aeolitus's recent activity
-
Comment on Let's talk orchestrated objective reduction! in ~science
-
Comment on Let's talk orchestrated objective reduction! in ~science
aeolitus Link ParentWonderfully put. I guess it is very human to want to be more than the sum of inconceivably many deterministic little events, and to want to identify something beyond that that makes us who we are....Wonderfully put. I guess it is very human to want to be more than the sum of inconceivably many deterministic little events, and to want to identify something beyond that that makes us who we are.
To me, its somewhat the opposite: There is such beauty and wonder in how mine own complex self emerges out of the little stochastic determinism of elementary particles underneath... I am more than content in being "merely" an emergent phenomenon so complex, we could never hope to truly understand it :)On your last note: I cannot fault anyone for wanting to understand the inner workings of the world more; I cannot fault people for reading pop-sci explanations of topics like quantum mech to understand more, as that is what is approachable to them; so maybe it is naive to complain about people putting too much weight on the analogies in that content, which is all they know on the subject. I truly wish it was possible to communicate the depth of the math behind the theories without requiring 4-6 years of university level math first.
-
Comment on Let's talk orchestrated objective reduction! in ~science
aeolitus LinkI am deeply sceptical. I did my PhD in quantum physics, and I think people too desperately search for meaning and consciousness in any little gap of our understanding. I don't know why...I am deeply sceptical. I did my PhD in quantum physics, and I think people too desperately search for meaning and consciousness in any little gap of our understanding. I don't know why consciousness and free will are so important for people to fit into the physical models, despite all difficulties associated with doing so.
A few scattered thoughts:
On measurements in QM:
You can write extensive books on measurements: talk about the observer becoming part of the superposition; stipulate about Everett's many-worlds and ponder your fellow yous in different worlds; or calculate classical world line equations. It's all valid, and all useless. The reason why most physicists follow the "shut up and calculate" school of quantum mechanics (i.e., the interpretation doesn't matter, QM is a mathematical approach that predicts things well, and that's all that you should care about) is the complete lack of objective value in any other approach. What matters in physics is falsifiable predictions; is being able to show experiments that support your theory (or even better, disprove your fellow physicists theories). None of the different ruminations on the deeper philosophy of QM meet that bar; they are all elaborate ways of coloring in the gaps between what we can verify. A fun philosophy topic for elderly physicists used to being the smartest person in the room, maybe.On the overall topic of... Quantum consciousness?:
To me, consciousness and free will are ill-defined as a physics-concept. Are we talking something that is not deterministically predictable by our models (potentially for the wave function and thereby stochastic after a measurement, but with at perfectly knowable probability distribution)? Then to our knowledge, it doesn't exist. Are we talking something that is part of the models? Then we don't need consciousness and free will in there; it already has a causal reason. Or are we talking about something that occurs on larger scales? Then it's an emergent phenomenon; super cool stuff but you can have those without any quantumness just fine, any computer can manage that.
I suppose the idea is to suggest that the presence of quantum-mechanical effects of some kind in organic matter supports that consciousness could be somehow related to quantum mechanics, but does it really? To me, it just means that there are degrees of freedom in organic systems that are reasonably isolated from their environment and therefore able to form some coherence, which is not that special - take e.g. NV centers in diamond, which manage much more quantumness just fine at room temperature. I don't see how it makes the connection of quantum mech to consciousness any stronger. Every atom inside your neuron is already fully quantum. All physical interactions are. Your neuron is fundamentally a quantum object; just not a very coherent one. It's rare to see it on the macroscopical level; but that's because we never truly observe and conceptualize a closed system, and open systems are messy and hard.Fundamentally, to me, consciousness, free will, and the quantum mechanical measurement are not relevant topics in the physics sense of "how does this help me understand the laws of nature through theory and experiment". They are philosophy. Philosophers are, of course, allowed to find value in anything they wish, but they should then call it philosophy, not physics; not until it makes a falsifiable prediction, which I strongly doubt any of these questions will because of the sheer improbability of understanding a system of even the size of a single neuron quantum-mechanically.
