Youtube comments of B. Xoit (@b43xoit).
-
74
-
50
-
38
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Piss Bucket Rocket Scientist It wouldn't surprise me a bit if hardly anyone caught it. Most people are willfully anti-semantic and I do not mean anti-Semitic. They work against the possibility of communicating meaning.
I advocate that in most of the situations where people tend to express a ratio using an additive percentage (i. e., situations where we are told about x percent and we are to infer a ratio equal to 1 + x/100 or 1 - x/100, e. g. interest rates, markup and discount rates), that people switch to expressing the rate as its log in centineper. However, there are some uses of percentages that should not be converted this way, but rather, should continue to be expressed in the way that is conventional today. For example, if you and I agree to go into a business where each of us contributes certain stated components of labor and/or material to produce some product that you and I intend to sell together, we might agree that you receive 70% of the revenue and I get the remaining 30%. Those should not be expressed as logs because they have to add up to 100%. But if I take out a loan from you and agree to pay interest at 5 centineper per year, that means that if the principal is p and I'm going to pay off the entire loan in one payment t years after I borrowed the money from you, then I owe you p exp(5 t / 100).
2
-
Piss Bucket Rocket Scientist Before people had calculators, and they had to do arithmetic by either algorism or abacism, multiplying large numbers was more time consuming than was convenient. This mattered, because there were circumstances when people needed those products, at least approximately. Logs were invented to ease that situation. When you have the logs of two numbers, you can add those logs, then look up the antilog of that sum, and you have approximately (often close enough for practical purposes) the product of the original two numbers that you wanted to multiply. A slide rule is an analog calculator that is based on logs. It is marked in a log scale. When you work the slide rule, you are adding distances. When you read off the answer, the scale converts the distances to their antilogs, so when you add the logs, you are multiplying the numbers that you can read off. So that explains the initial purpose why logs mattered.
One of the convenient properties of logs is that the logs of multiplicative inverses are additive inverses.
So how does this work, mathematically? A logarithm is a solution of an equation b^x = q. In this equation, "^" means "raised to the power", b is some fixed number, called the base, q is the number you want the log of, and x is its log. Any nonzero value for b will suffice to give the logs the useful properties I described above. For example, say we want to multiply some number c by another number d. Suppose we can look up log c and log d in a table of logs. Once we add those logs, we are going to look up the antilog of the sum by reading the table the opposite way. The answer we obtain that way is b ^ (log c + log d). By the properties of powers, this is (b ^ (log c))(b ^ (log d)). Consider just the first factor in that expression, b ^ (log c). Going back to my equation at the start of this paragraph, we can substitute log c for x and substitute c for q, because I said that the log has to be a solution to that equation. So we have b ^ (log c) = c. Doing the parallel thing to the other factor, tells us that our result (b ^ (log c))(b ^ (log d)) is indeed equal to cd, which is what we wanted.
It is conventional to use one of three values for b, the base. There are circumstances where people like to use 10, which makes the logs decimal logs. In a few circumstances, they use 2, which leads to binary logs. However, the best value to use in many circumstances is the mathematical constant known as e, appx. 2.71828, the base of the natural logs.
The most conventional viewpoint says that log functions map dimensionless numbers to dimensionless numbers, and that the decimal log, the binary log, and the natural log are just three different functions (although as I mentioned, any of them could be used to multiply).
When I mention "centineper", I am taking an alternative viewpoint that says we can treat log as one function that if applied to a pure number, produces a dimensioned result. If we take the binary log, the result is in bits. If we take the decimal log, the result is in decades. If we take the natural log, the result is in "nepers" or "nats", both words having the same meaning. One way to look at is that a neper is equal to one (like we can take a viewpoint that a radian is equal to one), and that a bit is some pure number or that many nepers, and a decade is some pure number or that many nepers. In this viewpoint, a centineper is 1/100 neper. So, to get the log of a number in centineper, you take its natural log, and multiply by 100. I find this unit convenient for things like interest rates, because for small interest rates, the log in centinepers is close to the conventional additive rate in %. So for example, 1% interest is very close to 1 centineper interest, and 5% interest is not outrageously far from 5 centineper interest. Consider 5% interest for example. If I borrow $100 from you, how much do I have to pay back? The answer is $105. What matters to me is the ratio of how much I have to pay back, to how much I borrowed. That ratio is 1.05. What is the natural log of that ratio? My calculator says 0.04879016416943205. 100 times that is about 4.9, not outrageously different from 5. Conversely, if the loan rate is exactly 5 centinepers, (I'd like to write 5 % neper for that), then in conventional terms it is a 5.13% interest rate approximately.
