# All Activity

1. Past hour
2. ## Oricycles

Many thanks +1 I will see if this fits the article I have.

4. ## Local False Discovery Rate

My interpretation of the local FDR from that paper you gave is; given a p-value what is the probability that the null hypothesis is true, adjusted to take into account all the pairwise hypothesis tests in the set. But there are lots of nuances in that paper which would take a while to pick apart. It seems to rely on the independence of the p-values to estimate some of its properties though - is that a reasonable assumption for these kinds of genetic studies?
5. Today
6. ## koti    MigL

I wonder MigL, don’t you along with the rest of Canadians feel like youre all living in an apartment above a meth lab?

7. ## A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk

True - or if it could credibly threaten to punish. And in this "theory", the way to credibly threaten is to always follow through on threats. To not have to update - even when that update is being created. Basically, you seem to be trying to analyze from the moment of the AI's creation, as if that is set in stone. In this "theory", that is an error. Instead, analyze which class of AI gets to optimization sooner - one that credibly makes the threat by committing to following through, and therefore may convince people to contribute to creating it earlier, or one that doesn't.
8. ## Anatomic vs Segregational Relationships

I'm interested in expansion of this definition, specifically the difference between anatomic and segregational relationships. syn·te·ny. (sin'tĕ-nē) The relationship between two genetic loci (not genes) represented on the same chromosomal pair or (for haploid chromosomes) on the same chromosome; an anatomic rather than a segregational relationship thanks
9. ## A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk

What I'm saying it that the people of the past wouldn't be able to guess whether punishment will be carried out either way unless carrying out the punishment is already determined to be the objective of the AI. The AI wouldn't prefer to be in the class that carries out the threat, whether it carries out the threat or not would not concern it if the threat was already made. Your point would be valid if the AI was the one that made the threat, but, unlike the promise of box B certainly being filled if Omega predicts you pick it, the promise of punishment if the people of the past don't devote themselves to the construction of the AI was invented by the people of the past, an AI designed for optimization wouldn't care about promoting its construction after the fact. The optimal AI would be built sooner if it was designed to punish, because then the threat works, but the directive to punish would be inserted by humans, not determined as a logical method of optimization by the AI. This makes the directive to optimize unnecessary, because that's not what's making it be built sooner and it's not what's making the AI conclude that it must punish. My revision removes this unnecessary but and leaves only the necessary, self promotive directive of punishing those who decided not to build it.
10. ## Super condensate, strings (bosons) and loops (fermions)

Well I'm not familiar enough with the Wilson loop methodology itself. Although I have studied it a bit I prefer the perturbation methodologies of QFT So other than seeking obvious mistakes I wouldn't be a great help.
11. ## A Critique and Revision of Roko's Basilisk

Again: if people of the past can't guess whether punishment would be carried out, then the threat fails to motivate them. Which means that an AI that wants to be created (and which also subscribes to updateless decision theory) would prefer to be in the class of AI that made and carried out that threat, according to this theory.
12. ## Stainless steel muffler ?

Muffler for a tuba ? @🤣
13. ## Black Hole-Dark Energy Thruster?

Good points above. Black holes cannot drive expansion of the universe through Hawking radiation any more than stars can drive expansion through their much higher radiation emissions. The radiation emitted by stars and BH's are miniscule compared to the mass density of the universe. Secondly radiation falls off in density as you move further from the source. Lastly the cosmological constant whatever the cause has been around long before the first black holes even existed. Although miniscule in effect as the two prior eras (radiation dominant, matter dominant eras) overpowered DE. By this I will use the matter dominant era as an example. Radiation obviously existed however the main contributor to expansion during the era is matter. The cosmological constant was around as well. The same goes for the previous era (radiation dominant) the other two contributors still existed. Just that their contributions can be ignored. Now here is where I really muddy the waters. The Hubble parameter is decreasing but the rate of expansion via the recessive velocity formula is increasing Yet the cosmological constant stays constant in energy/Mass density.... At time Z=1080 The Hubble parameter is roughly 20,000 times greater than its value today
14. ## A/C for Room Virus Removal

My analysis is that you just invented the pavement cafe.

16. ## Stainless steel muffler ?

