swansont

They are indeed equivalent mathematically, which is why you can't say one has to be taken as true and the others as false. Meaning that the view that the cat is in a superposition of states and the wave function collapses is a valid way of looking at the problem. So that leads me to think that your view is not actually what the many-worlds interpretation actually says.

Do you have a credible source for this?

Many worlds is an interpretation of QM rather than being QM theory, but if you think the cat is in one state but we just don't know about it, that sounds like a hidden variable theory, and that runs afoul of Bell inequality experiments.

No. The neutrinos are oscillating between mass eigenstates, but if there were internal structure there would have to be component particles. There's no evidence of this.

What? Information is negative, somehow?

No. Fundamental/elementary massive particles show no evidence of having any internal structure. Electron, muon, tau, and the associated neutrinos, all the quarks.

At one time, yes. But then it was discovered that neutrinos oscillate between the different “flavors” which requires they have mass. The upper limit (measured in energy) is less than 1 eV

Smallest object with mass or object with the smallest mass? Elementary particles are pointlike. Smallest nonzero mass? Probably the neutrino, when considering all flavors with the oscillations.

! Moderator Note As opposed to other times, where nobody encouraged people to conform? You need to re-form this so that 1. it's not an exercise in begging the question (i.e. establish that you have a valid premise) and 2. It's posted in the proper area of the forums. This is not a discussion for The Lounge.

! Moderator Note The discussion should take place here.

! Moderator Note Our rules on advertising discourage advertising one's own site, and encourage discussion taking place here. IOW, "details here" isn't good enough; you need to have included some discussion here, and have the link be in support of that post From 2.7 We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos.

! Moderator Note Our rules require that discussion take place here. Since the OP has declared this to not be the case, this is locked. Not at all, IMO.

Neither of these address my comment. Just another distraction.

You do realize this is a prediction, and not a report of events? (bold by me) "We expect violence could occur for weeks following the release, particularly as DVEs may be mobilized to respond to changes in state laws and ballot measures on abortion stemming from the decision," the bulletin, dated June 24, said The reports I have seen is violence perpetrated by the forced-birth people - a vehicle driven into protesters and a politician striking their opponent https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10951557/Truck-plows-crowd-pro-choice-protesters-Iowa-leaving-one-injured.html https://people.com/politics/rhode-island-cop-drops-out-senate-race-after-opponent-attacked-abortion-rally/

That was a question meant to elicit a link, not just a comment.

Where are you “hearing” this, and what would be the nature of their entanglement?

! Moderator Note We expect responses to be based in mainstream material, not something you’ve made up, and we also expect it to be relevant to the discussion.

Yes. An ugly truth that at the founding of the US, any folks other than white men were considered to be lesser beings, and that attitude persists.

Also contrary to the US position; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause 2) Laws ≠ rights The only rights mentioned in that are rights of members in the society, and only the rights pertaining to the society

Can you point to any legal document that says this? In the US there is a constitution that highlights the rights of people. That’s not the position of the US. The rights are recognized by society, but they are inherent. That was a foundational concept.

That, and it was packing by the subsequent administration.

There are a number of possible responses, but they are not compulsory responses. The right wing in the US has a manufactured outrage response of “pump more oil”

Filling vacancies that occur under administration, by following the rules, is not “packing”

And how is that related to your claim that gravity and magnetism are “synonymous”? Your posts contain far too many tangents. They need to be much more concise, coherent and relevant.

They aren’t supposed to. They aren’t elected. They’re supposed to decide if laws follow the Constitution. As Larry Flynt put it “Majority rule will only work if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper“ What this court is doing is taking away those rights. That the majority wants the rights means there is potential leverage for legislative action. But that’s blocked by some senators who don’t feel they have to bow to the will of the people. And until people vote out the bad actors, they won’t. So what? Either you have the right or you don’t. That incest or rape don’t account for all unwanted pregnancies doesn’t matter a whole lot. Those are just the most egregious cases, used as examples, because many of the barbaric laws won’t even make these exceptions. It doesn’t have to be a clear-cut choice, as long as the woman is the one making it, and not some old guy forcing the decision on someone else. The opposite side of forced birth isn’t forced abortion.