I am not sure how he would ever be able to prove this.
Yeah. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
My head hurts now....
The “statists” need a space where the laws of physics, and the laws of economics do not apply. Let’s hope they all move there. I think it is near Berkley.
Ping....
Proof is left as an exercise to the reader.
I was just about to write all that stuff myself, but I went and made myself a sandwich instead.
Darn.
This is also sort of in-line with the concept behind Heinlein's "Number of the Beast," as well as uncounted stoner discussions about the nature of the universe.
Mark
me not understand
They’re just coming up with this new law now to shift the debate from Obamacare. The physicists are all pinko/commie/libs.
bkmrk
That’s unreal!
That’s my superposition and I’m sticking to it!
[blink] Ok. It took them that long to figure this out? I thought it was pretty obvious.
No, I’m not kidding. I’ve been waiting for quantum computers to get up to mediocre enough performance to actually implement this idea for solving NP-type problems: define a problem space, overlap all possible solution spaces, force the selection of valid states until all others inherently collapse to a single completely valid solution. Porting PROLOG to a quantum computer will yield extremely cool results.
Take the cat paradox: contrary to many nonsensical interpretations, QM doesn't really require the cat to be in a superposition of live and dead states until an observer shows up. What it requires is the existence of an Hermitian operator, in this case a life operator, and the application of the life operator to the cat's state vector in order to do a measurement. Presumably, the cat herself has access to this operator (she knows if she is alive or dead.)
In this allegedly new formulation, the cat was always alive in the Invariant Set. Or... she was always dead in the Invariant Set. The application of the life operator then takes a measurement, which reveals her to be alive (or dead, as the case may be.). This is pretty much the same as Tipler's perspective, it is not new and it is not really particularly interesting. It still does NOT answer the question: "If I perform this experiment on 1000 identical cats with 1000 identical experimtental setups, why do 667 cats wind up dead and 333 of the cats wind up alive?"
The Invariant Set answer appears to be: because the 667 dead cats were part of actual reality, just as the 333 live cats were part of actual reality.
Just so. But why?
But if I can dig one implication out of them (highly debatable by itself) it concerns the cat that Shroedinger never really was entirely happy he used for an illustration, and it is this: the cat is perfectly aware whether it is dead or alive, hence has collapsed the wave function from its point of view. It is only uncertain from the point of view of the observer. So any mathematical representation of this that is intended to consider whether it is in some invariate state space must account for both points of view and two different levels of uncertainty.
Somebody who actually does know this stuff - and I know perfectly well you're on FR - just tell me "Bill, yer fulla crap" and I'll shut up... ;-)
I can STILL feel the relief, baby!!!!!!
Perhaps this will explain why fresh bread gets hard but crispy cereal gets soggy! Could it be that cereal is embedded in a smaller subset of state space (the cabinet)whereas the bread is on the counter?
So does he perform as a clown at science conferences?