Paradigmattic Responsibility

[Ambassador KAOS]

you are responsible for your actions, but it's my duty to determine how I respond and how I percieve/measure the incident.

Do I call the cops? Do I give you fifty dollars? Do I kick you in the junk? Do I cower like an emo child?

How I react is up to me.  Certainly the origin of the information stemmed to you, but the type of reaction I have is my choice. 

Key: Don't be a slave to your emotions, have some mental endurance.

further: build mental end. through training (just like physical endurance); cut the head off, grows back harder and all that jazz.

[P3nT4gR4m]

LOL - you think this board's reaction to you is emotional?

No wonder you don't get it 

I could be nice to you at the drop of a hat.

Emotion don't even enter into it.

You made yourself a target.

Hitting targets is what life is all about.

[Cain]

Hitting targets is what life is all about.

Have you been going to management seminars again?

[Triple Zero]

How I react is up to me.  Certainly the origin of the information stemmed to you, but the type of reaction I have is my choice. 

Key: Don't be a slave to your emotions, have some mental endurance.

further: build mental end. through training (just like physical endurance); cut the head off, grows back harder and all that jazz.

LOL now he's telling Silly how to control his emotions 

this keeps getting better and better

[B_M_W]

How I react is up to me.  Certainly the origin of the information stemmed to you, but the type of reaction I have is my choice. 

Key: Don't be a slave to your emotions, have some mental endurance.

further: build mental end. through training (just like physical endurance); cut the head off, grows back harder and all that jazz.

LOL now he's telling Silly how to control his emotions 

this keeps getting better and better

Hes in the kiddie sandbox, and we're the kids playing on the swings.

[LMNO]

A little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever

Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.




While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?

1) I'll see what I can dig up.  I read on that whoel thing over a year ago it was mixed in with the reading on einstein and philosophy, I think it had something to do with how the perception of the speed f light occurs.  There's bound to be several documents on it somewhere.

2) Decoherance theories are never "proven" because it is their nature to be mutually exclusive of the ability to be proven.  It's like talking about the aether, you can't find it because it's ever present, further, if moving to another world, one wouldn't necessarilly detect the difference.  you may be slipping through different points in extradimensional space already. 

Everett does however hold up to shroedenger's cat which is pretty much the deffault test for barstool subjectivity.

Seems reasonable enough, you already do it with time and space as it is.

Decoherance simply states that although you weren't there to hear it, the tree that fell in the woods did indeed make a sound and this is apparent with butterfly effect, sooner or later it will relate back to you, just not necessarilly how you might imagine.

1. You won't find it, because it's bullshit.

2. So, your argument is based upon something that cannot be proven. 

3. Schrodinger's cat doesn't say that the cat is both alive and dead before we observe it; it says that the equations alone can't tell us if it is dead or alive.

Schr??dinger's Cat
Quantum theory does not tell all we would like to know about things. It does not attempt to describe "things" at all, only their potential impact on our senses (or on any other registration device). Physicists like to theorize about simple systems that are conveniently isolated (more or less) from their surroundings, such as a single electron moving about an atomic nucleus. But real things can be large and complicated.

Schr??dinger envisioned a wave function for a cat to emphasize the absurd inadequacy of the quantum viewpoint. The 'wave function' does not have to look at all like a wave. Its key feature is a list of probabilities for registrations corresponding to a set of well-defined events ,Äì one probability for each event. For the cat the events are determinations that the animal is dead or alive.

Schr??dinger imagined a cat confined to a box containing a flask of poisonous vapor linked to an apparatus that would smash the flask when a detector clicked in response to the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Radioactive decays occur at random with a characteristic average time ,Äì the "half-life." After the lid is closed, you wait one half-life. At that time, quantum theory implies a wave function that gives the cat a 50% chance of being observed alive when you open the box. Well, is the cat dead or not? The wave function does not judge.

To Schr??dinger, that is a ridiculous state of affairs. Obviously the wave function could not be telling everything about the cat. Quantum theory appears to be saying that until the box is opened the cat is in a smeared-out state, a superposition of possibilities, in this case half dead and half alive. Your act of opening the box appears to resolve the situation. Does your act decide the cat's fate? Must you bear responsibility?

No. The wave function does not pretend to describe the cat. The information it contains is about measurement probabilities, not entirely about what causes them. The cat's fate is sealed as soon as a radioactive emission effects an irreversible consequence in the world ,Äì certainly by the time the first detector clicks. We simply do not know what has happened until we open the box. If we want to reassure ourselves that our action did not kill the cat, then we can perform an autopsy to determine the instant of demise.

4. Decohenrence doesn't offer a mechanism for explaining an actual wave collapse, only it's appearance. 

[Ambassador KAOS]

LOL - you think this board's reaction to you is emotional?

No wonder you don't get it 

I could be nice to you at the drop of a hat.

Emotion don't even enter into it.

You made yourself a target.

Hitting targets is what life is all about.

I only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO.  Not everyone here is ruled by there emotions, but many fly off the handle over a silly post on the internet, ON THE FREAKING INTERNET!!!! (LOL)

I wasn't presuming you'd feel that my comments about being ruled by emotions would be applied to you specifically silly as I have yet to see any evidence that you would let an internet post ruin your day (also addressing BMW's accusation there).

French Toast.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO.  Not everyone here is ruled by there emotions, but many fly off the handle over a silly post on the internet, ON THE FREAKING INTERNET!!!! (LOL)

My hatred for you is pretty clinical.  I don't know you, after all...I just hate everything you stand for.

I wasn't presuming you'd feel that my comments about being ruled by emotions would be applied to you specifically silly as I have yet to see any evidence that you would let an internet post ruin your day (also addressing BMW's accusation there).

So, who WERE you talking about, Luke?

French Toast.

Still trying that lame-ass dadaism, I see.   

[Triple Zero]

I only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO.

where did you get this idea?

you sign up here, and you become a target for the time you act like an idiot. no longer and definitely no shorter.

if you only wanted to be a target for two weeks you shoulda stopped acting like an idiot after two weeks, or stop posting/delete your account after two weeks.

where did you get the idea we would let you off after two weeks, just because two weeks were over? if we would stop calling people on their bullshit simply for the fact they've been posting for two weeks this board would turn into an unrecognizable soap box shouting contest before you can say "what".

no man, time has nothing to do with it. nor does postcount. just the content of your (new, current, and also past) posts. nothing more and nothing less.

[The Littlest Ubermensch]

@ AKK's faux physicist subjectivist suchlike: 

@ all the other stuff going on:

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I only signed up for being a target for two weeks, after that the trend just continued, or rather, worsened IMO.

where did you get this idea?

Well, see, now he's going to tell us that he's acted like a total shithead ON PURPOSE.

Because he's outlandish.

[Cain]

SocioLOLgical experiment!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

SocioLOLgical experiment!

Goddamn, AKK is a fucking shithead.

That's the problem with being a "weird" religion.  You attract the USELESS freaks, too.

[Ambassador KAOS]