Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LuciferX

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 142
31
Aneristic Illusions / Re: A question for America
« on: December 24, 2016, 10:31:10 am »
Profet

32
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: December 23, 2016, 11:08:04 pm »
Spirit of Christmas extraordinarily rendered.

33
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: December 23, 2016, 11:01:08 pm »
The Internet starts eulogizing itself.

34
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: December 23, 2016, 10:52:51 pm »
Liberal arbitrariness becomes the Law.

35
Bring and Brag / Re: P3nT's Shoops
« on: December 23, 2016, 10:22:34 pm »
It's gpu output. Not even rendered. Just capped in medium. ...

That's it.  Game over.  This is me about to become a consumer again. 

36
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: December 23, 2016, 12:23:23 pm »
Liberty or death? Why choose?
It's not a false distinction.

37
Aneristic Illusions / Re: A question for America
« on: December 22, 2016, 09:13:37 am »
So this odd thought keeps wandering through the back of my mind. How many Americans thought ...
So was Armageddon on the back of ballot in flaming letters?
Not at first. After being "woke" in this reality, yes.

38
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: December 22, 2016, 09:07:21 am »
Sasha Dugin predicts the fall

39
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: December 21, 2016, 11:15:34 pm »
In a post-singularity future, the only AI's left are the ones able to consistently fabricate deep and compelling existential narratives.   One Thousand and One Nights, for robots.

40
Principia Discussion / Re: Kicking the Paranoia Trip
« on: December 20, 2016, 08:41:33 am »
Depending on the angle, maybe I'd wait to take more, and then reprint when I'm ready.  I'd like to remind myself that my mind is not as fragile as it's pretending to be.  Then, if possible, slowly transition the pattern into understanding it as a particularly irritating koan.

41
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 20, 2016, 08:17:55 am »
Cool.  Then equipment reminded me of the French "equi-page", which at least phonetically made me think "same-page".  :lulz:

42
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 19, 2016, 07:46:53 pm »
This seems to imply the information was destroyed, not occluded.  I think of it as all quanta being Janus-like, or two faced.  If you chose to look at one face, you are doing so from a particular POV, say the front, so then of course the other side is hidden.  I otherwise don't complain about not being able to see the back of someone's head when looking at them in the face?

No analogy is perfect. I just wanted to post something about chainsawing open elephants, tbh.

Yeah.  Metaphors are fluttering balls of fragrant screaming pus -- they only work for specific situations, in specific contexts, and if you don't understand the underlying analogy, fairly meaningless.

The underlying (nice one) analogy I got from it was that bit about the 3 blind monks trying to identify an elephant together.

43
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 19, 2016, 07:40:52 pm »
To complement the above, the "paradox" mainly stems from the math.  The particle* has position, and has velocity.  That's not arbitrary.  We have to choose which one we measure; the math doesn't allow for both.

This doesn't mean the universe is weird -- it means our tools to understand it aren't always up to the task.

Wait, I didn't think it was a matter of tools (scientific equipment), I thought this was somehow the way information about quanta was fundementally organized.  That is, to the best of our understanding, the maths /always/ conceals one when the other is revealed.  Or, an increase in accuracy for one probability measurement MUST result in decreased accuracy of the other.  I even got a sense that we dont have reason to believe the maths is going to go about changing that - that it is fundamentally not up to task, that the universe /is/ weird.

I suppose this is where we reiterate "less mysterious more interesting"?

Not all tools are equipment. Language is a tool for describing things. Math is a language for describing physical behavior.
Not all math is for describing physical behaviour, right?  "Pure" maths is about entirely abstract/ideal concepts.  Still working on the difference between tools and equipment (maybe a similar distinction?)

44
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 19, 2016, 07:35:01 pm »
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-4

On the subject of people misunderstanding Quantum. The author is usually good on science, but if there's something off it's better to tell me now than after I've made an ass of myself.

Tried to load it - can't - my equipment won't allow it.  I'm guessing that's kinda quantum :lulz:

45
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 18, 2016, 11:46:37 pm »
I think this paragraph in particular from the above-linked article might be helpful:

Quote
Also in 1927, Heisenberg made another major contribution to quantum physics. He reasoned that since matter acts as waves, some properties, such as an electron's position and speed, are "complementary," meaning there's a limit (related to Planck's constant) to how well the precision of each property can be known. Under what would come to be called "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it was reasoned that the more precisely an electron's position is known, the less precisely its speed can be known, and vice versa. This uncertainty principle applies to everyday-size objects as well, but is not noticeable because the lack of precision is extraordinarily tiny. According to Dave Slaven of Morningside College (Sioux City, IA), if a baseball's speed is known to within a precision of 0.1 mph, the maximum precision to which it is possible to know the ball's position is 0.000000000000000000000000000008 millimeters.

I take it is not that the sum of quanta that amounts to this uncertainty, but rather an effect that occurs as a boundary condition "at the edge" of the ball?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 142