Is this related to your interest in musical instrumnts?
17. ## Stainless steel muffler ?

All Reddit did was filling my screen with crap, advertisements, irrelevant listings and repeated freezing. Another garbage website to blacklist for me. 🤮 Thanks. Aftermarket SS are abundant and some not expensive; but I have a \$0 deal from a boneyard... 🤨
18. ## Black Hole-Dark Energy Thruster?

Totally agree with Markus Hanke: GR is (highly) non-linear. You cannot understand properties of solutions mixing different aspects in terms of (exact) individual solutions. You must solve Einstein's eqs. from scratch. I just thought @Strange and @MigL (+1,+1) went more in the direction of what's troubling OP AFAI can tell. (Plus shortage of points.) Dark energy is small potatoes when it comes to BH dynamics. BHs are generally very very small in comparison to comparable cosmic masses. DE is only sizable at very long distances.
19. ## Will entropy be low much of the time?

Entropy is log of the M_a only if P(M_a)=1 and P(neg M_a)=0. Otherwise it's the sum of negative pxlog(p) (the average value of log p.) Now, as a function of the p's, -Sum p log(p) always complies with observable-independent property of concavity: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00665928 There are interesting points in what you say. I cannot be 100 % sure I've understood everything. Something that reminds me a lot of what you're saying is Bertrand's circle paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability) IOW: Maximal entropy states p_i depend on observable to be measured. But general properties of entropy don't. Thermo's 2nd law is unaffected, I think. It's quite solid. I'm not completely sure my arguments (if any here) are watertight. But I'm trying to offer you some food for thought that I think goes in the direction you're reasoning.
20. ## Are the weirdnesses of QM still regarded as mysteries to be resolved?

The most common sense compatible interpretation is IMHO Caticha's entropic dynamics Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic Dynamics, Time and Quantum Theory, J. Phys. A44:225303, arxiv:1005.2357 There is a configuration space trajectory $$q(t)\in Q$$ and there are some other, unspecified variables y. I prefer to use as these variables simply the same configuration space, but of the external world. Then, we have incomplete information about it if we know only how the state was prepared, thus, we know some probability distribution $$\rho(q,y)$$. Then we define for each $$q\in Q$$ the resulting probability $$\rho(q) = \int \rho(q,y)dy$$ and the entropy $$S(q) = -\int \ln \rho(q,y) \rho(q,y)dy$$. Then we have for $$\rho(q)$$ a diffusion (Brownian motion) with parameter $$\hbar$$ combined with a movement toward higher entropy, and a generalization of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the entropy. This pair of equations gives, if one combines $$\rho(q)$$ and $$S(q)$$ into some artificial complex function with the phase $$\ln \rho - S$$ (modulo signs and so on) this gives the Schrödinger equation for that complex function. This nice accident allows us to use the full power of the mathematics of quantum theory, but is otherwise of no fundamental importance. Just a happy accident.
21. ## Can quantum particles communicate in the past?

You're a very bad person!!! Fluid dynamics is an all-scale-coupling spherical harmonics mixing mess of a system of equations. Don't bring trouble here, you dark spirit!!! I was talking micro-causality and micro-retrocausality. Although now that I think of it, my Earth example wasn't very micro. Ooops.
22. ## Can quantum particles communicate in the past?

Does that mean fluid dynamics is applicable in the quantum realm?
23. ## Stainless steel muffler ?

I know of aftermarket SS mufflers, such as Magnaflow, Walker, Flowmaster, etc., but don't know which manufacturers spec SS, OEM muffler.
24. ## Stainless steel muffler ?

No idea, sorry, but Reddit is pretty good at this sort of thing: https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/ Good luck!
25. ## Black Hole-Dark Energy Thruster?

Next to a large deep gravitational well, such as a Black Hole, expansion and Dark energy would be insignificant. We only note their effects where gravity is so weak that expansion/Dark energy exceeds the 'threshold' and its effects become apparent. ( we don't see expansion at solar system, galactic or even galactic cluster levels ) This is in the order of 100s of Megaparsec separation.
26. ## A/C for Room Virus Removal

Not too mention eddies in the flow.
27. ## Oricycles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horocycle Terminology is a b*tch.
×