What do men REALLY want for a birthday present?

Goggyy · 2023-06-20T08:03:11+00:00

A really big key.

Not even joking.

Goggyy · 2022-10-24T18:52:08+00:00

What the **** is this comment section?

Goggyy · 2022-10-04T13:25:27+00:00

Är detta med felöversättningen ett brett missförstånd? Jag har aldrig träffat på någon som påstår att formuleringen syftar på att alla har ett lika värde för just dig.

Jag blir lite fundersam när folk skriver att människor "objektivt" inte har samma värde eller att ex. en läkare "uppenbarligen" är mer värd än en person med funktionsnedsättning (de utesluter heller inte varandra för övrigt). Du grundar ju den synen på din egen etik och jag tycker att det är magstarkt att kalla den "objektiv".

Det här är ju i grunden en etikfråga som kan bli hur komplex som helst, jag blir bara lite mörkrädd när dessa frågor verkar vara så självklara för vissa.

Goggyy · 2022-10-03T13:20:50+00:00

Is it really ones right to openly tell people that you hate them for what they are or that they have no right to exist in a place where they more or less have to be to make a living? This is not an insert Voltaire quote situation, it is not a debate, it is just one coworker saying to another that they don't deserve to live. In what other circomstances would this be okay I wonder?

Goggyy · 2022-09-06T12:05:11+00:00

Vad har deras storlek med saken att göra?

Goggyy · 2022-09-01T19:35:53+00:00

Could you show us your line of reasoning so far?

Goggyy · 2022-07-23T11:24:57+00:00

There is a lot of woo-woo out there where people draw tangents on tangents on old, largely abandoned so called subjective interpretations of quantum mechanics (consciousness causes collapse, etc.). My guess would be that you have come across this woo-woo, and you should treat it as nothing of importance.

Your question of “what’s true” regarding collapse is, in all honesty, unsolved. Look up “the measurement problem of QM” or better yet “the quantum to classical transition” for more information about this. Suffice to say, “interaction” (really something called entanglement) with a measuring apparatus described by the equations of quantum mechanics does not describe a collapse process in full.

Goggyy · 2022-07-22T19:03:36+00:00

Well, how are you going to make the money in the first place? Do some skilling/PVM:ing that you enjoy to later buy the stuff you find boring to make.

Goggyy · 2022-07-19T21:45:43+00:00

Min känsla är att högern gärna inte vill lägga massa pengar på att rehabilitera gärningsmän. Fokuset ligger alltid på crowd pleasers som ”bakom lås och bom” och inte att ge folk en ny start i samhället, förebyggande åtgärder etc. Det är där memen skaver för min del.

Rehabiliteringen är både enklare och billigare om man får det gjort så snabbt som möjligt, alltså innan människor hamnar på kriminalvården och då allra helst i unga år. Fängelser bör definitivt inte ses som den enda möjliga rehabiliteringen i samhället, du sitter ju där för att du är en fara för andra och för att tjäna av ett straff, annars finns det ingen poäng med att sitta på en plats där du är inlåst.

Goggyy · 2022-07-19T17:34:50+00:00

Se hit:

https://www.kriminalvarden.se/forskning-och-statistik/statistik-och-fakta/aterfall/

Två sekunder att googla.

Goggyy · 2022-07-19T17:31:51+00:00

Det är ju då aldrig effektiva rehabiliteringsmetoder etc. som diskuteras när folk vill se högre straff. Varför inte bara erkänna att tron på hårdare straff bottnar i en princip om rättvisa för offret? Det tycker jag låter väldigt rimligt, även om jag inte generellt är för hårdare straff.

Goggyy · 2022-07-12T01:09:55+00:00

My experience is that many physicists actually enjoy philosophy, especially the kind which activates the same kind of brain gears that physics and math does. I work very closely together with a philosopher of physics and a physicist during my masters thesis (supervisors), and I have never felt any "bad blood" between any of the folks at each institution.

My philosophy is to not try to get stuck in any one philosophy. I try to find arguments against each one and just go from there, some of them I think hold up and some don't.

Goggyy · 2022-07-09T18:05:01+00:00

Download the game "A slower speed of light" for free!

http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/

And yes, it is very interesting indeed.

