DavidPlumpton

Make the slightest mistake and you are getting sued!

In Many Worlds virtual particles are simply other universes (other parts of Hilbert space) that have electrons in different positions. They are nearby enough to contribute some amplitude to have an observable effect. Edit a word.

It does not require FTL signalling for the entanglement to work.

Ask them about their enterprise licensing and see if you still have the same opinion.

Death by Snoo-Snoo

If I understand it a free particle is not really quantised; it can have pretty much any wavelength. But when it is confined by boundary conditions (e.g. within an atom) we then get interference and reinforcement in the wave equations.

The Many Worlds Interpretation plus Sleeping Beauty can directly explain this.

You don't need to hack voting machines. If you control the body that allocates them in your area you send more of them to areas favourable to your desired outcome. So in other areas the lines get too long and some people don't get to vote. That alone will swing things a few percent.

Jeremy Clarkson published his bank account details in his column to back up his assertion that you can send money to a bank account but not withdraw any. However apparently anybody can set up an automatic payment from any account to any other account...

In QM random outcomes occur. By what mechanism are the random values chosen? Many Worlds has a plausible mechanism for this. I'm unaware of any other interpretation claiming the same.

You are in A wondering why you are in A. You are also in B wondering why you are in B, and so on. It's all perfectly consistent.

The Everett FAQ makes even stronger claims about the status of Many Worlds. See http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#interpretation

I wonder how that compares to a single AWS data centre.

They used to say the Space Shuttle isn't ready to fly unless the weight of the paperwork is equal to the weight of the shuttle.

You might find this interesting http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...

Somebody should create a CV with years of experience in all the worst technologies and circulate it through all the worst recruiters and see what happens.

The Everett FAQ Q16 disagrees. http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

And if you're in the mood for a lot of reading http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/

The Many Worlds Interpretation explains all of this quite intuitively http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/

Well one of those games is playing world championship level chess. Pretty cool for something that fits in your pocket.

Is computing Chaitin's omega the most pointless waste of time that can possibly be imagined, by definition? If you actually had the value can you do anything with it at all?

I took a university course on Unix internals in 1988. The lecturer started by announcing "this is the last year that we will teach this course as Unix is now very out of date and is being left further behind every year". It turned out to be the best course I ever took.

I was dealing with this a couple of days ago: List<List<List<Map<String, Object>>>>

Sigh.

It's widely reported. For example http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...

So if any of this was true it would all just be an amazing coincidence that the pilot was in a courtroom seeing a political figure he strongly supported for years getting a hefty sentence on trumped up charges for challenging the national leader. And then after being observed to be highly upset and emotional have a night to consider it all and then go fly the plane the next day.

Try writing a complex program in 1960s era COBOL. Then you will understand a large part of Lisp's claim to fame.

I learned programming by reading the source code of this game in the fantastic book by David Ahl. I still remember an array called K which contained the X,Y coordinates and shield strength of each Klingon warship.

What's more likely? That quantum interference appears because many worlds perpetually exist, or because they seem to exist but somehow don't, or because they sometimes briefly come into existence, hang around for a bit and then randomly collapse breaking all sorts of laws (Liouville thereom, CPT invariance etc.)?

Many Worlds is much tidier than all the alternatives.hh

I was unable to figure out one key thing about this article. Are they claiming that if the droplet is observed while going through one of the slits that the interference pattern will vanish? If not can we really claim a strong analogy with QM?

Yudkowsky is more of an expert in reasoning than in Physics. For example, imagine you are a world class expert in Quantum Mechanics and you are asked to give a talk at a science club. You cover a lot of stuff and think "that was great". But somebody else tells you "that was terrible, you mumbled, you wrote illegible stuff on the board etc." and you realise it wasn't about QM, it was about public speaking.

Similarly physicists have done amazing work over the decades, and now it's time to draw conclusions from all that evidence. But it turns out that physicists are not domain experts in drawing conclusions from evidence. That kind of skill is a separate domain in its own right.

That's because Bender's metal ass is so shiny.