swansont

This ignores the population aspect I mentioned, along with probabilities. There are others that can survive and reproduce. Not very good logic. Again, your logic escapes me. It’s not even consistent with your earlier statement about the “vulnerable” and “favorite prey” of predators. Your strawman/caricature of natural selection as proposed by Darwinism is what does not exist. The actual theory is just fine.

In science “theory” has a particular meaning, quite distinct from the lay definition. A lot of important things (though perhaps not important to you) depend on it. Just trying to clarify the scope here, and from my perspective I could say the same thing. As I have no interest in the metaphysical aspects (as you say, it has no impact on the science) I’ll leave you to it.

Disney is also suing Midjourney. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/tech/disney-universal-midjourney-ai-copyright-lawsuit When the AI firms are stealing from individuals it’s hard to fight back, but the big dogs don’t like it when you steal their content, either.

Musk has his multi-billion dollar contract, so it’s not really a setback. And a link I provided earlier critiques his approach as not actually being iterative (the turnaround is too fast to actually be doing that)

You keep jumping back and forth. I commented on interpretations and then you call it a theory. When I respond to that, you jump back to it being an interpretation. See? Here you’re back to calling it a theory, and claim there’s math Let me ask this: is there any measurable difference in how a quantum system responds, depending on whether there is a conscious observer? (Like an electron changing state and emitting a photon) Some change in the interaction, or the laws governing it? I see the math, even if you don’t.

You can’t bring it into the discussion. And in any other context it’s off-topic. Where is it? Can you determine a probability without math? This is purportedly about QM, which does. You claimed it was an interpretation of QM in the thread title. But if it’s a theory, can you name another physics theory that doesn’t have math? Not being science (or being pop-sci) and being unscientific aren’t the same thing. What experiments did you run to determine the toxicity of the mushrooms? Is this supposed to lend credibility to your claims? Stereotypically it’s the physicists who overstep their area of expertise.

Moderator NoteNot if you want to continue discussing it here. Rule 2.13 If you don’t think probability is math I can’t help you and if you think you can do physics without math we have a serious problem

Some fundamental errors: “survival of the fittest” is a generalization, i.e. it’s in the context of probabilities, evolution happens with populations, and a key element is reproduction. I second the call for asking questions rather than making proclamations; IOW you can’t declare things about evolution if you don’t understand it. Given the initial trajectory, I have to insist that any further claims be backed with citations, rather than making bald assertions - tell us what a reputable source says.

It depends on the changes.

Existing interpretations don’t deal with data and only tell you how to think about QM, which fits the data. If yours “fits better with the data” you need to have math. If you are trying to agree with data but have no math what you have is a narrative. That’s quite vague and I don’t see the connection with QM

You can have different equations give you the same result, so this is too vague to give a definitive answer.

Interpretations are, by their nature, not testable. They’re interpretations - ways to think about the science, but separate from the actual theories. You use the one that you want to use. Rule 2.7 requires that discussion take place here, and that participation be possible without clicking any links.

You need to be a lot more specific here. What is the “Rev 12 1:2 sign” that has never occurred before? The sun turned dark? What day in March did this happen, and where was it reported? What, specifically, is the prediction in Joel 2? So? Yeah, tensions in the middle east is so unusual.

A FAQ that showed the number was dated 2005, but the knowledge dates back to the 1990s. Prior to that the error bars on the expansion rate and age weren’t conclusive, but the possibility that the size was larger goes back to the 1950s-60s when decent estimates of Hubble’s constant were made and the CMB temperature was measured https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/educators/programs/cosmictimes/educators/guide/age_size.html

It’s applied to classical physics, but I’m not aware of it being applied to quantum. Perhaps you could work through a simple hidden variable example of spin-1/2 particle pairs with a total spin of zero, measured along three different axes 120 degrees apart (standard example) and get the QM result.

And your friend thought this was not being considered? The observable universe has a radius of about 46 billion light-years. 46 > 13.8 We’ve known this for quite some time.

I disagree with this sentiment. People are allowed to have their own priorities. You can be negative about things they aren’t doing, but because there’s way more stuff than any one person can do, anybody can be a target. People used to attack Al Gore this way on climate change. People who fight for rights of animals being criticized for not helping humans. It happens everywhere. They don’t answer to you, and they’re allowed to pick the battles they fight. Or you can be positive about the fact that they’re doing something about a bad situation.

Since that particular cat is out of the bag, can you tell us what the idea was?

Admirable but I don’t think anyone who has already ignored the Geneva conventions and the UN will suddenly start complying.

Wait...you were the one who said you could measure it. You claimed you just couldn’t do it in a single meadurement. “The wave function is non-observable, as QM prohibits to measure it directly. You cannot determine it in a single measurement.” That’s not the wave function I referred to, though. I didn’t claim it was an observable, but since Bell wasn’t referring to the wave function, that makes this whole thing a distraction and moot. The wave function is not an “additional variable” “THE paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1] was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables.” https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf

Wenbin Zhao has been banned for reopening a closed thread and then abusing the PM system (which is not going to sway mods over to your side)

Position and momentum are observable The hidden variable in the proofs isn’t specified because it’s a general proof; it doesn’t just forbid just one specific variable So it’s not measurable but you can measure it? (And I disagree that it can’t be known with one measurement. e.g. if I have a hydrogen atom and it emits a 1420 MHz photon, we know it’s in the lower hyperfine level of the ground state. And you can prepare systems in specific quantum states.) I don’t see how it counts as a hidden variable, though, since having a definite wave function doesn’t necessarily get rid of probability. A system in a superposition, be it known or unknown, will give you multiple possible results.

You’re getting an error code; any search is currently returning this error I was noticing other glitches earlier, but have no idea why

Moderator NoteYou’re free to defend MOND, in discussion here, but rule 2.7 says, in part “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.” so your link has been removed.

Moderator NoteMoved to the trash because WTAF