swansont

And bad at following the rules. You can go be an ignorant creationist troll (sorry, that’s redundant) elsewhere.

It is. It describes the US as a whole, without acknowledging any nuance. But it’s not a stereotype, since it’s not talking about people

Who is “we” in this scenario?

That would be making the same error. “gun-happy USA” is not saying “all Americans love guns” so changing the country and subject is still a problem The failure is twofold. You are changing the country to citizens of that country (Canadians love hockey, which is a stereotype), and compounding the error by adding an “all” Is Canada “hockey-happy”? Sure seemed that way when I lived there. I’ve joked that a Canadian news broadcast went “War has broken out and natural disasters have hit multiple countries. But first, the hockey results”

That’s not a fair comparison. “Gun-happy USA” refers to the country, and such a generalization does not imply that all inhabitants have that attitude. So it’s a bit of a strawman. Between levels of private gun ownership and the legal framework which allows it, I think “gun-happy USA” is a reasonable assessment of the country. It’s not a stereotype of the people, though it’s true for a critical mass of the people in power.

You need to consider the possibility that those bombing hospitals know exactly what they’re doing

Moderator NoteYou were explicitly told not to include AI content in the discussion. Link removed.

Helium and a trace amount of Lithium were also created in the Big Bang (which the OP may not accept as being true, either)

A iNow said, it could have happened during the switchover, or it could be some other data corruption, but I don’t know what can be done about it.

I didn’t say they were, I said they were offering up the same talking points. Creationist talking points are doubtful of evolution. They can be arrived at independently, of course, but the misunderstanding required almost has to be willful, because it’s not that hard to get good information. “the fittest always survive” (emphasis added) is your strawman. No part of the actual theory claims this.

This ignores the population aspect I mentioned, along with probabilities. There are others that can survive and reproduce. Not very good logic. Again, your logic escapes me. It’s not even consistent with your earlier statement about the “vulnerable” and “favorite prey” of predators. Your strawman/caricature of natural selection as proposed by Darwinism is what does not exist. The actual theory is just fine.

In science “theory” has a particular meaning, quite distinct from the lay definition. A lot of important things (though perhaps not important to you) depend on it. Just trying to clarify the scope here, and from my perspective I could say the same thing. As I have no interest in the metaphysical aspects (as you say, it has no impact on the science) I’ll leave you to it.

Disney is also suing Midjourney. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/tech/disney-universal-midjourney-ai-copyright-lawsuit When the AI firms are stealing from individuals it’s hard to fight back, but the big dogs don’t like it when you steal their content, either.

Musk has his multi-billion dollar contract, so it’s not really a setback. And a link I provided earlier critiques his approach as not actually being iterative (the turnaround is too fast to actually be doing that)

You keep jumping back and forth. I commented on interpretations and then you call it a theory. When I respond to that, you jump back to it being an interpretation. See? Here you’re back to calling it a theory, and claim there’s math Let me ask this: is there any measurable difference in how a quantum system responds, depending on whether there is a conscious observer? (Like an electron changing state and emitting a photon) Some change in the interaction, or the laws governing it? I see the math, even if you don’t.

You can’t bring it into the discussion. And in any other context it’s off-topic. Where is it? Can you determine a probability without math? This is purportedly about QM, which does. You claimed it was an interpretation of QM in the thread title. But if it’s a theory, can you name another physics theory that doesn’t have math? Not being science (or being pop-sci) and being unscientific aren’t the same thing. What experiments did you run to determine the toxicity of the mushrooms? Is this supposed to lend credibility to your claims? Stereotypically it’s the physicists who overstep their area of expertise.

Moderator NoteNot if you want to continue discussing it here. Rule 2.13 If you don’t think probability is math I can’t help you and if you think you can do physics without math we have a serious problem

Some fundamental errors: “survival of the fittest” is a generalization, i.e. it’s in the context of probabilities, evolution happens with populations, and a key element is reproduction. I second the call for asking questions rather than making proclamations; IOW you can’t declare things about evolution if you don’t understand it. Given the initial trajectory, I have to insist that any further claims be backed with citations, rather than making bald assertions - tell us what a reputable source says.

It depends on the changes.

Existing interpretations don’t deal with data and only tell you how to think about QM, which fits the data. If yours “fits better with the data” you need to have math. If you are trying to agree with data but have no math what you have is a narrative. That’s quite vague and I don’t see the connection with QM

You can have different equations give you the same result, so this is too vague to give a definitive answer.

Interpretations are, by their nature, not testable. They’re interpretations - ways to think about the science, but separate from the actual theories. You use the one that you want to use. Rule 2.7 requires that discussion take place here, and that participation be possible without clicking any links.

You need to be a lot more specific here. What is the “Rev 12 1:2 sign” that has never occurred before? The sun turned dark? What day in March did this happen, and where was it reported? What, specifically, is the prediction in Joel 2? So? Yeah, tensions in the middle east is so unusual.

A FAQ that showed the number was dated 2005, but the knowledge dates back to the 1990s. Prior to that the error bars on the expansion rate and age weren’t conclusive, but the possibility that the size was larger goes back to the 1950s-60s when decent estimates of Hubble’s constant were made and the CMB temperature was measured https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/educators/programs/cosmictimes/educators/guide/age_size.html

It’s applied to classical physics, but I’m not aware of it being applied to quantum. Perhaps you could work through a simple hidden variable example of spin-1/2 particle pairs with a total spin of zero, measured along three different axes 120 degrees apart (standard example) and get the QM result.