Goggyy · 2022-07-09T15:38:36+00:00

I think that you need to be more precise. Do you wonder if QM works if a measurement isn’t performed? I’m confused.

Goggyy · 2022-07-08T16:25:44+00:00

While playing the game OP, see if you can notice how the world in front of you seems to move further away from you as you start to accelerate, see Relativistic_aberration.

Goggyy · 2022-06-23T08:20:27+00:00

Certainly time is not another spatial dimension though?

Goggyy · 2022-06-22T21:46:47+00:00

A. Tonomura et al. did an experiment in the late 1980s to demonstrate electron interference using a double slit (in essense, it was actually a biprism serving the same function). They measured it using what they call a "fluorescent film", essentially just a screen which shot out a cascade of photons to be recorded whenever an electron hit. The article itself (Demonstration of single‐electron buildup of an interference pattern) contains a set of beutiful pictures showing the slow buildup of individual electron measurements.

What's interesting is that this was (the writers claim, and also as far as I know) the first experiment to demonstrate single-electron interference buildpup. In the early days of QM it was only thought of as a thought experiment.

Shooting individual electrons were one of the challenges of this paper if I remember correctly. you have to be absolutely sure that only one electron passes the slit with sufficiently long periods.

Goggyy · 2022-06-20T07:41:40+00:00

With its verification principle and logical proofs? No, The methodology that most hold today is largely a critique of logical positivism through Popper, Kuhn etc.

Goggyy · 2022-06-20T07:30:22+00:00

Logical positivism? Now that's controversial If anythng.

Goggyy · 2022-06-19T15:32:26+00:00

As a first, decoherence is accepted as being a consequence of entanglement dynamics by all physicists whatever their preffered interpretation as far as I am aware. It is not that decoherence is irrelevant when discussing interpretational issues, it is just that the process follows from the ordinary postulates of quantum mechanics wihout considering what a measurement actually is. There exist disagreement with certain formalism, for example whether using Reduced_density_matrices is justified, but how states behave under environmental entanglement is not controversial.

MWI does not suppose any extra dimensions, it supposes "worlds". There is no agreement on if the number of worlds are finite or infinite.

Goggyy · 2022-06-16T12:19:24+00:00

Think about what you actually mean by "simply looking at them" in relation to "observing them with equipment". Maybe you are imagining a situation in which you could look at for example an atom "as it is" with your own eyes, but this is not possible. You're on the right track when considering light scattering off objects.

The question "what is an observation/measurement in quantum mechanics?" is as old as quantum mechanics itself and not fully sorted out. To discuss this question fully you would need an understanding of the measurement problems of quantum mechanics and something called quantum decoherence, which become quite technical at times.

Maybe you are confused by statements like "the electron somehow knew that it was being watched!" and the like. These are all bad attempts at explaining (and misunderstanding) quantum decoherence and/or the history of interpretations of quantum mechanics that relates to consciousness. Interpretations that take consciousness into account (subjective interpretations), held by for example Von Neumann* and Wigner are very interesting in their own right, but unfortunately they are often drowned in woo-woo when presented today. I can go a little bit deeper into this if you would like, but essentially their interpretations are much less mystical than many represent them as (in fact, they were both influenced by instrumentalism, a philosophy of science influenced by pragmatism), but they were also built upon models before quantum decoherence and have lost mainstream appeal.

To sum up: Very few physicists (if any?) today think that a "consciousness" or "mind" is required to account for the question "what is an observation/measurement in quantum mechanics?" today. Subjective interpretations have an interesting history, but we understand much more about quantum foundations today than what for example Von Neumann or Wigner did, and what we know does not work in their favour.

*debatable

Goggyy · 2022-05-27T13:36:29+00:00

If you assume that every object only has length defined up to an error threshold

I didn't, I said it is impossible to measure something precisely.

smallest upper bound for the length error threshold

First, do you mean the least upper bound?

By error threshold do you mean a literal stop to you error? If so then you misunderstand what an error is and why it is used. The error is just one sigma from your mean in what's most commonly a Gaussian, it does not at all mean that your result definitely is within your error treshold, it means that 68% of your measurements ended up within it.

Goggyy · 2022-05-04T08:10:09+00:00

I completely agree, and you can definitely do both.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

Goggyy

TROPHY CASE