150300+ entries in 0.038s
mircea_popescu: "accessible through purely deductive means = obvious ; requiring some inductive reasoning = unobvious"
mircea_popescu: phf i hope you're not about to put magic numbers in the fucking code!
mircea_popescu: but anyway, illustrations abound. from "the ratio of circumference to diameter" plouffe doesn't actually follow.
mircea_popescu: even mathematics is not obvious in ALL its implications.
mircea_popescu: and another example recently in the logs too, actually one each day.
mircea_popescu: "<mircea_popescu> at any rate : it is immensely more difficult to actually make a physical proof than the scheme detailed by bernstein immediately makes apparent."
mircea_popescu: da fuck, you're not as slow as to not understand pissing, woman, backstreet or cairo./
mircea_popescu: i took a piss on a woman splayed in the backalleys of cairo. you did not. this is now not-transferrable ?!
mircea_popescu: me either. public is anything that can be stated in such a way so that another can recognize his own in the statement ; private is what can not.
mircea_popescu: roughly equivalent to "private method" sense in coding.
mircea_popescu: i meant private quite in the public/private dichotomy contempated re the defintion of republic/forum.
mircea_popescu: what if i started discussing finer points of random minutia, which is 2/3 of what i do anyway ?
mircea_popescu: and while at it, what's "a religious fundamentalist" ?
mircea_popescu: (yes, when i say X is stupid what i mean is, exactly the matching above, except not regexp)
mircea_popescu: which i suppose is exactly the common understanding on the topic also!
mircea_popescu: makes sense - my "crazyness" is the direct cause of about 99.x% of the times slavegirls get their hide recolored.
mircea_popescu: what's "crazy" ? and plox don't tell me "that which diverges from the consensus of average derps", if possible.
mircea_popescu: and as far as the perversion of nature goes - quantum mechanics actually by its very own rules provides guarantees that it would not be observable by newtonian means. with the very isolated exception of "light through multiple mosquito nets", and fine problems in the perceived orbits of inner planets, there's really nothing to even measure about qm misbehaviour, for purely qm reasons!
mircea_popescu: they're all basically "you can cross the ocean - it will take six months"
mircea_popescu: historically though, those tend to collapse inconveniently.
mircea_popescu: the already very limited class of negative statements one can derive from physical laws is very fundamental, which in praxis severely limits your chances to do something clever.
mircea_popescu: by which i mean that a) all use is already in use - sure, an ant can't eat you, because of it - but you kinda already both know and use this and b) all uses not already in use are monstrously cataclysmic and temporally unapproachable. so the kelvin death, really ? oooo, neat, lemme make that into a doorlock!
mircea_popescu: even leaving aside that people are still enthusiastically building perpetuum-organ-pumpmobile to this very day ; what practical use are they ?
mircea_popescu: pretty much the only such [class of] statement comes from the laws of thermodynamics (and their mirrors in other fields), which are some of the very few fortunate cases where an actual bound is offered (see, by the way, feynman's excellent introduction in all this, with the reversible and irreversible machines etc), and so negative statements can be had.
mircea_popescu: making negative statements on the basis of positively established physical laws is the hardest task available.
mircea_popescu: to best illustrate this, perhaps : there is nothing in newtonian mechanics that ACTUALLY precludes quantum mechanics.
mircea_popescu: at any rate : it is immensely more difficult to actually make a physical proof than the scheme detailed by bernstein immediately makes apparent.
mircea_popescu: lol are you publishing inept quyantum blabla pieces under a chinese pseudonym ?
mircea_popescu: he works for the republic even as he doesn't know it. and the eu printing press is paying for it. wonder of wonders.
mircea_popescu: phf i'm very happy with the guy's statement, both in the fundamental rejection and in the discursive analysis of the claims aspects. more words may be added to beenfit peculiar idiots, but as it stands it contains the first 4k or so words one'd say on the topic.
mircea_popescu: that is EXACTLY what it should motherfucking look like. assume l, assume p, therefore s.
mircea_popescu: phf yes, i am very happy with it. guy even includes a formal scheme of what the proof should look like, for the benefit of the titrated tykes.
mircea_popescu: actually, the piece is by bernstein, and the abstract entirely vindicates me.
mircea_popescu: Abstract. It is often claimed that the security of theoretical quantum key distribution (QKD) is guaranteed by the laws of physics. However, this claim is content-free if the underlying definition of theoretical QKD is not actually compatible with the laws of physics. This paper observes that (1) the laws of physics pose serious obstacles to the security of QKD and (2) these laws are ignored in a
mircea_popescu: and exactly continuing "shaka-maka is a major deity of great power"
mircea_popescu: "poor black mothers are a key resource in the public money spending field of social services"
mircea_popescu: it's like fucking politicians "thinking". really, does "entanglement" have the STATUS of so and so ?
mircea_popescu: "entanglement is a key resource in the research field of quantum information"
mircea_popescu: yes yes. lemme summarize the question. IF you can show that two particles are entangled, HOW do you show that you have ALL the entangled particles in your control, for an entangla-tuple.
mircea_popescu: granted, i've not gone to school at the premier lightbulb lighting institution in the world.
mircea_popescu: is there some theorem of the unicity of entanglement that i missed ?
mircea_popescu: if the dumbass thing weren't a pdf, i might have made a trilema blast piece. which perhaps explains why it is pdf.
mircea_popescu: there's also no such thing as mathematical proof "by the law of physics".
mircea_popescu: well suppose you have 1mn and 1 have 1mn. then tomorrow, you have 100 dead molluscs q 150 and i have 100 bng recipes, q 150.
mircea_popescu: and how do i calculate if im in positive or negative ?
mircea_popescu: <DianaComan> and seeing how that compares (as results ie money) to those of the other players << this'd work if we even had any sort of a valuating function!
mircea_popescu: of course jurov was working at a lisp-based text version of teh client.
mircea_popescu: for instance asciilifeform : last night i loaded up the 500 abandoned eggs DianaComan sold me, plus some shiny rock shards i had from before, also abandoned birds' nests and disgusting goop, put 500 recipes for flinty toothpaste in my mind, said /bot craft 500 and went to bed. this morning i had like 300 of the things.
mircea_popescu: it'd be pretty epic you know ? actually a very good ground for ai development, cuz so formalized and well scored.
mircea_popescu: prolly the auction/trade part the fastest approach for that.
mircea_popescu: DianaComan actually i suppose one could try and make ai for foxybot