swansont

You should not use AI to study Studying is about improving your mind, and offloading effort to a computer algorithm compromises that. The fact that AI hallucinates answers makes it even worse. Plus the ethics of it all.

That’s a different definition than most people have for it. There are some restaurants that declare “no substitutions” on the menu, so if you don’t want the vegetable that comes with the entree, that’s too bad. You can’t get peas instead of cauliflower, even though you want the chicken dish and baked potato. According to your definition, that’s autocracy. Which is, of course, ridiculous. You can’t just co-opt words and expect to have a reasonable discussion. As has been pointed out, this is an issue of choice and compromise. People have different priorities, and you’re presenting this as if they should have monolithic wants. That’s just naive idiocy, not autocracy. The world doesn’t work that way, nor (IMO) is that a desirable goal. Given your posting history, I’m not inclined to assume that this has more than a passing similarity to the actual truth. Some things that make Putin an autocrat would be the fact that there is no other candidate because he jails and murders his opponent and is not accountable in any meaningful way.

Calling it a computational lattice just kicks the conceptual can down the road. It’s not consistent with our rules - at some point this needs to be based on some kind of solid science, rather than word salad. How does one calculate this “computational load”? You said the relevant term was energy density - how does one determine this?

What makes you think they do not get illnesses, or do not fear getting them?

And in Maxwell’s conviction, conspiring with Epstein, they mentioned girls as young as 14; Epstein wasn’t found guilty of that because he was already dead, but it underscores the point of distinguishing between what he did and what he was found guilty of.

It’s descriptive language. If you fall in love do you literally fall? Collapse of the wavefunction is less cumbersome than “a superposition of multiple wavefunctions of an undetermined state are determined to be one particular eigenstate” But you can have one quantum, e.g. a photon, where there is no threshold of energy

No, because you can’t guarantee there is no interaction. I don’t know that there is one.

Once it’s in an eigenstate there is no probability distribution anymore; there must be an interaction for the state to change. You don’t get interference, but you can toss a coin or roll a die. There are similarities to think about. There are differences, especially when you go out of your way to look at different circumstances. e.g. you allow an interaction for the quantum system, but not for the classical. The coin stays in the same state with no interaction, and that’s exactly what I said about the quantum system.

So where’s the definition of this processing rate? What’s being “processed”? What’s the energy density if you have a vacuum inside a spherical shell that has mass M? To be clear, there would be no gravity there.

You said “according to my thinking” which is not evidence. I didn’t see anything else This is your assertion, so the burden is on you to provide this definition. Nope. But I never said gravity was a physical object, so I don’t see how this is anything but a distraction. It’s a useful concept in some circumstances Asserting that there’s a spectrum is yet another speculation, which, like a house of cards, does not make for a very solid argument. Once you make a measurement the system is in a defined state. It doesn’t evolve unless there’s some other interaction (which there always is) Yes, that’s how probability works. A 1% result can happen; if you identically prepare 1000 particles and do the measurement, you expect 10 to end up in that state. Nothing mystical, or having to do with consciousness

Yes, there’s a slice of folks that are explaining that it’s ephebophilia, which is a distraction that misses the point. We’re not discussing this in a clinical or strict legal setting. (Kinda like arguing that it’s manslaughter, not murder, rather than focusing on the fact that someone’s dead and it’s still illegal). Pedophile is the word that most people know, and splitting hairs is a lame attempt at deflection.

Moderator NoteThere’s not enough context here for discussion. Perhaps you’d like to try again.

Yes really. Your thinking is not what matters. You need evidence. What meaningful definition of consciousness is there that predates life? Can you hand me a wave function? Pilot waves are unconfirmed, which is weird for something that physically exists and would interact so readily. Phase space is a mathematical description. Reifying concepts is a common pitfall in these kinds of discussions. Along the lines of what Mordred said, effects are what is physical, not the math we use to describe them. Why is consciusness required?

He was probably worse, since his influence means many details were obscured. He was wealthy, so he didn’t have to. He got others to do the equivalent, and deliver victims to him. If we found that Jeffrey Dahmer was nice to some people, does that mean he wasn’t a serial killer?

You have a previous thread on package voting and alleged authoritarianism, which looped back to your thread on referendum voting. I’m not sure how this is anything new, which makes it soapboxing, and suggests it should be locked. You can discuss those details in the existing threads. What is your definition of authoritarianism? Because there seems to be a disconnect here. Authoritarianism is about power vested in a leader or single group, with little accountability. Your beef seems to be with the fact that multiple viewpoints exist on multiple topics, and to some extent these topics are independent, so there a lot of permutations of pro vs con. That’s an issue of choice, which requires compromise (as CharonY points out) and doesn’t have much of anything to do with accountability.

What evidence do you have to support the idea? QM did not apply before life existed? Wave functions are how we describe QM. They do not physically exist.

“Astronomers have watched a dying star fail to explode as a supernova, instead collapsing into a black hole. The remarkable sighting is the most complete observational record ever made of a star's transformation into a black hole, allowing astronomers to construct a comprehensive physical picture of the process. … The discovery will help explain why some massive stars turn into black holes when they die, while others don't.” https://phys.org/news/2026-02-supernova-clearest-view-star-collapsing.html

They’re doing it elsewhere (e.g. health), so it’s not really a surprise

You haven’t presented a model. You have one equation, which is unenlightening - that a rate has units of 1/time. One can’t really do much with it. What specific prediction can you make, and how is the idea testable?

How much quantum mechanics and relativity have you used in your career as an engineer?

“The new study has been published today in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS). It challenges the leading theory that Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), a proposed black hole at the heart of our galaxy, is responsible for the observed orbits of a group of stars, known as the S-stars, which whip around at tremendous speeds of up to a few thousand kilometres per second. The international team of researchers have instead put forward an alternative idea – that a specific type of dark matter made up of fermions, or light subatomic particles, can create a unique cosmic structure that also fits with what we know about the Milky Way's core.” https://ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/research-highlights/dark-matter-not-black-hole-could-power-milky-ways-heart

Related to the recent solar and wind capacity news, but a notable contribution from a decline in cement production “growth in energy storage capacity and clean-power output topped the increases in peak and total electricity demand, respectively” https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months/

Indeed, it’s why supervisors are forbidden from relationships with subordinates in the workplace, and similarly with other positions of authority (e.g. teacher-student); there’s no true ability to consent, even when one is an adult. DARVO manipulation in action here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

Yes. The “we met for coffee to discuss funding when he was visiting NY” crowd is not drawing fire from what I can see. That’s not social interaction. It’s the ones who were spending a lot of time interacting with him and defended him and/or lied about the extent of their association that are the big targets. Musk, Gates, and a few other big shots in tech. Krauss. There was an email from a prof recommending a woman and the exchange included a physical description and an insinuation that she’d be to Epstein’s liking. Creepy stuff.

Yes pumped storage needs two reservoirs - where do you put the upper one? Desalination plants generally process less than a million cubic meters per day while pumped storage plants are generally much larger than that. The biggest saltwater pumped-storage plant is a 240 MW tidal generation facility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity “the 240 MW Rance tidal power station in France can partially work as a pumped-storage station. When high tides occur at off-peak hours, the turbines can be used to pump more seawater into the reservoir than the high tide would have naturally brought in. It is the only large-scale power plant of its kind.” So yes, you can do it, but basically nobody does at large scale.