On Penrose: the guy is really smart, no doubt. But I will say that there is a tendency for older physicists to play at philosophy, with a confidence in their reasoning that only physicists can have. Life and Consciousness are big topics to many of them; take Schrödingers work, for example. But it is important to keep on mind that being a brilliant physicist does not make you a brilliant philosopher; it does not even mean that you will remain a brilliant physicist. Neither do accolades and a prestigious professorship; look only to Brian Josephson as a sad example.
-
Comment on Finding Peter Putnam in ~science
aeolitus LinkWhat a wonderful article, thank you for sharing. Incredible, to have your... complicated relationship with your mother interfere so much with your life and yet still to love her so much to find so...What a wonderful article, thank you for sharing. Incredible, to have your... complicated relationship with your mother interfere so much with your life and yet still to love her so much to find so much deep understanding for her in your heart and invite her into your home for her last living years. What a fascinating individual.
-
Comment on Counting all of the yurts in Mongolia using machine learning in ~comp
aeolitus LinkInteresting article! Mongolia is a fascinating place, and I had no idea so many people still lived in yurts... As an aside, the author writes at the very end This seems like an odd philosophy of...Interesting article! Mongolia is a fascinating place, and I had no idea so many people still lived in yurts...
As an aside, the author writes at the very end
One of the most important functions of government is inspiring the citizenry to achieve greatness.
This seems like an odd philosophy of government and state functions to me. I would think the purpose of a state is providing security, providing support to ensure that the rights of the citizenry are met, these kind of things. Is this a different philosophy? I mean, I don't disagree that it's cool if the citizenry is inspired, but I'd rank it far from most important...
-
Comment on Commander Brackets - beta test of a matchmaking system for assessing decks in ~games.tabletop
aeolitus LinkUgh, I am so annoyed that they published an infographic about the levels and left out the > super important < info from the text about when decks usually aim to win - something like turn 9+ for...Ugh, I am so annoyed that they published an infographic about the levels and left out the > super important < info from the text about when decks usually aim to win - something like turn 9+ for bracket 2, turn 7+ for bracket 3, faster than that for bracket 4, never-ish for bracket 1.
Now the entire Internet is full of idiots talking about how their Magda cEDH list with a few swaps is a "bracket 1" because they clearly have not read the descriptions beyond the image and haven't actually engaged with the system in the slightest... No, your instant speed turn 3 win is not bracket 1 just because it's a dwarves in cars theme with no game changers, ugh.Overall though, I like it. With the info on turns included, I think it's a good starting point for rule 0 conversations; and while we could argue that it doesn't need brackets 1 and 5, I can understand why they are included. The only thing I would like is for them to specify if the two card infinites include the commander (is niv/curiosity included? Feels like a one card combo to me, way more of a problem than for example sanguine bond / exquisite blood ) and to specify if it includes things that aren't infinite, but win the game using two cards (thoracle consult, actually niv/curiosity, Malcolm Glinthorn, etc). I think they should be, but I'd like that to be reflected in the graphic because that's apparently all anyone looks at. Also maybe include what an early two card combo is... Is that based on total mana values?
My decks seem to be one 2, three 3s and one 4, and that sounds about right to me.
-
Comment on Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready. in ~life
aeolitus Link ParentGenossenschaftswohnungen keep the rent low for people in them; and like any below rate rental object, the prices around them just keep going up anyways. I think it's a great idea, it works well if...Genossenschaftswohnungen keep the rent low for people in them; and like any below rate rental object, the prices around them just keep going up anyways. I think it's a great idea, it works well if you are in a Genossenschaft, but unless a majority of housing is in a Genossenschaft it doesn't really solve the issue for the majority of the population. Now if we are talking "push out private landlords to establish more Genossenschaften", im all for it!