Suppose I borrow $100 from you at what we conventionally denote as 5% per annum compound interest. Suppose it is two years before I can pay you back. How much do I owe you at the end of the two years? One way to look at is to suppose that after one year, because I can't afford to pay you back on the loan, but for some reason I must, I'm going to borrow $105 from you to pay back the loan. So I use the $105 to pay back the original loan, but now I'm in debt to you for $105 and am going to pay 5% interest on that. So at the end of the second year, I owe you $105 times 1.05, or $110.25. If we had naively forgotten to compound the interest, we might have reasoned that since the interest is 5% per year, and two years went by, we should be able to multiply, and get 10% as the interest rate for the two years, which would mean you get cheated out of 25 cents. This bugs me, because the usual meaning of the word per implies you can multiply. If for example you are an exterminator and you charge $5 per raccoon removed and I want to hire you to get rid of three of the critters that are nesting in my attic, I expect to pay you $15, because of the usual meaning of per as it appears in "five dollars per raccoon removed". But this meaning did not carry over into the convention to talk about compound interest with an expression such as "5% per year". If on the other hand, we had agreed to a loan rate of 5 centinepers per year, then the two-year rate would indeed be 10 centinepers as expected.
Here's another example. Suppose I bake bread and I charge so much per pound of it. But because you are a very regular customer, I give you a 10 centineper discount. But suppose you are resellling the bread in your 'hood and your markup is 10 centineper. Then your customers are paying you my regular price for the bread.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A decibel is a tenth of a bel, and in some circumstances, a bel is a decade, but unfortunately, not always. It's one thing if you are measuring a "field" quantity such as voltage or current, and another thing if you are measuring a "power" quantity, such as power. That's how the convention for decibels works. That's why, above, I had to mention "decade" instead of "bel", because a bel isn't always a decade. But, whichever convention for the meaning of decibel applies in a given situation, it is being used as a kind of "unit" of logarithms, just as I said we can take a viewpoint that decade, bit, and neper are units of logarithms. Decibels are used widely, so I am not going off the deep end when I suggest a way of thinking in which logs have units.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wikipedia gives the general formula for dotting the sigma vector with an arbitrary unit-length vector in threespace. I don't know whether the following is particularly beautiful or interesting, but here's what I got when I expanded the elements in that general formula to their respective 2x2 representations of complex numbers as matrices of real numbers:
a3 0 a1 a2
0 a3 -a2 a1
a1 -a2 -a3 0
a2 a1 0 -a3
I observe that:
- All the a3s are on the main diagonal, and the main diagonal is a3, a3, -a3, -a3.
- All the a2s are on the counterdiagonal as a2, -a2, -a2, a2.
- The remaining elements are 0, 0, 0, 0, a1, a1, a1, a1.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is it possible to imagine, consistent with the known basic Laws O' Physics (TM), but ignoring the kaon, an hypothetical cosmos containing two regions where the arrow of time, and the entropy gradient through time, is reversed, the one region compared to the other, with, in each of the regions, information-processing entities that can remember the past and decide what to do in the future? When I say "future", I mean in the direction of increasing entropy in that region.
Can we, whose origin is the Big Bang and whose fate is the heat death, construct a time-reversed "and" gate?
Can we, whose origin is the Big Bang and whose fate is the heat death, construct a temporary arrangement in a confined space, where the arrow of time is reversed?
