Will Pearson: "Scott Aaronson, is the spin of an electron a definite property? "
The fractional spin (1/2 spin) of QM is not. In nature there is (yes-arbitrarily) clock wise or counter clockwise. A ball or an electron can only spin in one direction in relation to a previously defined direction. Spin is dynamic, referring to direction of rotation or angular momentum - not orientation which is static.
So the ancient physicists found it natural to think, "I know where the photon was... what difference could that make?"
Not, "My brain's particles' current state correlates to the photon's history... what difference could that make?" - EY
It makes no difference how a scientist's brain's particles current state correlates to a photon's history. A photon either exists or it does not exist, irrespective of any observer. While it takes an observer to remember that a photon was there and is now here (a movie), physics is only concerned with the static state of matter in a location (as in a photograph). IOW, there is only matter plus location as far as nature is concerned. Nature has no memory and therefore no arbitrary measurements of time. For motion to take place, it is necessary to have matter plus 2 or more locations, but it is not necessary for anyone to observe this happening unless one wants to make a movie of the event. If photons move, then that motion takes place weather or not there is someone there to observe it or film it.
I suggest that, like ethics, philosophy really is important, but it is only practiced effectively from within a science. - EY
YES, and this is where philosophy needs to be practiced from within a science-- in the scientific method at the hypothesis stage. When dealing with physics, the rational mind is ALL that is needed at the stage of the hypothesis. The assumptions here must first and foremost be rational, reasonable, consistent, unambiguous and visualizable. This is why objects are illustrated in the hypothesis stage, key terms are defined by the theorist, and the stage is set for the initial act. If there are no photographs, or illustrations of the actors, if there are imprecise, contradictory or ambiguous terms used or terms used inconsistently, or, if there is no clear starting point laid out, then it's back to the drawing board. If one can reasonably and rationally visualize the assumptions of the hypothesis, apply the key terms consistently and rationally, and start from the beginning, then and only then, can he or she proceed to the theory where the hypothesis is explained. At this point, anyone can form a conclusion on their own as to weather or not the theory offered is possible.
The problem of particle/wave duality could have been solved on this basis long ago. The particle wave duality violates the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle.
Likewise, but for a different discussion, concepts of time and space are incoherent as well. Why? They are: self-referring fallacy, fallacy of reifying abstractions and confusing the set with the members of the set.
Came here doing research on QM and decided to try out some ideas. I learn to swim best by jumping right in over my head. My style usually doesn't win me many friends, but I recognize who they are pretty fast, and I learn what works and what doesn't.
Someone once called me jello with a temper....but I'm more like a toothless old dog, more bark than bite. The tough exterior has helped me in many circumstances.
On the first day as a new kid in high school, I walked up to the biggest, baddest senior there, with all his sheep gathered around him in the parking lot, and slapped him upside his head a hard as I could. Barely had an effect.! He could have crushed my little body with one hand, but instead he laughed so hard he nearly broke a rib. No one ever messed with me because he put the word out -hands off his little buddy, and of course I also gained the reputation of one crazy SOB!
Being retired, I have a lot of time on my hands, and I am interested in learning as much as I can before I become worm food. Right now my interest is GR, QM and AI, but I don't understand what I know about it!
I have a request, I just returned from the V.A. Hospital. My doctor says I need cataract surgery.
I am having a hard time making a decision on what to do. How would Bayesian probability theorem or decision theory help me make a decision based upon the following information? If you would use this in your decision making process, I am willing to use it in mine. I'm stumped and the doctor's have given bad advice many times over the years anyways.
There are inherent risks of infection, failure and loss of eyesight. I could have my right eye done right away (it's ripe) but it could possibly wait a year. However, at that time I will need to have cataract surgery in my left eye as well (couple of weeks apart). I prefer not to have both eyes done at the same time.
An injury in 06 caused a retinal detachment in my right eye. I may be having a retinal detachment in my left eye (I am having flashing lights similar to like b4 my right eye detached). It took a couple of months before the occlusion started last time (after the flashing lights began). An occlusion is like an eclipse of grey. If it makes it all the way accross you are blind. The doctor couldn't see signs of detachment, but cautions me to get there right away if the occlusion begins. Once occlusion starts, surgery needs to happen within 24-72hours. Success diminishes rapidly after 24 hours.
I am a high risk for retinal detachment because of severe myopia (near-sightedness). The right eye surgery was pneumatic retinoplasty, and so I have increased risk of detachment or other problems with cataract surgery.
I am writing a novel and want to finish it b4 the surgeries because of potentially months downtime, and in case of problems or permanent loss of eyesight in one or more of my eyes.
The Doctor says that it is my chioce to wait up to a year, but that I need to be watchful for signs of my left eye detaching, and I don't want my right cataract to get too hard, which increases risk of detachment and lowers success rate from cataract surgery.
Thanx!
It bothers me how there are no replies to this quote that aren't replies to gwern's prediction comment.
He walked along the trail with all the other workers. They had toiled all day in the field, and now were heading back to join the rest just over the hill. His kind had lived and worked this land for over a thousand years. They are the hardest workers anyone has ever known. They were all tired and hungry, and it was quiet as they mindlessly shuffled down the trail. He had walked this way many times before, as they all had, without a single thought about the individual sacrifice each has made for the collective. This is the way it has always been. His large strong body moved forward with no thought about what tomorrow would bring. In fact, he didn’t think anything at all. None of them did.
Suddenly a bright white intensely hot beam of light shot out of the sky. His legs curled up underneath him as he collapsed, instantly dead. His insides were cooked and a single puff of smoke rose from his body with a pop. “Time to eat” Jimmy’s mother called from the back porch. Jimmy put his magnifying glass in his pocket and muttered under his breath, ”Stupid ants”. End of the Trail- Monkeymind
Yes, you can create risk by rushing things. But you still have to be fast enough to outrun the creation of UFAI by someone else. So you have to be fast, but not too fast. It's a balancing act.
If intelligence is the ability to understand concepts, and a super-intelligent AI has a super ability to understand concepts, what would prevent it (as a tool) from answering questions in a way so as to influence the user and affect outcomes as though it were an agent?
Downvotes shouldn't be given for being factually incorrect. That would stifle disagreement. High-quality comments can be wrong, and low-quality comments can be correct.
I would like to see more people updating their beliefs based on new evidence. Thus, I upvote such comments for now.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
The law is referring to an isolated physical system. And if...
Then how can the law apply? Configuration space is not a physical system itself but a description and is represented by vectors defined by coordinates. The coordinates in this system are forward, back, and time.
Position and velocity are dynamic concepts-a movie. In order to exist, an object must be made of matter and must have location- as in a (static) photograph.
Vectors represent magnitude and direction along a number line, therefore I take it to mean that A and B are representing particles changing location along a one dimensional line in relation to time. Physical objects can not be represented by dynamic numbers (vectors...elevation, depth and breadth) but defined by the static dimensions of length, width and heighth and located by coordinates (longitude, latitude and altitude).
If we describe our configuration space as 2 particles in relation to each other and time (and with no set limits) then our space is unbounded (without borders, that is...open) and therefore not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Further, one dimensional particles that can only move forward and backward can not exist in a 3d world. Without relation to up/down and left/right, forward/back is meaningless.
From this it is pretty clear that 0d or 1d particles can not exist.