-
Comment on Germany: 288,000 foreign workers needed annually until 2040 in ~society
aeolitus Link ParentHaha, that reminds me that initially things looked more bleak - we had to leave the us in a bit of a rush (because of visa issues stemming from the dos not doing their job for 1.5 years, funnily...Haha, that reminds me that initially things looked more bleak - we had to leave the us in a bit of a rush (because of visa issues stemming from the dos not doing their job for 1.5 years, funnily enough) and they Ausländerzentrum was threatening that my wife would have to leave Germany again and reapply for her visa from abroad... A friend at the auswärtiges amt told us we could just move to Denmark for a month because as you mentioned, the within-eu rules are less strict then the German ones. How does any of this make sense... :D
-
Comment on Germany: 288,000 foreign workers needed annually until 2040 in ~society
aeolitus Link ParentYeah, fully agree - German here with a non-EU-citizen wife. You'd think us being married would make things easier, or her having a German PhD, or having worked here for many years... Nope,...Yeah, fully agree - German here with a non-EU-citizen wife. You'd think us being married would make things easier, or her having a German PhD, or having worked here for many years... Nope, recently moved back from the US, it's been 5 months and she still doesn't have Visa settled, still isn't allowed to work... It's almost as dysfunctional as the US system imo. Absolutely terrible, we should be ashamed as a country.
-
Comment on Magic: The Gathering ban and restricted announcement in ~games.tabletop
aeolitus Link ParentI think ultimately a kitchen table game with a stable group of players that know each other and make sure to keep decks compatible is neither what the ban list targets nor where it needs to apply....I think ultimately a kitchen table game with a stable group of players that know each other and make sure to keep decks compatible is neither what the ban list targets nor where it needs to apply. Your group sounds lovely, and your decks sound fun and not oppressive! I wouldnt be surprised if your friends agree to just let you keep playing those cards, given that you have good data to back up your decks not being op?
When I play, I usually play with randoms at a LGS. While this rarely has happened to me, I have sat down with a deck on a power level of upgraded precon, communicated with the table that this was the power level we all wanted to play, and found myself facing a deck that was very much not that power level - fastmana, free interaction, the whole deal. And that sucked. It was not a fun game, it's an awkward social interaction to then kick a player off the table afterwards, nobody left happy.
To me, the commander banlist seems to be aimed at this kind of situation: an attempt at making a bit of a rule zero that applies by default. I don't think it's perfect at that, but I would say most cards on the list fall in this kind of category - so unfun when somebody just plays them out of nowhere that unless it's agreed to by the players, it's safer to ban the cards by default.
Now, these three cards (nadu is a different story as just a design mistake) are not exactly the kind of "I win in an unfun way" cards like Iona, Flash or Biorhythm. But I believe they represent something I wholeheartedly agree with targeting: the idea of expensive staples that are so good, so expensive and so bland, you kind of would want them in any deck - and if you don't play them, it's often for budget reasons (unless your group explicitly banned them, which most didn't until yesterday). I don't think that adds any fun, complexity or spice to the format - it makes it more explosive, more homogeneous and raises the barrier of entry. And I am happy to see some movement to address that.
Besides, has this impacted your snakes on a plane deck that badly? If no, is the ban really a problem? If yes, isn't that indicative that maybe these cards were a bit too much?
-
Comment on Magic: The Gathering ban and restricted announcement in ~games.tabletop
aeolitus Link ParentIs that a very casual view though? Those three cards are all decidedly non-casual in my view - I have a single deck I'd even consider playing at the same table as a deck running any of these,...Is that a very casual view though? Those three cards are all decidedly non-casual in my view - I have a single deck I'd even consider playing at the same table as a deck running any of these, because I can't possibly match the explosiveness otherwise and refuse to invest hundreds in must-plays to keep up otherwise... If dockside is an auto include for you, I'd take that to directly mean that you play high power to fringe already - do you disagree? Does everybody in your playgroups play these cards?
-
Comment on How the hell do I clean a wok? in ~food
aeolitus LinkYou can use soap just fine. The concern comes from older soap that uses Lye, which can damage the coating. Normal dish soap nowadays does not contain any, so it's fine to use. Generally, the best...You can use soap just fine. The concern comes from older soap that uses Lye, which can damage the coating. Normal dish soap nowadays does not contain any, so it's fine to use.
Generally, the best way I find is to clean it right after use when it's still hot with water, but stubborn residue can absolutely be scrubbed off with some dish soap and elbow grease. Just make sure to dry the wok well afterwards, and potentially oil it a little.
