xdarnold

8 ms·

1.
by xdarnold 6y ago
Your position is more or less defensible, but you will have to accept some compromises to your description of the universe that most physicists find untenable. Actually, it is Bell's Theorem / Inequality and related experiments th
2.
by xdarnold 7y ago
I'm not making anecdotal conclusions or assumptions about whether people walk around or go into work, I'm simply stating the facts here based on considerable research. Influenza is a useful proxy for the cold, because we have plen
3.
by xdarnold 7y ago
Of course in many ways they are different, but not in the important ones for this discussion. I used influenza because it was convenient in terms of available research, I could grab in a minute or two, but I'm sure if you care to look
4.
by xdarnold 7y ago
Replying myself to add reference, here: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(19)30354-6/pdf This is all well understood, and studied in considerable depth. The media overreaction is typical, but here at H
5.
by xdarnold 7y ago
Over any time frame, it's still quite extreme. To use influenza as a proxy, which has virulence comparable to the cold, the yearly incidence rate in China is <35 per 100,000. Even if this is a full 100x worse, we aren't even ge
6.
by xdarnold 7y ago
This is incorrect. If we assume that this virus is as infectious as the common cold, we can expect the infection rate within a household to be approximately 25% of contacts. That means that of the people you LIVE with, 25% will catch it fro
7.
by xdarnold 7y ago
This is nothing more than the illusion of a stance so long as the statement on Weibo stands. Publicly calling Morey's statement "inappropriate" and "disappoint[ing]" and expressing regret for it cannot be reconciled
8.
by xdarnold 7y ago
> Decoherence is a superposition effect, is it not? Entanglement with the environment, i.e. a superposition of system-environment states. The point I'm trying to make is that "splitting", while sometimes identified with de
9.
by xdarnold 7y ago
All depends on the context. Does it make sense to talk about propagating splitting in this context? Surely no - for three reasons: 1. You're describing a time evolution _of the subsystems_, which isn't really a thing in the MWI. A
10.
by xdarnold 7y ago
When we talk about MWI as the asker is trying to more fully understand, we are explicitly not talking about subsystems. There's just the one big evolving state (of the universe).
11.
by xdarnold 7y ago
Your choice of the future here is arbitrary - we could just as easily say that there are many past and present "you" in the multiverse. This assumes a definition closer to DD/DW's than the author's. The author seems
12.
by xdarnold 7y ago
"Splitting" does not propagate, or happen with any locality - it's the wave function of the entire universe doing the splitting, so there's nowhere for it to propagate!
13.
by xdarnold 7y ago
Your objections seem to me to arise straightforwardly from a disconnect over the definition of "you". Taking DW's position, and your axiom of unique self, I can resolve the issue by saying something like: Knowing that you can
14.
by xdarnold 11y ago
With today's technology, for some compounds... you can count atoms by physical measurements and known structure, and figure mass by atomic weight. http://www.nist.gov/pml/si-redef/kg_new_silicon.cfm
15.
by xdarnold 12y ago
This is potentially an interesting effect and worthy of some consideration, but the analysis needs to include some regression of this possible factor: An increased number of errors on "return" lines. Which naturally should be more
16.
by xdarnold 13y ago
I don't think I'm understanding your point. Why would they need to invalidate previously confirmed transaction?
17.
by xdarnold 13y ago
Why is this? My understanding of the way the network operates is that a group with 51% of hashing power can essentially arbitrarily manipulate the blockchain going forward. Nothing could stop them from confirming otherwise invalid transacti
18.
by xdarnold 13y ago
100% agreed - this would certainly undermine the movement. The open question is whether it would do so more or less than the loss of half a billion dollars held by the community. I'm not sure what the answer is, but shouldn't ever
19.
by xdarnold 13y ago
I'm not making that assumption - rather the opposite, which is why I mentioned the possibility of reimbursing people later. But this isn't strictly necessary. Pragmatically, you could double spend the coins back to the original ow
20.
by xdarnold 13y ago
I don't think this is what I'm suggesting at all. If a popular majority of miners agreed to accept transactions double spending the original coins, this would be tantamount to generating 750k new Bitcoin, not initially invalidatin
21.
by xdarnold 13y ago
It seems like there is a straightforward enough principle in this case to do so without much argument. Not that the method would be perfect. But isn't it preferable to the alternative?
22.
by xdarnold 13y ago
Under the presumption that it is true that ~750k BTC has been stolen, has anyone considered the possibility of orchestrating a 51% attack on the attacker(s)? Gox probably has logs of withdrawal requests. It might be daunting but feasible to