Blue_Morpho
@Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
- Comment on Don't fuck them 8 hours ago:
Someone with no books but watches Angela Collier is more educated than a person with a bookshelf of Danielle Steele.
- Comment on Don't fuck them 11 hours ago:
I like books but its media in a different form. It could be great or it could be trash. The book itself says nothing. I’d consider someone who watches the YouTube channel Angela Collier as more educated than someone who has a bookshelf full of Danielle Steel novels.
- Comment on Lord Lucifer, hear my prayers 11 hours ago:
Use of the word Lucifer to mean Satan predates Dante.
- Comment on Lord Lucifer, hear my prayers 11 hours ago:
Amway was founded in 1959.
- Comment on 4 rules of firearm safety 2 days ago:
- Comment on 4 rules of firearm safety 2 days ago:
Rule 0:
Don’t be seen with a firearm unless you are a white Republican.
- Comment on Someone made it a meme, it's got to be true. 3 days ago:
Is that Dr. Migleemo behind the poster?
- Comment on The half-assed implementations of battery charge limits... 4 days ago:
That’s really awesome. But your power setup is very unusual. Few have solar with full battery power storage.
- Comment on The half-assed implementations of battery charge limits... 4 days ago:
You are throwing away 3 watts/hr because you can afford it while ignoring the tiny environmental damage it causes.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 4 days ago:
In physics, the word observation means an interaction. An observation in physics does not mean a human with an arbitrary level of intelligence.
- Comment on The half-assed implementations of battery charge limits... 4 days ago:
I bet you throw your trash onto the street too. “It’s just one plastic cup. One plastic cup doesn’t matter.”
- Comment on The half-assed implementations of battery charge limits... 4 days ago:
Practically no power isn’t 0. It’s up to 3watts. For comparison a Pixel 10 at 100% CPU is 6.5 watts.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 4 days ago:
When the cat observes the experiment by not dying, it collapses from the cat’s point of view.
If an interaction occurs it collapses for all points of view. The geiger counter is the observer.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 4 days ago:
So only scientists capable of observing create the entire universe from moment to moment? People who are extraordinarily stupid or just sleeping don’t independently exist?
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 5 days ago:
So at what point in human evolution was one human conscious enough to have the first observation and therefore spring quantum mechanics into existence in the universe?
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 5 days ago:
I think we all understand the joke is that the eyes represent the endpoint of the observation apparatus. That is the first panel is isolated and the second panel has a detector measuring the path that the scientist then looks at.
So yeah, “eyes” don’t cause a waveform collapse. But how does a two panel cartoon with no words represent no interaction? First panel is blank?
- Comment on We're so back 5 days ago:
Marjorie Taylor Greene is crazy to suggest Ivermectin because Pete Hegseth said germs aren’t real.
- Comment on Immaculate 5 days ago:
Who is Bubba?
Every accusation is a confession.
- Comment on This will never stop being funny to me 6 days ago:
- Comment on Modern lies 6 days ago:
That’s what the Big Moisturizer Conglomerate wants.
- Comment on Some of you are too young to know what this is 1 week ago:
An oscillating doormat sounds like a great invention. Step on it and it vibrates to rub dirt off your shoes.
- Comment on Borders 2 weeks ago:
While it is nice in theory to eliminate all national borders, it’s not one wolf but a wolf pack. The pack is deciding democratically to respect the border of another pack.
Saying borders are “imposed by the state” is like a cub who ignores the pack, wanders into America and gets torn apart by nasty Americans.
- Comment on How is Alexander the Great so great he gets that name, but not so great that just “Alexander”doesn’t disambiguate him? 2 weeks ago:
I’d say it’s because Alexander is still such a very common name.
- Comment on How is Alexander the Great so great he gets that name, but not so great that just “Alexander”doesn’t disambiguate him? 2 weeks ago:
He’s asking why is it Alexander the Great but not Caesar the Great. If Alexander was so great, he wouldn’t need “the great” after his name. Alexander itself would be enough.
- Comment on Innovation 3 weeks ago:
This doesn’t seem like a daily use but specialized for running/hiking. It’s like criticizing hiking boots for being uncomfortable and hard to lace compared to sneakers.
- Comment on Random Choice in Newcomb's Paradox 3 weeks ago:
Yes they are contradictory. The computer isn’t supernatural. The premise states the computer isn’t 100% accurate. It says 99.9% but it could say 75% without changing the problem. It says 99% to simplify the scenario for the reader so you assume the computer is accurate. The premise is the computer can reliably predict your behavior. The premise is not the computer can defy physics.
- Comment on What they took from us 3 weeks ago:
Martha Stewart Living, of course.
- Comment on Random Choice in Newcomb's Paradox 3 weeks ago:
You said this:
“This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.”
The premise states the computer sets up the boxes BEFORE you enter the room. The OP states he flips the coin AFTER he enters the room.
The computer cannot change the boxes after he entered the room.
- Comment on Random Choice in Newcomb's Paradox 3 weeks ago:
. This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.
The OP said he flips the coin after going into the room. But the computer setup the boxes before they entered. So the computer knowing how you’d react to the coin flip can’t change the boxes.
- Comment on Random Choice in Newcomb's Paradox 3 weeks ago:
There’s the possibility that there’s something else at play that we don’t know, and maybe cannot fathom.
The possibility that there is something hidden that we are not aware of is why Bell’s Theorem was such a revolution in physics. The experimental proof of Bell’s theorem won the nobel prize. There are no hidden variables. Probability is fundamental, not a result of some unknown process.
The premise wasn’t that the computer was 100% perfect. It was 99.9% perfect. That is its good enough such that you should assume its correct. The premise could have said 75% and it wouldn’t change anything. Saying 99% makes it simpler for the reader to assume that the computer is correct.
The computer is not supernatural. The premise does not say the computer is 100% accurate. The premise does not say that the computer can violate known laws of physics. The premise is that the computer knows your behavior.