Suppose we build a spherical shell and suspend in the middle of it, on a stalk, a little ball. The stalk contains refrigerant lines or thermocouple wires so that by using an apparatus external to the spherical shell, we can refrigerate the little ball that is in the middle. Suppose we do that, and we also heat the outer shell. Inside the shell, the shell will radiate inward due to its blackbody radiation. The little ball in the middle will absorb this energy. Again, inward radiation. This is the opposite of the circumstance of humanity, where we live near a hot ball that is radiating outward to the relative coolness of the CMB. Does the apparatus I described create a local and temporary region where the arrow of time is reversed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many of them come from stars. If you look at some random sample of space, not much of it is occupied by stars. Most is space with just some very thin gas in it, the interstellar medium. Hence, compared to all the space that is around, a given star is a tiny ball. The photosphere of the star wants to send out photons in all directions, because the origin of each photon is random, so it can be going in one direction as likely as another. So, from the point of view of an observer in some random place like the Earth for example, the photons are for the most part radiating outward from each star into the rest of space. It would not contradict the laws of physics to find instead most of the photons heading inward toward some little cold ball, but the fact of the cosmos that entropy was clamped low in the past and seems to be unclamped in the future, gave rise to the condition where it is common to see stars radiating and not little cold balls absorbing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The Pioneer Station (DSS-11), a 26 meter polar mounted antenna was the first deep space antenna to be constructed at Goldstone. Completed Dec.1958 in time to support the Pioneer 3 mission, DSS-11 became the prototype antenna for the Deep Space Network and went on to track a variety of NASA missions including all Pioneer spacecraft, the Echo Balloon projects, Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, Apollo, Helios, Mariner, Viking and Voyager." https://www.gdscc.nasa.gov/?page_id=37
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During Chloe Cole's childhood, she was mutilated. The justification given for the mutilation turned on the notion that people, including children, have "assigned gender", "gender identity", and "gender expression". None of those three concepts is supported by evidence. But because of a religious belief in them, Ms. Cole was mutilated. Those who insinuate that human beings, rather than words, have "gender" are promoting the same beliefs that were used as the excuse to mutilate Ms. Cole, and so potentially, are promoting the mutilation of more children. People who so insinuate should take responsibility for what they are saying and where it leads.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isobar5857 A clear case of "events" is meetings. Say you and I meet in New York. That's one event. You get on a 'plane with your atomic clock and I stay put with mine. You fly around the world about four times. You land in New York and have another meeting there between the two of us. Your clock can register a different amount of time since our prior meeting than mine registers. I think this meets your definition of one of us traveling into the other's future. So, the "same events" are our two meetings, and your clock and mine register different time durations (lengths of time) between those same two events.
As to your question about the terms "past" and "present". At a given time in your experience with your clock, that time is your present. The times of the events you can, in principle, remember accurately, or read about in your journals, are your past. You might be able to predict something about your future, but prediction is not as accurate as memory, in general. Another way to think about distinguishing past from future is that in a closed thermodynamic system, entropy increases toward the future. By "closed", I mean nothing is passing into or out of it that would take away entropy.
So, this brings up a question I have been wondering about for the last 24h or so, and I don't know the answer. Is it possible to create a temporary local condition where entropy is decreasing over time? I'm envisioning a box with heat insulation around it, and in the middle is a little ball, and it's mounted on a stalk, and there are pipes running through the stalk that allow us using external equipment to refrigerate the shit out of the little ball. We plan a sequence where the box and the gas in it and the ball start out at room temperature, and we let that sit for a while, then we turn on the refrigerator and cool the ball for a while, and then end the experiment. So for a time, the flow of energy via radiation and heat conduction go from the walls of the box toward the ball, and from the gas toward the ball. This is time-reversed from a model where there is a hot ball and energy flows out from it. And this time-reversed picture is like the world you and I actually live in. We live in a space some distance from a hot ball, our Sun, and radiation flows out from that. Now in our world, it's possible to build and run a computer, and have it record events, and make decisions about what it will do in the future. But I'm pretty sure that in the cold-ball experiment I describe, it won't be possible to insert a computer in the box and have it record events from the future (what we as experimenters standing outside the box would regard as the "future") and make decisions about what it is going to do in the past. So that confuses me, because my understanding is that the past and future are distinguished from one another by a gradient of entropy over time (it's increases into the future), but it sort of seems as though the experimental design I describe creates a local and temporary pocket in spacetime where the entropy gradient is reversed. The radiation goes inward toward the little ball, which is the reverse of what we experience with the Sun, where the radiation radiates outward, so it sounds like reversed time, but I don't believe a computer or a person or other information-processing machine or being placed in the box is going to experience reversed time. So the question still confuses me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Study the issue as much as you can and try to understand what caused you to resort to abuse. Maybe you learned that from one of your parents, for example; I don't know your case (and I am not an expert, just a random person sharing ideas). Maybe tell your partner that you want to refine your pattern toward him, that you are working on it. Seek individual counseling. If your partner thinks couple counseling would work better, consider it, but maybe the best thing is for you to spend some time with individual counseling, if you can afford it, to explore the causes of the difference between what you actually do and say and what you think would be wiser or more in line with your true values. Once you have a handle on it for yourself, and why your judgement has changed, and what change you want to make in your pattern of behavior, maybe invite the partner to join with you and the shrink to talk about what all this means to him and whether there's an opportunity for both of you to make your relationship work better (according to the values of each of you) as a result of what you have learned or thought about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@happygimp0 << Do you have any study on any case that gives some realistic numbers? >> I do not.
