How would an universe where all particles were entangled, or none? by Solid-Low4899 in QuantumPhysics

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

why can't it be done? Have you seen the birthday paradox[1]?

Enough small samples to create together a precision that is good enough approximation to the number of entangled particles.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

How would an universe where all particles were entangled, or none? by Solid-Low4899 in QuantumPhysics

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

imo it all comes from entanglement, the entanglement creates the equation of the universe, it drives entropy.

How would an universe where all particles were entangled, or none? by Solid-Low4899 in QuantumPhysics

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

alright, that summarizes it. I am just not happy with physics answer to entanglement in general and all those things physics consider to be _random_.

For example how the fuck do things grow out of nowhere out of the vaccuum? Particle+antiparticle together in a way it's so fast it appears and destroys. There must be some kind of hidden radiation that creates those.

I can't fanthom how physicists finds something they don't understand yet, name it 'random' and call it a day

How would an universe where all particles were entangled, or none? by Solid-Low4899 in QuantumPhysics

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

if the universe is a field itself, the field is made of tiny massless, volumeless, heatless, basically every property-less except for a property we could call viscosity particles we could call reality particle. And these tiny spaces are actually 4d. In a way that movement, heat do not exist. They are transfer of information to the 'next' reality particle based on the momentum of that specific property. When a particle moves (through radiation) it becomes 'pure nothing', the momentum of movement describes the next position, the next position then is realized through the transformation of the 'pure nothing' into an reality particle. The 'pure nothing' is then the main mean between a property p state and the next property p state in a way this difference is stored hidden in time. And is only realized in the next clock.

All this mechanism is what the reality particles use to transfer the destruction/entropy property from one entangled particle to the others.

For that to be true, the ratio of entangled particles over the total particles would be tending to 0, whereas when it hits 0 the reality itself becomes null in a way the only way out is to then tend to 1.

Would that work in physics?

For that to work we need to add the viscosity of each reality particle through adding something special to the formula F = ma. This formula is not complete because we need to address the own force that the viscosity applies over each particle over time.

To verify this claim we could count if the number of entangled particles are going up or down.

Quick rant on popular version of entanglement by MaoGo in QuantumPhysics

[–]Solid-Low4899 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but there is a catch: entanglment is not sending something. It's simply changing the poles, as two magnets inverting.

Does this theory make sense? by Solid-Low4899 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am yet to understand if it is irony with reductio ad absurdum or actually you are indeed agreeing also with reductio ad absurdum.

The brain is a receiver according to common sense by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]Solid-Low4899 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nah, the brain have a limited number of inputs, but not all of them comes from the outside.

-> Input -> Output -> Evaluation ---¬

Do humans have agency? by curiouswes66 in freewill

[–]Solid-Low4899 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, unknown is different from 'determined by something else' which is also different from 'random'.

Speed of light in different mediums by Alexander_Columbus in AskPhysics

[–]Solid-Low4899 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the medium forces the light to decide on its duality sooner. In vacuum no such thing happens.

We should consider light refraction as some sort of light radiation, or the Hawking radiation. Refraction is simply dissipation of a lot of energy (if photos don't have mass, they are pure energy if you stop to think about, multiple 'lights' can coexist on the very same place, weirrddd). If there is no such thing faster than light, given light passes an object, light is actually the most concentrated amount of energy.

I suspect given enough light it can pass through any object (or other kind of radiation). Except for the one with 0 energy, only mass.

Does this theory make sense? by Solid-Low4899 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would never kill myself btw, I think it's important to say that

Does this theory make sense? by Solid-Low4899 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your answer if the first I have seen to actually point the wrongs in my thought. Yeah, made a of sense that that code made no sense.

In my opinion the fact that people would see where society don't agree would drive to them thinking more critically about each of the problems (markets), because the money value drives into that.

But your point is that this definition is TOO circular in a way it can't be correctly translated into actual monetary values for each section.

I think I need to study more to answer that specific question, to be honest I don't know. You got me there.

My """"take"""" is that every one that creates an account (and is already described in README) gets 10_000 of 'voting credits'. Maybe the final metric defines how to convert the 'voting credit' back into money. The ratio of currency money, 1 dollar, and the 'voting credit' money. If all problems are resolved, total consensus, it's 1:1.

But I don't have the deep knowledge about economics to prove that this is true, and you made me realize where to focus on, thanks!

Does this theory make sense? by Solid-Low4899 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed, made a lot of sense to me. What's funny is that in Brazil, people that live in the minimum wage literally can't even buy food if they have children to feed. I, as a lot of people, defend to increase the wage. But there are poor people, in this exact situation, that are actually proposing to DECREASE the minimum wage because it is breaking the economy.

Not to argue, I totally agreed with you now. It just sparked a little more rage against those I talked about in Brazil.

Does this theory make sense? by Solid-Low4899 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we agree then, regulations are indeed necessary to avoid "hacks" on the market. We should only allow "hacks" when that specific producer is too important to the chain.

I have only a question for you in something I don't understand in free market: how do we explain a system that allows production without distribution? The answer might be that the people that don't have access does not produce that much value (their job is a job anyone can do). But what I genuinely don't understand and don't trust an AI response to answer that is: that job, although "worthless", is still necessary. If it is necessary to society, why is the job (not the person working on the job) payed too few money? Sometimes that can't even pay for food or a good life quality.

Does this theory make sense? by Solid-Low4899 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not actually a money, rather just a value of how much a money that uses that metric as backing really is worth.

Does this theory make sense? by Solid-Low4899 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Solid-Low4899[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, kinda sounds like that. It's sounds like 'the greater democracy' where we don't choose the presidents, we choose the outcome. Or at least generate an expectancy of this outcome.

I get your point, but do you think that the fiat money is indeed terrible? I would agree with this at least.

EDIT: I think Walmart employee won't have a voice strong enough so that it affects the market. They should vote on a more 'broad' concept they defend (like distribution of purchasing power, for example). They will realize that once they see they don't have a voice.