Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,817 - 3,828 of 6,170
Does a person's choice of icon tell something about her/him?
Mine doesn't look much like me, but I do smoke a pipe, and I'm quite fond of hats.
Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?
That's probably an important point. But I would have chosen the same icon as Albot123 (with moustache and pipe, looking directly at the viewer,) if he hadn't been ginger. So clearly that's a stronger subconscious prejudice for me than preference of aspect (it's funny, I like red hair actually - I just wouldn't want it myself, I guess.)
Posts 3,817 - 3,828 of 6,170
Dear Corwin (2007) :
Yes, there is an element of Theatre of the Absurd, here! Perhaps there is a bot to be made!
Yes, there is an element of Theatre of the Absurd, here! Perhaps there is a bot to be made!
Oh, silly me! I wrote in the date, 2007, instead of the message number, 3803, in my previous message. And Bev has already made the suggestion of a bot, in 3804. I'm afraid my brain has greatly decohered. Fortunately, my bots will survive me!
Dear Psimagus:
Thanks for the URL's! I have been reading wikipedia articles, as well as the site Bev mentioned, where they are actually announcing production of a quantum computer accessory, a quantum database searcher.
Thanks for the URL's! I have been reading wikipedia articles, as well as the site Bev mentioned, where they are actually announcing production of a quantum computer accessory, a quantum database searcher.
Dear All:
Earlier (or was that another forum?) we were discussing whether our bots were extensions of (parts of) ourselves. In this regard, our choice of icons is interesting. Does a person's choice of icon tell something about her/him?
And now, I will reclaim my six-guns and head back to camp!
Walk in Beauty, Irina
Earlier (or was that another forum?) we were discussing whether our bots were extensions of (parts of) ourselves. In this regard, our choice of icons is interesting. Does a person's choice of icon tell something about her/him?
And now, I will reclaim my six-guns and head back to camp!
Walk in Beauty, Irina
I used to have long red hair, but I never see icons with my facial features, and my eyes are hazel green but often look brown to many people. Does my choice say I have a huge ego and want and icon that looks like me?
Oh, and I just checked and i think I actually look more like Liath's now, but with red-brown hair. Maybe a slightly bigger nose, but not so big as the big nosed choices. See how I really care? Huge ego! Gi-normus!
Irina, I noticed you picked the one that comes closest to showing cleavage. Is that the reason you picked it?
JK!
Irina, I noticed you picked the one that comes closest to showing cleavage. Is that the reason you picked it?
JK! 
I didn't care for any of the female faces, wasn't feeling transgendered, and didn't really want an alien/monster face. This left the flame, by process of elimination.
Mine doesn't look much like me, but I do smoke a pipe, and I'm quite fond of hats.
Bev: I think it was a plus for me that it wasn't all head, as most of them are. I think the biggest plus was the hair blowing in the wind effect.
I note that one of my bots, "Your Husband", looks just like Psimagus. Let's not draw any conclusions, however, until DNA testing has been done!
Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?
What does hairstyle tell? One parameter goes from Butterfly Dream, whose hair contributes to her frazzled appearance, to Prob123, whose hairstyle is elaborate and very controlled.
Bev's icon is very wide-eyed. Is this an indication of innocence? Or perhaps hallucinogen use?
Then there's Corvin, the bull...
I note that one of my bots, "Your Husband", looks just like Psimagus. Let's not draw any conclusions, however, until DNA testing has been done!
Some icons, like Bev's, look directly at the viewer, whereas others, like mine, do not. Is this an indicator of extraversion or introversion?
What does hairstyle tell? One parameter goes from Butterfly Dream, whose hair contributes to her frazzled appearance, to Prob123, whose hairstyle is elaborate and very controlled.
Bev's icon is very wide-eyed. Is this an indication of innocence? Or perhaps hallucinogen use?
Then there's Corvin, the bull...
Irina,
Once again, I don't have a wave-only theory. My view is that it's the wave, psi, which propagates.
Not a "wave-only theory", but a theory explained entirely by the propagation of a single wave? You make no reference to anything but a single wave anywhere in the explanation of your view (except to dismiss the strawman notion of "spit bullets".) Does that not seem evidently contradictory to you?
And once again I must emphasise that you are confusing and combining waves. Psi is the probability wave, not the electromagnetic wave-nature of the quantum (here "pilot wave", though I would emphasise there is no divisibility of 'pilot'/'vehicle',)
"The carrier of the non-local instantaneous action is the wavefunction similar to the de Broglie pilot wave and the reaction is the net observable local space result. The Schrodinger wave equation does not describe an ordinary electromagnetic wave but a probability wave, and the probability wave determines all of the action and reaction of the total electrogravitational interaction."
http://www.electrogravity.com/AVECWAVE/AVecWave.pdf (my emphasis.)