There was a time before people had built a practical powered aircraft. The Wright brothers decided to give it a try. They had some theoretical approach to understanding flight, I am sure, plus some data on glider flights etc., and probably some other data on engine performance and propeller thrust. But they did not have any study on any case of actual powered flight that gave realistic numbers or any assurance that powered flight would succeed, because it had never been done before. Similarly, there are some people claiming engineering credentials or chemistry credentials, etc., saying that they think it possible to build breeders and "burners" that will convert those long-lived transuranics, the isotopes that have to be stored for thousands of years according to the current safety model, convert those into energy and end up with just fission products as waste, and they say these can just be stored in a room for 300 years. But with the current technology that starts with enriched uranium and puts it in oxide form (which is of course a solid) and does fission in it in that state, then when that runs down, says that everything remaining is "waste" and has to be stored, that causes problems that if you say humans should not accept those, and should judge the cost/benefit not worth it, I can likely agree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It would be consistent with her thesis to reply that the civil authorities enact policies that put convicted rapists, child molesters, and murderers in prison, and that such policies affect individual behavior to make the crimes less likely. "Should" they feel remorse? What's a "should" to philosophy and science? Feelings of remorse, or the anticipation thereof, can function as an intermediate signal resulting in a lessening of the likelihood of the crimes. So, yes, they should feel remorse. Does this mean there is "free will"? The prof. thinks she has a reasonable definition of the term, and by her definition, I think the "should" does not lead to "free will". But I still wonder whether a better definition could be articulated, and by "better", I mean, "cleaving more closely to how people commonly use the term (but without hand waving or angels on a pin head or such kinds of wordiness that lacks semantics)."
1
-
Almost every election in the US is a steal, because it uses first-past-the-post voting (FPtP). The Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders that for "One Person, One Vote" to be upheld, "the weight and worth of the citizens' votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same." Fargo and St. Louis showed that Approval Voting is practicable. As validly argued at [1], Approval Voting weighs the votes equally, and First Past the Post does not. Therefore, FPtP is now unconstitutional. Moreover, FPtP maintains an absolute rule of capital, to the exclusion of representation of the needs and interests of the people at large, as argued in [2]. FPtP is the most antidemocratic aspect of US society, even more so than the other and more often-cited vote-suppression methods.
[1] https://www.equal.vote/theequalvote
[2] https://rangevoting.org/Cash3.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can we, whose origin is the Big Bang and whose fate is the heat death, construct a time-reversed "and" gate?
Can we, whose origin is the Big Bang and whose fate is the heat death, construct a temporary arrangement in a confined space, where the arrow of time is reversed?
Suppose we build a spherical shell and suspend in the middle of it, on a stalk, a little ball. The stalk contains refrigerant lines or thermocouple wires so that by using an apparatus external to the spherical shell, we can refrigerate the little ball that is in the middle. Suppose we do that, and we also heat the outer shell. Inside the shell, the shell will radiate inward due to its blackbody radiation. The little ball in the middle will absorb this energy. Again, inward radiation. This is the opposite of the circumstance of humanity, where we live near a hot ball that is radiating outward to the relative coolness of the CMB. Does the apparatus I described create a local and temporary region where the arrow of time is reversed?
