315300+ entries in 0.199s
trinque: nah, didn't see any gods in
there myself.
phf: well, danielpbarron believes in god, i (for sake of conversation) don't.
that's a non-transferable prior,
though of course both can be
transferred
through various involved mechanisms. indoctrination, dialogues, sudden insight
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.
phf: but rather, are non-trivial
to
transfer
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.
phf: mircea_popescu: non
transferable perhaps
phf: but so are most people, have specific set of priors
that are non-sharable
DianaComan: not at all, no, I'll
troll some with it irl
phf: by
that definition yes!
phf: i might find a discussion of lent dietary choices both interesting and not at all uncomfortable, but never
the less
they are "crazy" because
the foundation is understood but not shared
trinque: catholics say
they gave up starbucks or something during
phf: danielpbarron: we have it in orthodox christianity. a period when you have
to eat specific, reduced diet
phf: if danielpbarron started discussing finer points of
the bible, like, say, specific choices of food for lent,
the entire
thread is "crazy"
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.
phf: well, danielpbarron is a religious fundamentalist.
things
that he says have
to be recoded from his frame
to my frame. if
there's particularly prolonged periods of inability
to map frames on my part, i can go "well
this is crazy" and dismiss it as not bring relevant
to me or i can spend significantly more effort
to recode
mircea_popescu: what's "crazy" ? and plox don't
tell me "that which diverges from
the consensus of average derps", if possible.
DianaComan: anyway, it made me curious: what's
the crazy
that was plenty and seen but not really digested as it
turned out?
DianaComan: phf: i'm just saying
there was plenty of opportunities
to speak up against crazy in
the past, and i saw plenty of crazy and i just
thought everyone else
took it in strides, as part of
the game. apparently not! <- at a stretch crazy might be seen as an insult I suppose
trinque: I don't see
the crazy myself, but perhaps "we're all mad here!"
trinque: strikes me as more of an insult
to alf's judgment really...
phf: danielpbarron expressed some concern
that
the following part of yesterdays #b-a log was an accusation made by me against mircea_popescu. i don't see it, but perhaps i'm missing something?
http://paste.lisp.org/display/311820/raw pete_dushenski: maybe
tmsr just needed a stepping stone between itself and reddit
PeterL: meh, a couple people poked
their heads in, no more
than any other
time in #b-a, I don't see any corpse-munching yet
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: 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.
phf: asciilifeform: somehow grant committee on
the other hand eat dat shit up
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
phf: asciilifeform: it's not a good kind of
tick
phf: used
to be you get a little
tick mark in red from your
teacher for
that sort of writing
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".
phf: asciilifeform: guy had
that sword simulation fiasco, perhaps he decided
that perky nih bureaucrat
types (with rigged
tomboy/ethnic/... upbringing) are better future builders. could be worse, could've gone joss whedon altogether
phf: "Is
the security of quantum cryptography guaranteed by
the laws of physics?" i have no expertise
to make a comment on it
though
phf: i guess stephenson is on seveneves kick right now, which was pretty
torturous reading, but probably goes really well with swj crowd
DianaComan: I don't get what you are on really; I said:
to see if I am positive or negative, not even comparing
to you, just very crude:
today my eulora account is worth 1btc,
tomorrow it is worth 1.5btc or 0.5btc
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.
DianaComan: do you mean
that bv is now meaningless?
DianaComan: well, so far it's very crude: are you in
the positive or in
the negative?
then again, for comparing god help us given all
the sikriz