I see that that’s inconsistent with holding onto the idea of a singular self, so I think part of the issue here is that I don’t see why I should be holding onto the idea of a singular self in this scenario
“If you want both future versions of you to consider themselves to be you then you must make your expectations probabilistic”
this is the bit that always trips me up. if I genuinely consider both future versions to be me, why shouldn’t I assign 100% probability for me experiencing each outcome?
absolutely infuriating that the English got Isaac Newton
A strange thing about this historical moment is that it is awash in talk about "eugenics" in ways that are completely detached from the logics, motivations, or battlelines which characterized the historical movement. They all involve shunting 21st century categories where they don't belong.
Im a historian of vaccination.
Every semester/year since 2015, I teach the histories of smallpox vaccination.
And every semester/year, I have had anti-vaxxers/vaccine hesitant people in my classes.
If I want to change their minds, telling them how evil or stupid they are isn't going to cut it.
one of the big problems with the "we're shifting the nature of the work to specifying outcomes" is that it presumes you already understand the problem in sufficient depth to specify an outcome (in natural language, no less, which is by its nature imprecise)
I work at a ups store and this week at least 3 customers have brought up the fact that gas prices are about to explode
work at a ups store and this week at least 3 customers have brought up the fact that gas prices are gonna explode
“who here actually knew that Platner’s wife is Jewish?” apparently the answer is no one!
I’m also probably out of my depth here though
my thought is that insofar as you use the same term /phi in both the Schrödinger equation and the collapse postulate you have a formally inconsistent theory. one way out is to say that, strictly speaking, they’re *different* terms
right, there’s no formal problem *insofar as the two rules are talking about different things*, that’s one way of resolving the problem
Unfortunately, “Yo brother, legal team confirmed we can’t work with minors rn” is an instant classic
btw when I said “Born rule” I meant more “collapse postulate”
which is what I would take it that an epistemic interpretation of the wave function does. so you can formulate the *formal problem* without referencing the ontology, and then solutions would amount to saying that the formalism misrepresents the ontology
I think I was unclear. my point was that my understanding (as a layman) is that there is a purely formal contradiction. one way to resolve that contradiction is to interpret the two rules as talking about different things
wouldn’t the Schrödinger equation be false then?
why can't you just say "*whatever* the wave function represents, we have two different and contradictory posits for how it evolves – the Schrodinger eqution and the Born rule – the second of which references something called a 'measurement'"?
Im pretty sure the USPS is the government service staffed predominantly by black folks.
These two pieces of information are assuredly unrelated.
Ballistic attacks down 90% from what? There were zero ballistic attacks from Iran this time last week.
Sorry boss, I can't work, I'm watching Kristi Noem do a press conference and she doesn't know she's been shitcanned
I, too, think tens of thousands of people should go to prison because sometimes I smell something I don't like
pretty impressed with how ezra levin & leah greenberg have done things, they set up an infrastructure for organizing & collective action and then pretty much get out of the way
so what do we think the chances are the markwayne learned he’s the new DHS director nominee from trump’s post
my writing habits are terrible, but one small hack I highly recommend: always end your writing session in the middle of a sentence
basically threatening my brain that whatever it can come up with in two hours is what gets done
one thing I tried for a while that worked pretty well (although I need to get back to it) was scheduling shorter writing sessions and treating the end of the session as a hard stop
had a clip from a newer episode of Rick & Morty pop up on my YouTube and I’m sorry to report that Roiland’s performance was in fact essential to the show
not sure their considerations would apply to this case though, since in this case the *entire* object is occluded
had a clip from a newer episode of Rick & Morty pop up on my YouTube and I’m sorry to report that Roiland’s performance was in fact essential to the show
