w/ an infinite amount of tries ?
ykw ?....go get an Rx for some reality pills. u can probably get them at ur local psyche ward.
I think the many words theory beats them all.
Randomness doesn't actually average out. If you toss a coin a huge number of times, the proportion of heads will converge to a proportion (ideally 1/2) but it will not be precise at any finite number of tosses.
thats ur answer ??....just cuz ur theory doesnt work in reality isnt my problem, its urs.
OHH !....but u can always fallback on the spineless "....but w/ an infinite amount of tries it will" How in the he!! would u know that it will work w/ an infinite amount of tries ?
ykw ?....go get an Rx for some reality pills. u can probably get them at ur local psyche ward.
Have we gone in circles already?
Probably every concept we think of as "solid" and "real" is an emergent phenomenon, a sort of high level pattern that is very different to the underlying truth.
This applies even to time and space. It is now believed that the structure we see in our Universe can be emergent from the entanglement of states in a Hilbert space. This extends to our Universe being one branch of a Multiverse without the underlying "simple" Hilbert space structure being any more complicated than for a single Universe. "Spooky action at a distance" is the phenomenon that most strongly hints at this, with only part of the phenomenon fitting conveniently into our usual notion of events being related in a causal manner. While there is no breach of causality, you do need information outside of space-time (the impossibility of a local hidden variables explanation is proven result, by the breach of Bell's inequality).
At this high level they spookily entangle their hypotheses with their mathematical fantasies, each one trying to outdo the next and to entangle the next physicist in with their dreams. Madness gone wrong, maybe?>
The purpose of mathematical models is to predict reality. They do this very well. When you can do as well, you will be in a position to justify negative comments. Until then you are blowing hard.
OHH !....but u can always fallback on the spineless "....but w/ an infinite amount of tries it will" How in the he!! would u know that it will work w/ an infinite amount of tries ?
You seem to be quoting yourself and calling yourself spineless. I suggest quoting someone else instead.
Hilbert space is, roughly, an abstract idea of an analytical theater where complex functions (functions whose argument is a function) are analysed. It's a mathematical tool. It is natural that such multi-dimensional analysis gives rise to the fantasy that the abstract is really real.
The purpose of mathematical models is to predict reality. They do this very well. When you can do as well, you will be in a position to justify negative comments. Until then you are blowing hard.>>
Right. In my belief, a mathematical model (of an aspect of "reality") is a mathematical depiction of that reality. "Reality" is a function of existence which, you recently suggested, physics has lost faith with. But forgetting that, if we have a mathematical model and we're able to identify variables and quantify each identified variable then we can evaluate the function of the quantified variables, which is a "prediction" and of course we SHOULD be able to perform experiments that validate the prediction empirically.
My maths ability is not as good as theirs and consequently I am not a physicist. My logical ability is possibly a lot better and so I am able to point out that they are unjustifiably conflating their mathematical models with reality. There's a word used to describe that (in philosophy) and I forget it for the minute.
I have an hypothesis that is an attempted explanation as to why almost any given idea at any given time is thought to be "the nearest we have come to describing reality". I haven't tried to write down this hypothesis because it is largely intuitive and it would be difficult. But we can compare these ideas which they invest so much faith in with other ideas, which in the infinite wisdom of the Creators of this site, we are not allowed to discuss.
The purpose of mathematical models is to predict reality. They do this very well. When you can do as well, you will be in a position to justify negative comments. Until then you are blowing hard.>>
Right. In my belief, a mathematical model (of an aspect of "reality") is a mathematical depiction of that reality. "Reality" is a function of existence which, you recently suggested, physics has lost faith with. But forgetting that, if we have a mathematical model and we're able to identify variables and quantify each identified variable then we can evaluate the function of the quantified variables, which is a "prediction" and of course we SHOULD be able to perform experiments that validate the prediction empirically.
Yes, it is only the output predictions that matter to the scientific method. While predictions are untested (or even while they are incalculable, as happens increasingly!) the model is merely a hypothesis.
My maths ability is not as good as theirs and consequently I am not a physicist. My logical ability is possibly a lot better and so I am able to point out that they are unjustifiably conflating their mathematical models with reality.
All good physicists understand the difference between a valid hypothesis (such as some form of multiverse) and a hypothesis that has been tested and has the status of an established scientific theory. Saying something MAY be real (or even is probably real, if someone is really confident) is not the same as certainty that it is.
However, it is worth noting that the Everett multiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that has equal scientific status (in terms of its ability to make testable predictions about the real world). It has an elegance (of assumptions) that is appealing to many physicists who know that assuming little is a good thing.
There's a word used to describe that (in philosophy) and I forget it for the minute.
I have an hypothesis that is an attempted explanation as to why almost any given idea at any given time is thought to be "the nearest we have come to describing reality". I haven't tried to write down this hypothesis because it is largely intuitive and it would be difficult. But we can compare these ideas which they invest so much faith in with other ideas, which in the infinite wisdom of the Creators of this site, we are not allowed to discuss.
Come to Open Discussion group and open a topic if you wish. There are many varied viewpoints.
Probably every concept we think of as "solid" and "real" is an emergent phenomenon, a sort of high level pattern that is very different to the underlying truth.
This applies even to time and space. It is now believed that the structure we see in our Universe can be emergent from the entanglement of states in a Hilbert space. This extends to our Universe being one branch of a Multiverse without the underlying "simple" Hilbert space structure being any more complicated than for a single Universe. "Spooky action at a distance" is the phenomenon that most strongly hints at this, with only part of the phenomenon fitting conveniently into our usual notion of events being related in a causal manner. While there is no breach of causality, you do need information outside of space-time (the impossibility of a local hidden variables explanation is proven result, by the breach of Bell's inequality).
it wont surprise me at all if an underlying truth will turn to be the case, and i have no problem with that. it actually kinda cool. what i dislike about it, is the absolute determinism.
as for the trio of bell, the spooky, and none locality.. i wouldn't jump to mix them with 'outside space time' because within this context, none locality means something else.
now for something less pleasant..
OHH !....but u can always fallback on the spineless "....but w/ an infinite amount of tries it will" How in the he!! would u know that it will work w/ an infinite amount of tries ?
You seem to be quoting yourself and calling yourself spineless. I suggest quoting someone else instead.
you can quote me instead..
he just shows the symptoms of a narcissistic jerk. lol
Quote:
"Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder:
-Grandiose sense of self-importance. ...
-Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur. ...
-Needs constant praise and admiration. ...
-Sense of entitlement. ...
-Exploits others without guilt or shame. ...
-Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others."
There are only facile psychological reason for you to have hostility to someone who (with all due humility) has an unusual level of knowledge and experience of this precise topic (two degrees in maths, study of information theory, many years of working on stochastic modelling, plus (again with all due humility) having achieved a distinction in a course on randomness).
I fail to meet the points on your checklist, so sadly your incompetence is showing.
HiHo, perfectly put together for him....as you've listed the diagnostic criteria for NPD (cluster B) outta the APA's DSM-5 (fifth edition). he only hasta meet (3) of ur above listed conditions to be afflicted w/ this disorder. which he certainly appears to meet (more so comfortably exceeds w/ symptom).
and that's why I've always ventured that he imbibes. As it acts as 'fuel' for his disorder. sick.
HiHo, perfectly put together for him....as you've listed the diagnostic criteria for NPD (cluster B) outta the APA's DSM-5 (fifth edition). he only hasta meet (3) of ur above listed conditions to be afflicted w/ this disorder. which he certainly appeared to meet (more so comfortably exceeds w/ symptom).
and that's why I've always ventured that he imbibes. As it acts as 'fuel' for this disorder.
The quality of your judgment is revealed by the fact that I "imbide" perhaps 2 units of alcohol per month on average.
While I have an accurate understanding of what I am capable of (including, for example, quite good quality correspondence chess), my greatest respect is always reserved for the highest level of expertise (which is never me) and the body of knowledge. This is inconsistent with your insult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRObpq4tA
Audience .... Friend's Friend's Friend. Worth a listen if you were ever a freak.