The only thing worse than leaving out an equation that will help make your point is including one where it does not. With the latter you either waste time explaining what the equations mean (which takes you away from the thrust of the argument) or lose your audience who stop trying to follow the rest of your argument.
Here the main point of his article is that the subjective nature of collapse that is inherit in the Coppenhagen interpretation is not the only game in town, so people are incorrect when they present this as a necessary consequence of QM. How would talking about equations help make his case?
I'm not surprised you get along well with all the other neighbours. If you put fifty children with Down's syndrome in a room there is going to be a lot of hugging.
I mention that example because there is probably a Turing machine with input that can be fully described in modest time by a human, but which can't be determined to halt even using the entire resources of the known universe converted optimally into a computer and run for the rest of eternity.
That depends entirely on what algorithm you try to use do determine whether the given TM will halt on the given input. Some algorithms might be able to determine it quickly, some might take a long time before finding the answer, and others won't ever be able to determine whether or not it will halt.
The point is that there is no single algorithm which will be able to determine the correct answer for all possible pairs of TMs and inputs.
You misunderstand me. I don't believe in the death penalty either. I'm just taking exception to whether one act is as morally repugnant as the other. It is bad reasoning to say the two are on the same level, imo. If you tried to convince someone who is for the death penalty by saying that you're going to lose them fast.
To me making someone feel the full effect of their actions, the people they hurt and their loved ones, is the most awful punishment there is. The best one too. If only it were simple to do that.
It's not about justification. We're debating whether one action is more immoral than another. In one corner is killing a single guilty individual for killing and maiming several innocents. In the other is maiming and killing several innocents at random. You sure are putting a lot of effort into making a simple choice complicated to keep from admitting you're wrong.
The statement "punishment is a part of justice" is not worth a reply? For Christ's sake! It's not even all that controversial. And then you cut off the discussion there.
When did you decide you must always be right and not bother listening to other's opinions? It must be so awful for you to always be so right with nothing new to learn.
Of *course* it matters whether he was right or wrong. You're comparing two actions as being on the same moral level. Killing for a perceived wrong that is false is worse than killing for a homicide that actually happened. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the death penalty.
Punishment is a part of justice. It's just a matter of how harsh the punishment and how methodically you seek justice that decides whether or not it is "vengeance".
He thought it was a lesser crime than whom? The people he had bombed? If so, he was objectively wrong. If we can't make that judgement, then there's no point in ever seeking justice in the first place.
As I understand ganjadude's suggestion he wanted the victims of the bomber to do the killing. If so then it is still much better than what the bomber did. I doubt few if any of his victims had a direct hand in killing or maiming Muslims. And definitely not him specifically.
According to every undergraduate physics textbook, the uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a subatomic particle...
What always struck me about the above statement is it seems to imply that there is an exact simultaneous position and momentum to subatomic particles that cannot be known. Maybe the truth is stronger than that - subatomic particles simply don't have precise position/momentums.
That's a great quote from a good movie. But there are other great takes on the Superman mythos in movies as well:
Grandpa: Superman isn't brave.
Angus: Did you take your pills this morning?
Grandpa: [chuckles] You don't understand. He's smart, handsome, even decent. But he's not brave. No, listen to me. Superman is indestructible, and you can't be brave if you're indestructible. It's people like you and your mother. People who are different, and can be crushed and know it. Yet they keep on going out there every time.
Yeah, I think you need one. If you're thinking of the Holy Roman Empire then that's something quite different than what is referred to as just the Roman Empire.
I believe the Roman Empire ended with the Byzantine Empire in the 1400s.
This article discusses in what situations they might use electricity, and the reasoning behind it. Using a generator to acquire electricity is viewed as being less reliant on the outside world than, say, getting it from the power grid.
Hmmmmm. Are you disagreeing with me? Because there is not one thing you wrote that argues against my point.
People who do a lot of bullying can put a lot of effort into it. Insane? Hardly. It gives them more popularity, improves their mood when they're suffering by pushing the suffering on someone else, gives them the joy of controlling their environment (the bullied), and there is very little chance they'll receive much punishment for it if any. It's quite rational behavior. Awful maybe, but hardly insane.
Also, if you're bullied and you don't get enough support from family or good friends to believe things will ever get better, losing hope is a rational response when there isn't enough evidence to suggest any is coming.
And even though photons 1 and 4 never coexist, the measurements show that their polarizations still end up entangled. Eisenberg emphasizes that even though in relativity, time measured differently by observers traveling at different speeds, no observer would ever see the two photons as coexisting.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmmm... flavor is a perception. The phrase "perception of flavor" is repetitive.
What, does no one else remember Boogie Nights? I can't be that old.