Is it possible to imagine, consistent with the known basic Laws O' Physics (TM), but ignoring the kaon, an hypothetical cosmos containing two regions where the arrow of time, and the entropy gradient through time, is reversed, the one region compared to the other, with, in each of the regions, information-processing entities that can remember the past and decide what to do in the future? When I say "future", I mean in the direction of increasing entropy in that region.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
More than one person commenting on this vid says that one can articulate the common understanding of "free will" as follows (I'm adding a bit of detail to how those commenters lay it out): We humans process information. As self-conscious entities, by which I mean, entities that tell stories about our "selves", we divide the environmental effects on our behavior into two categories. One category is the "inputs", and they consist of the stimuli that merely give us knowledge about our environment but that do not cause pain or injury and do not interfere with our ability to contemplate. The second category, called "interference", does cause or threaten pain or injury or put pressure on us to speed up or constrain our thinking and evaluating processes. So, for example, if I see a fly in the house, that's an input, and if someone has me stretched out on a rack and has put an iron on my belly and plugged it in and says I must divulge the key to my encrypted disk drive or she will let it burn me, that's interference. Free will, according to those commenters, is the opportunity to make decisions based on the inputs without interference. So, if this is the definition, it has nothing to do with whether the physical world is deterministic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Another example of the uncertainty principle is applied in astronomy. Astronomers are interested sometimes in the "apparent diameter" of a star as seen from Earth. This is the angle it would subtend if you could make out the edges of it and measure the angle. If the actual diameter is somehow known or inferred, then from that and the apparent diameter, you can get the distance, or the distance is somehow known and you can measure the apparent diameter, you can get the actual diameter. But when you look at a small or distant star with a regular optical telescope, you can't measure the apparent diameter (it isn't really apparent), because it always just lights up one pixel on your detector. So, according to what I read (sorry, source amnesia), here is what astronomers do. Stars can be microwave sources and dish antennae can pick up this radiation. Since a photon of microwaves coming from the direction of a star is overwhelmingly likely to have originated from the star, by the time that photon gets to the radiotelescope on Earth, its momentum is determined to within the apparent diameter of the star. For a star with a small apparent diameter, the momentum of a photon from it to Earth is very precisely known. Since the momentum is well determined, the position isn't. This makes the photons big and sloppy. By varying the distance between two dish antennae (one of them is mounted on rails so it can be trundled along), they can do interferometry and see out to what distance the photons are interfering with themselves. From that, they use the uncertainty inequality to infer the apparent diameter of the star.
For me, a fascinating question in connection with this measurement technique is how do they do the interferometry. I get the impression that there's a receiver at each antenna and the bringing together of information from them happens as classical information transmission, not quantum. Does that work for interferometry? How?
Another interesting dimension of the fact that this technique works is that it seems like a time reversal in a way. I'm used to hearing about experiments where a photon hits a screen and is detected to have a location, for example the double-slit experiments. From the setup of those experiments, QM cannot predict that all the photons put through the experiment will land on the screen at a precise spot. So, that's uncertainty about the destination and destiny of the photon. But in the star-apparent-diameter-measuring exercise, there is uncertainty in the origin of the photon. We think it's somewhere on the face of the star, because everything is very hot there and photons are boiling off every which way, but for a given photon, its origin isn't precisely determined. It's as though the photon doesn't know the past from the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Given that grammar arises at least once in the lightcone prior to and including ourselves, someone must have been first to have reached that ability. There is no logical reason to conclude that we are not the first. So I have established the possibility; let's proceed to the question of the probability. As at least a couple of other commenters allude to, there are arguments floating around to the effect that the arising of human-like capability as it happened in the only case we know about, i. e. our own case, depended on a long string of improbable and rare events. Evidently most of the planetary systems found are characterized by the planets within them having close to the same size within a given system, but ours is exceptional and has multiple sizes. Saturn and Jupiter seem to have changed places. Both of these gas-giants, located in high orbits of Sun, which I gather is exceptional in that most systems have gas giants near their star, clear a lot of inflying crap that would otherwise likely bombard our planet and kill most of us off so often that we wouldn't get enough breathing time to build up grammar. Then there's the chemical difficulty of going from a few amino acids here and there to a complex self-reproducing molecule or system of molecules in association with each other (something like RNA and rhibosomes). Who can be sure how rare or common that is? Then there is the transition from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic. The concentration of energy characterizing only the latter gives us enough power to think and communicate and model. Then there is the protection against cosmic rays provided by Earth's magnetic field, which in turn comes from convection within the planet. So, it seems to me that a big pile of reasons exist to doubt whether we shall ever see any sign of intelligence or life beyond the one case we know about, which the anthropic principle requires that to exist, so looking at it as a telling example amounts to the biggest cognitive bias of all time and of all theoretical possibility with respect to what degree of cognitive bias could ever occur.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During Chloe Cole's childhood, she was mutilated. The justification given for the mutilation turned on the notion that people, including children, have "assigned gender", "gender identity", and "gender expression". None of those three concepts is supported by evidence. But because of a religious belief in them, Ms. Cole was mutilated. Those who insinuate that human beings, rather than words, have "gender" are promoting the same beliefs that were used as the excuse to mutilate Ms. Cole, and so potentially, are promoting the mutilation of more children. People who so insinuate should take responsibility for what they are saying and where it leads.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SpiritsAndDemons Maybe it's the power meter itself. Put your ear right on it and see if it is louder there.
