2·
2 个月前Wrong community. This community is about Linux, not Windows.
- 0 Posts
- 47 Comments
Joined 1 年前
Cake day: 2025年6月7日
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·2 个月前But where are they coming from and going to if matter and energy cannot be destroyed?
From nothing. No new energy is created because virtual particles are always created in a way that does not disturb the total energy of the universe. For example, one particle and one anti-particle. It can’t be any other way.
They don’t blip out of existence independently, they always annihilate each other. If you have a virtual particle/anti-particle pair, they will come into existence, exist separately for some time, possibly interacting with other, real particles, but in the end there will be some annihilation which ends the interaction and maintains the energy of the universe (no energy is created or destroyed).
Virtual particles never come into existence alone.
31·2 个月前Anthropic said to me
spiritual in its nature
It talked back to me
It looks like you might be experiencing psychosis. The sentences you’ve quoted don’t make sense. That you can’t see this and are quoting them as if they’re meaningful indicates you might have a problem.
the first time they see an adult body?
I’d be very concerned if a sighted police officer had never seen an adult.
This is incomprehensible. Which is to say, it’s not even a question.
What can I do to save him?
Just curious what makes you think there’s something you could do that would save him?
video games … we’ve wasted a lot of time on something that has little to no value
Fun has value. Joy has value. Pleasure has value. Indeed, one could even argue that they’re the only things that do have value.
Link to the mailing list message: https://lore.kernel.org/amd-gfx/[email protected]/
I don’t understand
ROFL this is ridiculous. Wrong country friend.
I’d recommend this excellent series if you want a good grounding:
https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/video/arrows-time-back-future-1999
And I also found this video which I haven’t watched but I expect will be good and probably attacks your pondering more directly:
Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.
One paper claiming that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness does not mean that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.
it seems my memory is better than yours
I’m not sure why you think my memory is in any way relevant.
Published 13 August, 2009
There’s a significant journey from being published in a paper to being taught in classes. I was taught Orch OR somewhere between 2008 and 2010 so there’s no reason to think memory comes into it.
Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement
No. I’ve no idea what could have possibly brought you to that conclusion.
Please don’t try to tell me what brought you to that conclusion while multitasking. For that matter, please don’t try to tell me at all.
Which is why I said hypothetically…
I think you may have misused the word “hypothetically” then.
up until a year ago the very idea that quantum entanglement could happen in the brain was treated as a joke for like 30 years
I was taught Orch OR theory at university about 17 years ago.
that’s why the larger theory was instantly dismissed
Instantly dismissed by who? It’s a new theory, there will always be detractors and critics of new theories (see, for example: oxygen theory of combustion). That’s very different from being “instantly dismissed”.
what actually makes consciousness in a brain is (hypothetically, technically) microtubules
This is only a proposed theory, it’s very far from accepted fact.
when we observe them they will always be in the same state?
The two particles are in different but directly related states. For example in some circumstances with two entangled photons, it will necessarily be the case that one photon has horizontal polarisation and the other vertical polarisation. The two will never have the same polarisation.
You can’t know which photon is in which state without measuring one. The effect of taking the measurement travels faster than the speed of light. Measurement is not manipulating though; you can’t say “I want this photon to be measured as vertically polarised”, you can only ask “what is the polarisation of this photon?”. So you can’t transmit information faster than light, unfortunately.
EA Journalist Murdering 2027, coming soon!
Edit: for those unaware of how brutal Saudi Arabia is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Assassination