... Burma Shave
The only thing worse than leaving out an equation that will help make your point is including one where it does not. With the latter you either waste time explaining what the equations mean (which takes you away from the thrust of the argument) or lose your audience who stop trying to follow the rest of your argument.
Here the main point of his article is that the subjective nature of collapse that is inherit in the Coppenhagen interpretation is not the only game in town, so people are incorrect when they present this as a necessary consequence of QM. How would talking about equations help make his case?
Ouch.
Wow, movies must really have no basis in reality. A woman becoming interested in a guy because he's shy? In what universe?
That depends entirely on what algorithm you try to use do determine whether the given TM will halt on the given input. Some algorithms might be able to determine it quickly, some might take a long time before finding the answer, and others won't ever be able to determine whether or not it will halt.
The point is that there is no single algorithm which will be able to determine the correct answer for all possible pairs of TMs and inputs.
Who would risk looking at seven million lines of Cobol code? I'd have better luck keeping my sanity if I looked Cthulhu square in the face.
Just read The Right Stuff I see. Fantastic book.
You misunderstand me. I don't believe in the death penalty either. I'm just taking exception to whether one act is as morally repugnant as the other. It is bad reasoning to say the two are on the same level, imo. If you tried to convince someone who is for the death penalty by saying that you're going to lose them fast.
To me making someone feel the full effect of their actions, the people they hurt and their loved ones, is the most awful punishment there is. The best one too. If only it were simple to do that.
It's not about justification. We're debating whether one action is more immoral than another. In one corner is killing a single guilty individual for killing and maiming several innocents. In the other is maiming and killing several innocents at random. You sure are putting a lot of effort into making a simple choice complicated to keep from admitting you're wrong.
The statement "punishment is a part of justice" is not worth a reply? For Christ's sake! It's not even all that controversial. And then you cut off the discussion there.
When did you decide you must always be right and not bother listening to other's opinions? It must be so awful for you to always be so right with nothing new to learn.
Of *course* it matters whether he was right or wrong. You're comparing two actions as being on the same moral level. Killing for a perceived wrong that is false is worse than killing for a homicide that actually happened. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the death penalty.
Punishment is a part of justice. It's just a matter of how harsh the punishment and how methodically you seek justice that decides whether or not it is "vengeance".
He thought it was a lesser crime than whom? The people he had bombed? If so, he was objectively wrong. If we can't make that judgement, then there's no point in ever seeking justice in the first place.
As I understand ganjadude's suggestion he wanted the victims of the bomber to do the killing. If so then it is still much better than what the bomber did. I doubt few if any of his victims had a direct hand in killing or maiming Muslims. And definitely not him specifically.
I think this covers it pretty well.
I'm no fan of the death penalty myself, but calling ganjadude's request as morally repugnant as the bomber's actions is laughable.
Killing one individual in response to his murder and maiming of several innocents is a far lesser evil than what he did.
What always struck me about the above statement is it seems to imply that there is an exact simultaneous position and momentum to subatomic particles that cannot be known. Maybe the truth is stronger than that - subatomic particles simply don't have precise position/momentums.
Grandpa: Superman isn't brave.
Angus: Did you take your pills this morning?
Grandpa: [chuckles] You don't understand. He's smart, handsome, even decent. But he's not brave. No, listen to me. Superman is indestructible, and you can't be brave if you're indestructible. It's people like you and your mother. People who are different, and can be crushed and know it. Yet they keep on going out there every time.
-Angus
Yeah, I think you need one. If you're thinking of the Holy Roman Empire then that's something quite different than what is referred to as just the Roman Empire.
I believe the Roman Empire ended with the Byzantine Empire in the 1400s.
This article discusses in what situations they might use electricity, and the reasoning behind it. Using a generator to acquire electricity is viewed as being less reliant on the outside world than, say, getting it from the power grid.
Hmmmmm. Are you disagreeing with me? Because there is not one thing you wrote that argues against my point.
People who do a lot of bullying can put a lot of effort into it. Insane? Hardly. It gives them more popularity, improves their mood when they're suffering by pushing the suffering on someone else, gives them the joy of controlling their environment (the bullied), and there is very little chance they'll receive much punishment for it if any. It's quite rational behavior. Awful maybe, but hardly insane.
Also, if you're bullied and you don't get enough support from family or good friends to believe things will ever get better, losing hope is a rational response when there isn't enough evidence to suggest any is coming.
No, neither of you did because you weren't pushed enough. This makes you luckier than others not superior, as you'd like to believe.
Everyone has a tipping point. All it takes is to destroy all of a person's hope.
So I guess us thin people have to hold on to the money and the guns, or we're screwed. ;)
But yeah, apartheid as a counter-example did spring to my mind shortly after I made my post. D'oh!
That's strange. Here in the US the majority of people are overweight.
How can a majority be persecuted?
-1: Nightmares