Readit NewsBeware, there's a bug on ARM11-based Raspberry Pis (BCM2835 on Pi 1/Zero/Zero W and CM1) that crashes the VM when executing drawing functions. I'm currently investigating the problem.
- The projections were wrong
- The fatality rate is lower than feared
- Other diseases kill people too
- This isn't as bad as the Spanish Flu
- Lockdowns can harm people too
The only good argument I've heard against lockdowns is that we have mounting evidence that less onerous restrictions are sufficient to keep the transmission rate low. This article doesn't touch on that at all.
+ some of the projections were correct
- The fatality rate is lower than feared
+ higher in some countries
- Other diseases kill people too
+ like smallpox and ebola
- This isn't as bad as the Spanish Flu
+ it's only just started
- Lockdowns can harm people too
+ less than killing and permanently injuring people
I don't understand this mentality of pretending that our 'system' is somehow inferior to the past. Previous pandemics resulted in mass death not only from the disease but also from the economic fallout. We're really not seeing this right now. Perhaps we will in the future. But we can't write articles on what we want to happen to sell more news.
I assert that this is not terribly surprising, and Conway is actually just doing a sleight of hand around the definition of "random". We would normally expect a truly random event to be (by definition) uncorrelated with anything else, in this case including counterfactual versions of itself - the random measurement you get from a given axis must not be correlated with the measurement you would have got if you'd measured a different combination of axes. That's maybe a little odd, but I don't think it contradicts people's normal notion of "randomness", particularly in a QM context. It's like how in early online poker games people would cheat by figuring out the "random seed" and know all the cards - because that's not real randomness.
Well, per everything that Conway's said, it does make a difference - if the experimenter is somehow able to choose which axes to measure after all dice rolls have been fixed, and the mapping of dice roll to measurement result is fixed (and does not depend on which axes the experimenter measures), then that creates a contradiction.
To my mind that's normal quantum behaviour - we see the same thing in the double slit experiment or Bell's inequalities (which this is just a variation on). Quantum behaviour cannot be explained by rolling dice ahead of time, because random results in different possible universes/branches must be uncorrelated with each other, even though we tend to assume that only one of those branches "actually happens". And this result is a cool demonstration of that. But there's no contradiction between that and most people's normal notion of "randomness", IMO.
I assert that this is not terribly surprising, and Conway is actually just doing a sleight of hand around the definition of "random". We would normally expect a truly random event to be (by definition) uncorrelated with anything else, in this case including counterfactual versions of itself - the random measurement you get from a given axis must not be correlated with the measurement you would have got if you'd measured a different combination of axes. That's maybe a little odd, but I don't think it contradicts people's normal notion of "randomness", particularly in a QM context. It's like how in early online poker games people would cheat by figuring out the "random seed" and know all the cards - because that's not real randomness.
What is the distinction you're drawing, concretely? There simply isn't one unless you're using some very non-standard definition of randomness.
> Have you watched the lectures ?
I attended the 2005 version IRL.
AFAIUI by noting that the dice could have been thrown ahead of time and then looked up, we can treat it as a function of time and then it becomes as though another part of the information in the past light cone which doesn't explain the behaviour of particles, as exemplified by FIN, MIN & TWIN
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
I think the Nephilim, given the way they were described as tall "sons of God" who were "heros" and "warriors of renown" were an African people