Pierz wrote:
And it's true, you can't determine probabilities by counting branches.
Not by counting the number of eigenvalues, but by treating the
probability amplitude associated with each eigenvalue as a measure of
underlying worlds - well that was my understanding.
So you have, in
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 5:00:05 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
Pierz wrote:
And it's true, you can't determine probabilities by counting
branches.
Not by counting the number of eigenvalues, but by treating the
probability amplitude associated with each eigenvalue as a
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 3:24:08 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Consider a set-up in which a photon is polarized in the z direction, so
that we know that the particle will, with probability 1, pass through
another
OK - so the inability to be sure if someone is an idiot is just as fraught as
trying to be sure that they are intelligent, I hear you say. Sounds like the
ideal situation doesn't it! Tends to suggest that people rise only to the
heights of their incompetence at understanding whether they or
On 13 Aug 2015, at 01:06, chris peck wrote:
Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking
someone. Here's me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their
own idiot test with flying colours. lol.
Looks you are the one mocking others, ... lol.
I mean if the test
Pierz wrote:
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 5:00:05 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
Pierz wrote:
And it's true, you can't determine probabilities by counting
branches.
Not by counting the number of eigenvalues, but by treating the
probability amplitude
On 12 Aug 2015, at 01:42, meekerdb wrote:
If you think you have a sure fire way to identify an idiot...it's you.
It might be easy, for some class of beings. Perhaps, for the human, a
simple criteria is simply being adult, and for a computer, being not
yet programmed.
Idiocy reveals
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 4:35:06 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:21, Pierz wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote:
I think JC resoinded to Brent:
*I don't have a visceral
On 13 Aug 2015, at 13:15, Kim Jones wrote:
OK - so the inability to be sure if someone is an idiot is just as
fraught as trying to be sure that they are intelligent, I hear you
say.
I was saying that idiocy is easy to judge, but you can also deduce
impossible to assert (of oneself or
On 13 Aug 2015, at 18:51, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is
violated so we know for sure that in the Many Worlds Interpretation,
just like every other quantum interpretation, at least
On 13 Aug 2015, at 14:33, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 4:35:06 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:21, Pierz wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote:
I think JC resoinded
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated so we know
for sure that in the Many Worlds Interpretation, just like every other
quantum interpretation, at least one of the following must be wrong:
1)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
if that definition of you is used then the question What one and
only one city did you end up seeing? has no answer because it is not a
question at all, it is just a sequence of ASCII characters the last of
which
Once there are experience, we can only have partial consensus. Now, I know
better salvia than DMT, and the resemblance of the experience is striking.
It goes like
-30% feel the feminine presence (called lady D, or virgin Maria, etc..).
-75% feel the rotation/vortex
-67% feel the alternate
MWI is not realistic in the sense you need to define it here. I.e. you
need to assume that whether or not a photon moves through a polarizer
depends on its hidden variable and the setting of the polarizer it is
moving through, not the setting of the other polarizer or other hidden
variables of
On 14 Aug 2015, at 12:38 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
if that definition of you is used then the question What one and
only
On 14 August 2015 at 12:45, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 14 Aug 2015, at 12:38 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit of a
psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is suggested that the
substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't help but feel
On 14 August 2015 at 06:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
if that definition of you is used then the question What one and
only one city did you end up seeing? has no answer because it is not a
question at
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
after the door is opened there is no such thing as *the* 1-view.
I have explained why this is directly refuted by all copies.
So is *THE* 1-view a view of Moscow or of Washington?
a natural
20 matches
Mail list logo
