oh, ok; most interesting. that means it's a solution then, well, aside from things like (a) privacy concerns and the associated (b) ability for them to arbitrarily censor, delay, hold etc transactions which we have certainly see e.g. paypal do.
international remunerations does not fall under 'breaking the law'
and there are plenty of failings of the security of various centralized information storage and processing systems as we have seen; they can become vulnerable to attacks by bad actors. some of those bad actors are trying to target specific people to harass, stalk, or otherwise harm them. you're not going to convince me that blanket surveillance of all financial activity is remotely optimal from a safety standpoint. and we have obvious human rights questions about mandated surveillance of financial activity. so, no, just because someone is in government does not mean i trust them not to abuse the immense power they've legislated for themselves. i can be doing absolutely nothing illegal and argue for the legitimacy of taxation and AML controls while still holding the above views about human rights, and for good reason.
international remunerations and payment censorship avoidance in tyrannical regimes are two obvious and virtually unarguable problems a genuine cryptocurrency solves
But our universe, as well as a theoretically deterministic universe, necessarily, certainly contain many mixed states.
And, I didn't use the term data first. But when I used that word I was trying to transmit the meaning of "content", "substance", or character, nature, or what exists in the matter/issue. What is in the principle of a system's operation. How do I establish given a wave function the amount of data that it holds? A wave function doesn't exactly contain data. You either prescribe a wavefunction, or try to model one based on hypothetical constraints, or you can attempt to guess what an existing actual wavefunction was through measurement. As I mentioned I think when we say data we're usually talking about what is measured. But there is something more that exists than what is measured. Something that you could say is invisible doesn't not exist if it determines everything else that exist. If you understand everything about an object or a system you can prescribe an exact wavefunction. But we do not understand everything about what is in the objects for which we have tried to prescribe wavefunctions. What am I claiming exactly? I was not claiming anything, although now I have made a claim at the start of this comment; but I was asking a question as to whether 'mjburgess' was merely phrasing his original comment to make it seem to the careless reader or undiscerning eye that 'If the future "holds more data" than the past then it's random with respect to the past, by definition. This is one of the major interpretations of QM.' was actually "If the future "holds more data" than the past then it's random with respect to the past, by all possible definitions (implicitly). This a conclusion finally reached by physicists after having studied QM, rather than merely one possible interpretation given the best theory available so far.' but they indeed did not write that.
obviously not true - in so many ways. what exactly in a wavefunction knows whether it will encounter other wavefunctions? i think what you're claiming leads to many contradictions.
what time it is here changes from one moment to the next. and there are also horizons. you dont have all the data about things yet you operate. just trying to help
No, I don't think that's correct. I'm not a professional but.. despite unitarity and maybe CPT symmetry, I think that a given "past" (by which I think we mean the universal wavefunction at some t?) has no way of recording what its own state is. If measurements were to be done of subsets or the whole of the wavefunction, then it would, I imagine, contribute to the state of the wavefunction so as to evolve it. But keep in mind as well when we say "data" we're talking about state which can be measured, aren't we? Maybe some state can't be observed; and, the "universe" also definitely limits its own certainty anyway.
what do you mean by the term information?
My question is, rather, whether a system needs to be able to know it knows that information for it not to still be causal. Because it doesnt observe its whole wavefunction
Such a good comment. But I have a question for you. You said this is 'one of the major interpretations' of QM. But if the hypothetically greater future data is not observable by anything outside of the universal wavefunction, then is it not the case that the entire system is evolving without external observation, i.e., the system itself does not have to be able to verify that it "knows" what outcome will occur for it to be able to generate new data by a causal mechanism. So it sounds like randomness is not proven by what you said is definition, alone. Is this what you meant by it being "one of the" interpretations of QM?
i think it's because they're in denial about parts of themselves which they don't want to see properly. quantum makes plenty of sense. for someone to claim it doesn't is a self contradiction.
we weren't talking about the value of apple's stock or its property aside from the cash it holds on hand. did you just not read what i wrote? the considerable number of downvoters must have made the same mistake as you i guess. the question is whether fiat cash is any more real than cryptocurrencies.
and as for them being a null term, you have no clue what you're talking about or you're intentionally trolling. please don't reply to me.
no we were talking about the 'cash' they hold. I dont get why you're bringing such tangential things into the discussion. what guarantees the value of USD is (a) its current adoption and (b) the fact the US stands behind it and will police and secure its usage. how is that different from a proof of work, asic resistant cryptocurrency?
Can't you just say the same thing about the fiat currency that you say Apple's holding? It could also "go to zero". And certain "tokens".. specifically, let's say something like Bitcoin or Monero, actually do have what you would call "intrinsic" value since they require the expenditure of actual, physical energy to obtain, unless you know of a viable attack on those proof of work systems that you're not telling us about.
the fact there's an internal communication system and what stack it's built on, for starters. I'd imagine employees were required to agree not to disclose that sort of info but I could be mistaken.
But is it what you're calling "legal" speech to disclose confidential info? If so, is it not just like they issued themselves a takedown notice and immediately executed on it?
yeah you're right but the cat thing isn't a gedanken experiment because gedanken experiments need to start with rigorous statements of physical systems. the cat example is not remotely rigorous. if it were stated as such then it would be seen to be trivial
no, no! it was an entirely different person here almost 2 wks ago who was arguing with me about whether quantum mechanics can be understood without the math, all while making claims that showed how little he knew of the topic. he might have been trolling anyway. In my reply to you I was merely agreeing, herr denton-scratch. many worlds doesnt (afaict) posit why/how branch selection even occurs so it's sort of incomplete IMO. wavefunction collapse doesn't seem to exist either, but rather is a result of entanglement with the observer. my personal guess is something like superdeterminism in principle but I keep an open mind. I suspect that there are some basic consequences/meanings of the existence of state/information and entanglement themselves which have been too subtle to have been seen as assumptions in the past, and I am slowly working on formalizing them.
Excuse me but humans have already made immense technological progress through science, creativity, effort, and not listening to doubters like you. What on earth are you talking about and how could you speak so carelessly about such a crucial issue? And where the hell is this bs narrative that it's just a bunch of elites who want to get off earth ? The issue is ensuring the survival of humanity in the current braindead situation that all our eggs are in one basket. Any basic strategy course will tell you this is a good way to lose all your progress after a few iterations. I'm starting to wonder if there's a campaign to discourage the mission to ensure humanity's safety. Hit me back in 3 years when this hits the news and thank me then but it will probably be too late.
You're making claims discouraging people to seek a solution to a VERY important issue. Kindly show some substantial info demonstrating evidence humans would be reliant on Earth. The entire point of such a mission is not to be. And lots of materials exist elsewhere. Again kindly show us proof of your extremely dangerous claims.
maybe you edited your post but thought experiments are not supposed to be impossible at all. they're supposed to be realistic. that's why we consider them "experiments". Einstein's photon in a moving box counting time gedanken experiment was used to illustrate very real physics
It was not a gedanken experiment, though; it was a joke. The box is totally irrelevant, because a cat in a box is not in a box, because the cat is not isolated, because the cat is actually a compound system already. If you had a single particle in a box, okay, yes, that's valid.
The cat would not be alive and dead simultaneously regardless of the box because it's totally entangled with and decohered / observed by the other elements in the box.
A single particle, or a coherent system, can be thought of as being isolated though. Do you see what I mean
you act like I wasn't just talking with someone here on HN who was convinced we "live in a classical world" when in reality everything is governed by the same quantum physics on every scale.