joigus

Uncertainty has nothing to do necessarily with observation, as you've been told; although no observational device can overcome its limits. 'Superstate' means nothing in conventional physics. The 'super' in superposition is to do with observables being 'fuzzy' in a way, not with known constrictions on how 'fuzy' --in that particular way-- incompatible observables can be at the same time --also called 'complementarity'. You could think of a world with superposition of states with different expected values for an observable, but without constrictions for pairs of observations. Why not?

So easily confused with extra position [?]= bilocation = "the supposed phenomenon of being in two places simultaneously"

Amen. All of this reminds me of the famous letter from Pauli to Heisenberg:

Nice.

Figured it out?! How?!

A mindless, meaningless, change in coordinates. It's a little bit like asking how much of the girth of the Earth is determined by this or that meridian. The coordinates that determine the FRWL metric (and the 'static' character of g00 ) are simply a matter of convenience.

I hope not. QFT would have to be re-thought from scratch. As said,

GR is invariant under re-scalings of time in particular. So a simple re-scaling of time would give you your desired metric. There is no physical information in this distinction. A universe for which the time re-scales as it passes is totally physically equivalent to one in which it's space that expands by means of a time-dependent expansion factor.

If you can filter information, you essentially have it all.

According to some quantum hype, you could do it with entanglement. Nice trick, @TheVat. +1 I must confess I did need a little bit of algebra. This is a cute little puzzle.

Oxymoron if there ever was one.

Lmgtfy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus

I'm glad to learn you're back. And you could certainly do worse than Fiji...

This strongly reminds me of Aristotle's nóesis noéseos, St. Anselm's argument for the existence of God, and many other similar tautological, circular platitudes that lead nowhere. Gravity does not influence the chemical bond, for example. It shapes what it shapes. The shape of the Earth, the course of a river, and so on... It doesn't shape the energy levels of hydrogen, for example.

Interesting. That would have been kinda my guess. Do you have any professional experience with AI, if I may ask?

So, IYO, it would be possible to confuse an AI system by feeding it wrong feedback?

And what determines the first guess, IYO?

I'd guess the bot is trying to guess the --statistically-- next-to-best solution...

AI is brute force on steroids. I wouldn't expect it to be particularly good at recognizing context, shades of meaning, wrong premises, weak premises, etc. I think we all are familiar with an experience like this: You're working on a problem and suddenly realise there's something wrong. It doesn't make any sense. You pause and go back. Re-read the premises. You realise you mis-interpreted a word, which was the cause of all your trouble. This ability of retracing your steps and projecting some kind of 'skepticism' on your own thinking. That's what I miss most about AI, this logically contortionist ability of the mind to turn on itself, which allows one to go somewhere else, not implied by your previous logic.

Both. Society as we know it unravels itself as having a high content of tempestuous teapots. "Attention wanted" seems to be the name of the game.

Oh, ok. I do that from time to time. Cheers!

Gluons are dressed with effective mass. They appear as massless in the Lagrangian (if I remember correctly, some people call them 'Lagrangian gluons'), but as soon as they 'get real' ( ) they acquire a mass. The reason is the non-Abelian character of QCD. Because gluons have QCD charge, they polarise the QCD vacuum. This doesn't happen for photons. Maybe it doesn't for gravitons either, but I don't know that anybody has calculated vacuum polarisation with quantum gravity, really. The way things normally work in QFT, an interaction with infinite range is effectively mediated by massless particles. Similar comments apply to W and Z for the weak interaction. But in that case masses appear also because of the Higgs mechanism. Hardly ever is Eise wrong, if at all.

Zero is not a concept that hunter-gatherers would have been familiar with. Primitive languages didn't have a word for zero. It took many centuries to be introduced by Indian mathematicians.

Sorry, you have to be more specific: https://www.acronymfinder.com/GOD.html Very fond of the good old days and the great out doors myself.

Photons are nothing like bullets.