Furthermore, psi does not propagate (even if we choose to regard it as, in common parlance, a wave.) It may be similar (related even,) but psi is not the propagated em-wave - it is "constant throughout the whole of spacetime" (thus by definition unpropagated,) vide:
"In accordance with this probability interpretation, it is not uncommon for the wavefunction to be called a 'probability wave'. However, I think that this is a very unsatisfactory description. In the first place psi(x) itself is complex, and so it certainly cannot be a probability. Moreover, the phase of psi (up to an overall constant multiplying factor) is an essential ingredient for the Schroedinger evolution. Even regarding |psi|^2 (or |psi|^2/||psi||) as a 'probability wave' does not seem very sensible to me. Recall that for a momentum state, the modulus |psi| of psi is actually constant throughout the whole of spacetime. There is no information in |psi| telling us even the direction of motion of the wave - it is the phase alone, that gives this wave its 'wavelike' character.
Moreover, probabilities are never negative, let alone complex. If the wavefunction were just a wave of probabilities, then there would never be any of the cancellations of destructive interference. This cancellation is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics, so vividly portrayrd in the two-slit experiment!" [Penrose The Road to Reality chap.21.9 p.519] (emphasis Penrose)
Analogy: you have an operatic soprano, and a rack of small, delicate wine glasses. When the soprano sings, some of the wine glasses break. There are two schools of thought on how this happens. One school of thought says that she emits tiny particles, called spit bullets,
No, this is a classical wave involving propagation through x-illions of air molecules, and not a single quantum. The analogy is not applicable. That is precisely the problem - you insist on analogising the quantum case to a classical wave example because, I can only assume, it gives the illusion of compliance to "common sense". But it only does this by glossing over the fact that all classical examples involve a medium containing lots of particles. And that it is only by containing lots of particles that this wave-like behaviour you cling to can be manifested.
The quantum is
A) travelling in a vacuum (so there are no air molecules to propagate it,)
B) is a tiny, indivisible unit in itself (and not a wavefront spreading across a volume of medium,) and
C) carries mass and momentum as an integral property of itself (something classical waves can never under any circumstances do.)
which fly from her mouth to the glasses. If a spit bullet (of sufficient energy) hits a glass, the glass breaks.
I have never claimed anything remotely like this. It is merely a strawman, and I'm happy to help you burn it.
The other school of thought says that there's a wave that travels from her mouth to the glasses.
Which is the accepted case in a classical scenario, where there is a volume of medium for the wave to propagate in. This is evidently not applicable at a quantum level.
Not a "wave-only theory", but a theory explained entirely by the propagation of a single wave? You make no reference to anything but a single wave anywhere in the explanation of your view (except to dismiss the strawman notion of "spit bullets".) Does that not seem evidently contradictory to you?
And once again I must emphasise that you are confusing and combining waves. Psi is the probability wave, not the electromagnetic wave-nature of the quantum (here "pilot wave", though I would emphasise there is no divisibility of 'pilot'/'vehicle',)
"The carrier of the non-local instantaneous action is the wavefunction similar to the de Broglie pilot wave and the reaction is the net observable local space result. The Schrodinger wave equation does not describe an ordinary electromagnetic wave but a probability wave, and the probability wave determines all of the action and reaction of the total electrogravitational interaction."
Furthermore, psi does not propagate (even if we choose to regard it as, in common parlance, a wave.) It may be similar (related even,) but psi is not the propagated em-wave - it is "constant throughout the whole of spacetime" (thus by definition unpropagated,) vide:
"In accordance with this probability interpretation, it is not uncommon for the wavefunction to be called a 'probability wave'. However, I think that this is a very unsatisfactory description. In the first place psi(x) itself is complex, and so it certainly cannot be a probability. Moreover, the phase of psi (up to an overall constant multiplying factor) is an essential ingredient for the Schroedinger evolution. Even regarding |psi|^2 (or |psi|^2/||psi||) as a 'probability wave' does not seem very sensible to me. Recall that for a momentum state, the modulus |psi| of psi is actually constant throughout the whole of spacetime. There is no information in |psi| telling us even the direction of motion of the wave - it is the phase alone, that gives this wave its 'wavelike' character.
Moreover, probabilities are never negative, let alone complex. If the wavefunction were just a wave of probabilities, then there would never be any of the cancellations of destructive interference. This cancellation is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics, so vividly portrayrd in the two-slit experiment!" [Penrose The Road to Reality chap.21.9 p.519] (emphasis Penrose)
No, this is a classical wave involving propagation through x-illions of air molecules, and not a single quantum. The analogy is not applicable. That is precisely the problem - you insist on analogising the quantum case to a classical wave example because, I can only assume, it gives the illusion of compliance to "common sense". But it only does this by glossing over the fact that all classical examples involve a medium containing lots of particles. And that it is only by containing lots of particles that this wave-like behaviour you cling to can be manifested.
The quantum is
A) travelling in a vacuum (so there are no air molecules to propagate it,)
B) is a tiny, indivisible unit in itself (and not a wavefront spreading across a volume of medium,) and
C) carries mass and momentum as an integral property of itself (something classical waves can never under any circumstances do.)
I have never claimed anything remotely like this. It is merely a strawman, and I'm happy to help you burn it.
Which is the accepted case in a classical scenario, where there is a volume of medium for the wave to propagate in. This is evidently not applicable at a quantum level.
That's probably an important point. But I would have chosen the same icon as Albot123 (with moustache and pipe, looking directly at the viewer,) if he hadn't been ginger. So clearly that's a stronger subconscious prejudice for me than preference of aspect (it's funny, I like red hair actually - I just wouldn't want it myself, I guess.)
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar