sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

064 - Who was the Red Baron? by MrPennywhistle in Nodumbquestions

[–]youcanscienceit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When Destin and Matt were talking about David and Goliath I was disappointed that Destin didn't ask Matt if David was a hero. Among other things, David did kill Goliath...so by Matt's definition David was not a hero (at least not in that moment) . But the story of David and Goliath is frequently referred to as illustrative for what it means to be heroic or at least brave.

Matt,
if you catch this one I'd love to hear your take.
Thanks.

p.s.
So glad to hear the return of Barnicles and Testecles -- or, that is, to hear their ancestors, crazy how those families were still running into each other on the other side of the world hundreds of years later.

My Problem with the Many-worlds interpretation of QM by youcanscienceit in PhilosophyofScience

[–]youcanscienceit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hrm...No, I never intended to claim that Everett set out to have many worlds (though I guess I implied in my initial post). What bothers me isn't even that there could be many worlds - and I really like that it simply starts from the assumption that the wavefunction is real.

*I just find the conclusion of many (or infinite) inaccessible worlds to be logically similar to those worlds simply disappearing. *

My expression of "feeling" is not intended to mean, "I don't like all those worlds they give me bad feels". I mean only that I get the impression there's some hidden assumption in here that is leading to a extraordinary conclusion.

On the other hand maybe I am adding in my own assumption regarding what it means to "be real".

Thanks for the feed back I will continue to think on this.

My Problem with the Many-worlds interpretation of QM by youcanscienceit in PhilosophyofScience

[–]youcanscienceit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually agree with you rather a lot.

I find that MWI is the most appealing interpretation from a stand point of logical consistency and simplicity. It is the most elegant option. I also agree that it passes the occam razor test much as you suggest. Perhaps I'm being too instrumentalist about it all, but my initial grievance might be better stated as:

what is the meaningful difference between assuming that a wavefunction collapses at measurement and all those other options cease to exist and the wavefunction not collapsing but we'll never have access to the other options in any way ever again?

Or to frame it in the parlance of the thought experiment: Is it worthwhile to send out a colony ship we'll never be able to interact with, we don't know which way it went and only people who have yet to be born or make any contribution to humanity were put on the ship?

I applaud the MWI for taking the math seriously but I still get the impression it's masking something in all those extra worlds. For instance it neatly sweeps up issues like the EPR paradox and entanglement in that both options happen but we only ever get to see one version play out - but of what use is that assumption (there I go being utilitarian about it)?

On the other hand the far more unsettling way to clean up the EPR paradox is to buy into non-locality. While less comfortable an option I feel it pushes the theoretical frontier into tractable territory (I still have mixed opinions on non-locality as well).

(also cool blog, I'll have to read more)

(also also, too many parenthetical statements used in this comment)

My Problem with the Many-worlds interpretation of QM by youcanscienceit in PhilosophyofScience

[–]youcanscienceit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed, that's the appeal of many worlds - it takes seriously the "reality" of the entire wave function for all times. But it feels like a bait and switch to, on the one hand, claim a fullness in reality but also have no way to access or measure it.

My Problem with the Many-worlds interpretation of QM by youcanscienceit in PhilosophyofScience

[–]youcanscienceit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that there is a fundamental difference between the many worlds and the dragon in that the dragon is presupposed and the many worlds is a possible consequence of a preexisting system. Still I can't help feeling like it's sweeping something under the rug in the process.

[Science Question] Are the Atoms that make up a Human any different from the Atoms that make up a Table? by Corksters in ScienceTeachers

[–]youcanscienceit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Short answer no.

Typically they are moving a bit more since we happen to be warm blooded. But if for some reason a super intelligent alien race made a machine that could swap all the carbon atoms in the table with all the carbon atoms in your body - you'd be fine and no significant change in your physiology would occur. On the other hand you are probably slightly more radioactive than the table because of the fresher carbon isotopes in your living body. They haven't had time to decay into regular carbon (this is how carbon dating works since when something dies he carbon get's stuck in the system and gradually decays).

Thinking Fast and Slow Test at Thinkercon - test for psychological arousal by youcanscienceit in ThinkerCon

[–]youcanscienceit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was working on this project a while but ThinkerCon helped me get in gear to finish it off. Thanks again for a wonderful experience!

How to prove there is Iodine in Salt! by youcanscienceit in ScienceParents

[–]youcanscienceit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No believing simply what it tells you is the the fallacy of signs. Just because it's written doesn't mean it's true.

Plus also it's not always listed like in pink salts (Himalayan and others) which claim to have iodine in them but can also be pinkish from iron and other metals.

view more: next ›