geordief

Sure ,he is a victim too.You can be both victim and victimiser/exploiter. That is the whole argument over criminality. Revenge or deterrence /example.

It is "democratic" ,just not very honorable.(they have their 4 year mandate as per the rules then pertaining) I agree with a new proportional electoral system.

Moral superiority will get us nowhere.Russia has its own circumstance and this has lead to the present triumph of the bad over the good. We too have had our dark times and will likely visit them again (our trashing of the ecosystem and shitting in our own and others' beds is less cine graphic perhaps but probably as bad as anything the Russians have done.) Loose the dogs of war and prepare to be surprised. Had Putin been successful (as most ,including myself expected) there would have been a puppet regime in Kiev within weeks and the Soviet empire would have been half way to being reinstalled. We know how that felt.Miserable and sickly oppressive but not bloody. It is his failure to date that has exposed the total moral bankruptcy that Ukraine has had to resist-and which ordinary Russians have had to endure over the period of Putin's rule. In the end we may have to thank the Russian people for cleaning up their own house -and they will have cause to thank Ukraine and its allies for not allowing the madness that characterises the Russian political system to prosper and expand.

That may be so.But another possible method of choosing the leader would be to exclude the party membership and to let the elected members (some 350 in number) choose the new leader That would be around a 1000 times lesser percentage but the elected representatives (the Tory MPs and also Parliament in the round ) would have more validity perhaps insofar as they represented their local electors. I wonder what proposals there are to make the system fairer? The Labour Party would be happy with a general election now but the Tories know that tthat would probably bring about a Labour victory and a very weakened Tory Party -so they will try to hang on .

Well ,like it or not the Tories did win the last election and it is their prorogative to choose their (and so the country's ) leader. I suppose the problem comes when this change of leader happens a lot and also if the new leader takes the party (and so the country) in a direction that the country's voters did not vote for at the last general election. I suppose the party is free to change its collective mind as events unfurl over the years but any drastic change of course should mean that they go back to the electorate.(which is probably unrealistic unless they are forced to do so)

Tiny? What percentage normally?What percentage in the most recent period? Edit:perhaps you meant to say that Members of the Tory Party make up a tiny percentage of the population? At 170,000 that would be true but Tories (meaning those who generally vote Tory would not be a tiny proportion of the public since they have been in power for much of the last 60 years.

No it isn't.If true that is scandalous.

Have you a counter example? A moment when two systems are stationary wrt each other? (There is also the saying "This too will pass" which might give comfort to the Tory Party - or the country at large right now)

See you have πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει in your profile. I like that phrase and often recall it. You didn't do Greek at any stage did you? (I did but it didn't suit me at University-I didn't want to teach for one thing as my father was a teacher and of course I had to be different to him)

I had an inguinal hernia until the spring (when I had the operation) A surgical truss **can be prescribed in the period before the operation (never used it ) I was responding to "brace yourselves" and the truss came to mind as something a bit comical. I never imagined quantum tunneling might come to my aid in my time of discomfort but ,if my other (rhs) inguinal canal pops out I will be sure to mention it to my doctor. Thankfully my own operation was very successful and with no painful consequences-not an outcome granted to everyone it seems **it works to keep the intestinal wall from bulging too much.

Sorry,that one went right through me😀

Now you are just being half- double-arsed

This? https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-entanglement-has-now-been-directly-observed-at-the-macroscopic-scale#

I dunno .I thought she played a belter.

Would a surgical truss do the job?