-
Comment on Moviegoing is a Latino family thing — and it's been the key to US summer box office successes in ~movies
aeolitus Link ParentA solid mix of noisy people, tons of ads, uncomfortable seats and overpriced concessions, of course :) Jokes aside, there are a few cinemas that still deliver great experiences - but the average...A solid mix of noisy people, tons of ads, uncomfortable seats and overpriced concessions, of course :)
Jokes aside, there are a few cinemas that still deliver great experiences - but the average chain cinema can just go die already, I don't see why I would ever want to go to one again.
-
Comment on Neutrinos: The inscrutable “ghost particles” driving scientists crazy in ~science
aeolitus Link ParentCorrect, they were a prediction first, like most things in physics. Just another case of a science journalist not being familiar enough with the subject matter trying to spice up the article...Correct, they were a prediction first, like most things in physics. Just another case of a science journalist not being familiar enough with the subject matter trying to spice up the article...
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~finance
aeolitus Link ParentThank you so much for pointing that out - I spent all of today glued to my phone reading #9, which is really more of a novel than anything else. Not sure how this came to be on some random law...Thank you so much for pointing that out - I spent all of today glued to my phone reading #9, which is really more of a novel than anything else. Not sure how this came to be on some random law page, but my week has been improved considerably for it! What a touching story of age, guilt, responsibility and closure.
-
Comment on I’m a microbiologist and here is what (and where) I never eat in ~food
aeolitus LinkThe statement "Do not eat meat if its internal temperature is less than 70℃ (158ºF)." already lost me... Sure, if your primary goal in life is to avoid food poisoning, that might be justifiable....The statement "Do not eat meat if its internal temperature is less than 70℃ (158ºF)." already lost me... Sure, if your primary goal in life is to avoid food poisoning, that might be justifiable. But otherwise, people do tend to eat for pleasure, and cooking meat to that temperature ruins most meats.
So the question is, am I to interpret this as an insightful look into a germaphobes head, or as advice? Because if it's the latter, the authors priorities seem far out from what I'd consider normal, and it overshadows all other advice for me for the remainder of the text - how serious should I take their other advice if this simple tidbit is already so far from what I'd consider reasonable? I guess it ultimately depends on where in the safety vs pleasure scale one falls, and the beginning already signals to me that the author is very far away from me.
As an aside, the authors position also also just seems wasteful to me - advocating to never take home leftovers might be safer, but it's also a very unsustainable position in a country with massive portion sizes and an unfathomable amount of food waste.
I happened to work on building a quantum computer for a while, and we did choose an ultra-cold system for it, so I am quite convinced that it is the right approach. Mostly, this is just a question of timescales - as a rule of thumb, colder systems means less interactions with the environment means more time until decoherence. At hot temperatures, most timescales are blazing fast compared even to our best computers; so its hard to really do computation on a hot quantum system - it might be enough for a quantum effect to be visible (i.e. your examples in the OP), but for quantum computation we want to run algorithms, meaning we want to perform a bunch of very precise operations in succession. Colder systems just mean you have the time to control that algorithm with a regular computer :)
Beyond that remark, I am not quite clear on what you are actually asking with regard to quantum computation. I dont see a benefit in trying to do QC in a warm system - almost trivially, taking whatever system that is and cooling it down should perform better, as lifetimes increase etc. Beyond that, the actual system and temperature always only matter in relation to its inherent timescales - we worked with Rydberg Qubits, which are way colder than superconducting Qubits (but so far still worse, maybe); but they are also much more easy to cool, so it kind of cancels out? Lots of considerations that go into selecting a system.
As for the other questions... I mean no offense here, but those last paragraphs read very scattered between topics and come of more manic to me than anything else. You are jumping from math, to QC, to Moore's law (far from applicable to QC so far), to something about falsehood of digital information (?), quantum field theory, then to quantum effects in wet matter again, and then to transformer based AI systems all of a sudden...
All of those topics are worthy of study, and one could spend a lifetime on any one of them. Connecting them together is beyond our current understanding of many of them; and more than any human could achieve, even with the requisite decade+ of studying math and theoretical physics to start to understand some of them.
I dont know what background you have, but I will carefully posit that any theory by literally any human, living or dead, that claims to bring all these things together is of very questionable scientific merit. There are so many unanswered questions on the way that must be answered first; there is no point in speculating that far out into the unknown.