chrislipa

7 ms·

31.
by chrislipa 13y ago
rooofl, you're hell-banned. Looking through your comment history, I don't see why.
32.
by chrislipa 13y ago
Your math teacher never taught you these because they're just labels attached to quantities expressible in terms of sine and cosine. They don't aid mathematical understanding, and they don't let you solve any problem that yo
33.
by chrislipa 13y ago
The proof's axioms deal with what kinds of things have the property of being 'positive' (A1-A5). But lacking a separate definition of what positive means, we really have no choice but to view these 5 axioms as an implicit de
34.
by chrislipa 13y ago
My wife and I did not exchange rings. However, we can't claim to be the first; through most of human history in most places in the world, rings have not been exchanged. It's the time we're living through now that's the
35.
by chrislipa 13y ago
>Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no? I take a different tack on this. The primary failing in the "scien
36.
by chrislipa 13y ago
Ah, I see. Yes, I did misunderstand the mechanics of your frog thought experiment. However the math for the classical case still doesn't work out the way you need it to. Setting up the mechanics the way you did, you will not get th
37.
by chrislipa 13y ago
The way you're describing the theory sure seems like the Ensemble Interpretation to me, but to be honest, I have never heard of the "Statistical Aggregate Interpretation". Just to be sure I know what we're discussing, c
38.
by chrislipa 13y ago
While, you're right, it is minimalistic, Einstein's Statistical Ensemble Interpretation is an incomplete theory. It doesn't tell you which possible future you'll end up in. And if you try to patch the theory by saying
39.
by chrislipa 13y ago
Many Worlds is falsifiable. It's making testable claims about how amplitude flows between configurations and recombines constructively and destructively. If we ever find an experiment in which amplitude is flowing by some rule other
40.
by chrislipa 13y ago
That's of course not the point of the thought experiment. Just the mass-energy and "realness" of the spaceship after it leaves causal contact with Earth is enough. Consider the statement: "Once any object gets far enoug
41.
by chrislipa 13y ago
Branching universes need not be falsifiable to be taken seriously, because that's not the theory. Rather it's a consequence of a theory (evolution of Schrödinger's equation sans collapse) and that theory is very falsifiable.
42.
by chrislipa 13y ago
I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Many Worlds is the simplest known hypothesis that explains the available evidence.
43.
by chrislipa 13y ago
While there are Occam's razor and complexity arguments concerning the relative merits of the Many Worlds Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation, I think this is at best a weak argument. Because, who knows? We could actually
44.
by chrislipa 15y ago
This idiom is common in mathematics, where it's called a conjugate. Any time you have an element, y, of a group, the action of pre-composing with any other element, x, and post-composing with x's inverse to get xyx^{-1} is called conjugatin