Was my guess at first too but iNow told me it was probably a server malfunction affecting many other forums(sciforums .com came back today as well) after a week offline)

Einstein is famously (not necessarily correctly or usefully) said to have wondered what it would be like to put oneself in the frame of a beam of light. Has anyone tried to do this wrt a quantum particle btw interactions? If we try to walk in the shoes of this "particle" is there anything in between the first interaction)its "birth" and its second interaction ,its "death"? If the particle can be seen to have a "timeline" passing through successive interactions can these be seen as metamorphosed in some way? My (philosophical?) bias is to a form of panpsychism ,which may be why I entertain these wacky ideas in the first place (but I do understand that panpsychism is ,while not necessarily semi respectable in a scientific context ,then perhaps not outside the pale entirely) Another question that occurs to me is whether there might be any connection btw the curvature of spacetime that is modeled for GR and the entanglement that is modeled for QM? Do both these models use tensor cross products to model their respective phenomena and does entanglement put one in mind of a kind of curvature(like the way that ivy grows into itself as it grows up a tree trunk)? I have only just noticed that QM uses tensors and I am unfamiliar with them but was a bit surprised as I didn't realise they were used outside GR (I assume they must also be used in all sorts of other environments that I would know nothing of)

Thanks.I think I am done with analogies but I have another question or 2 and I suppose I should start a new thread on those musings..

I think I understand. The term "ghostly presence" can ,I think be understood as a purely mathematical concept.(probabilities) Are you treating it to represent a physical reality ,or maybe just as a way to picture the model (a close analogy)** as something like a moving object surrounded by wraithy versions of itself that may or may not assume the position of king pin when an interaction is encountered? My initial feeling is that the passage btw interactions in completely empty and that the interval btw interactions may constitute something like a "unit of existence" for these simple systems but I don't understand the basics of the theory so that is just hot (or v cold) air. **after all ,an analogy is what I asked about in the OP.

What are you talking about when you say "composite system"? Is it a potentially macro system like a molecule of water? If so,how many properties could that water molecule have (if it is a good example)? And do all those properties have an "anti property" with which it is superpositioned on top of all the other property/antiproperty pairs so that ,when an interaction occurs only one of each property/antiproperty choices comes to the fore? Is it something like that you are suggesting? Edit: unless you are only talking about entangled systems.....

I am a bit hamstrung in that I feel that I am not in command of the experimental results (in order to judge how close any particular analogy approaches*) but can I ask you this? Einstein famously struggled against his notion of spooky action and looked for hidden variables but in my ,admittedly badly informed mind it seems very intuitive to me that two halves of an identical production will maintain the mutual relationship until such time as they have revealed their characteristics by interaction with another system What do you think I might be missing?It seems so simple to me**? (I can't see how ftl signals could be imagined to be a part of this -even though the practical uses of this phenomenon ho totally over my head) * but yes ,the coin analogy seems good.(but does it illustrate superposition?) **am I just whistling in the dark and believing whatever makes thinking easy for me?

Is this a good analogy? Take a word,any word. "Phantasy" will do. Suppose I use it. it has a meaning in my mind when I say it and another(indistinguishibly different) meaning if I say it the next day To the person I address it has another meaning and to a third person another meaning too (never exactly the same) If the intrinsic meanings of the words we use to represent ideas are built of of layers of context does that make them analagous to how superposition works on objects in the quantum world?

Success is defined in terms of context and whether progress is made in the intended direction( interesting that the ancient Greek word for " to sin" was , to an approximation "aparthein "** which also meant "to miss the mark" But more than one step can be considered and after a long period of developments one can reassess how "successful " one"'s actions have been. The criteria changes over time. We fought WW2 for democracy and now we have Putin,Trump et al. Should we have done better (been more successful) to have lost the war? ** a very wide approximation from ancient memory - perhaps it was "amartanein"

No histrionics either from where I was sitting, even though she was making the point that those ignorant and pitiable thugs had been incited by the (still then) "President" I think those Trumpists who can bear to watch may try to claim it was unfairly edited. If it was to any degree they only have themselves to blame. Fascinating also how we saw the tv screen as Pelosi et al tried to gather support from the National Guard (?)and how they were watching events unfold but we are supposed to give credence to the idea that Trump was not watching as well (several witnesses to the contrary )

Is that the most effective installment to date? Can anyone watch those fly on the wall scenes without being drawn in? I was fascinated by the interplay btw Schumer and Pelosi. Both under extreme pressure.