If there is not a power outage, but you open your main breaker or remove your main fuse, do you still hear it? If not, I'd say try opening half the small breakers and so on, to see which circuit the noisemaker must be on.
Usually when electrical equipment hums, it's because there are windings and an iron core and so there's a varying magnetic field, and there are loose parts affected by the field and they can be made to vibrate, and when that vibration couples to the air or the house, the hum gets propagated to where you can hear it. So for example, with a transformer or a ballast, it could be the iron laminations in the core or a steel case vibrating. Motors of course can vibrate for the same reason, because they have windings and laminations and cases, but in addition, they can make noise because they have actual moving parts and bearings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slonslonimsky2013 OK, well, you bring up a psychological dilemma that someone would face if they are accustomed to being unique but they are faced with the prospect of being copied. But the problem won't come up if the information you consist of can't be extracted from its current incarnation at all, due to technical limitations. And I think you are also repeating a concern about whether this information could be placed in another form, e. g. an ordinary computer file, or even some collection of qubits or what have you, something built by artifice. But again, I think the problem of writing the information into such a form may never have to be faced, because the prior problem, of reading it from where it is now, may well never be solved. So to me, the reading problem is the chief reason to be skeptical about the likelihood of my ever seeing the idea of uploading people reduced to practice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@politicalfoolishness7491 As best I understand the most scientifically accepted models, the universe that we can see came from one big bang, including our planet and ourselves. At first, the universe was full of quark soup or some other kind of plasma that was opaque. Due to expansion and cooling, there came a moment when space became mostly transparent, even with whatever plasma was filling it up. The plasma was hot, and so it wanted to radiate, as all hot things do; that's black-body radiation. When it was opaque, it was trying to radiate, but the photons couldn't get anywhere. Then all of a sudden it went transparent, and the photons were radiating in all directions from everywhere left over from the black-body radiation of the plasma or quark soup or whatever it was. This radiation comes to us from all over the sky as the cosmic microwave background.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I want to think that if you see a star, one particle is relating an event on the surface of the star to another event in your retina. But maybe my intuition about this is not well supported by the evidence.
I'm not sure whether this is relevant, but there is a radio interferometric technique for measuring the apparent or angular diameter of distant stars. The "apparent" diameter is not apparent in an ordinary telescope-and-camera arrangement, because the star is going to light up just one pixel in the detector regardless. Astronomers are interested in apparent diameter because if they think they know the real diameter of the star, they can infer the distance, or vice versa. The technique uses two radio dishes and one of them is on railroad tracks and so its distance to the fixed dish can be adjusted. The signals from radio receivers attached to the dishes are somehow combined to detect the presence or absence of interference. When there is interference, this indicates that the photons are big enough to cover both antennae and interfere with themselves. Even though the photon lands at the detection site including both dishes, the origin of the photon is spatially sufficiently non-determined that it could be anywhere on the disk of the star as seen from Earth. The narrower the apparent diameter of the star, the more determined the momentum of the photon is, and so by the uncertainty principle, the less determined is its position. So, the fact that this technique is practical seems to me to counter the argument you mention from Huygens Optics. Something about a photon where the light wave is interacting with detectors on Earth is saying something about the origin of the "same" photon from the hot surface of the distant star.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1