Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[James R]

Write4U:

No, I don't walk away from your abuse.

I take exception to you referring to my pointing out your many errors and my asking reasonable questions as "abuse".

Try being honest and things will go much more smoothly for you. Stop ignoring and evading. Address the questions you have been asked. And by "address", I don't just mean find something random on the interwebs and cut-and-paste it over here. I mean answer the specific questions I asked you, in your own words.

Are you able to do that?

You keep banning me so that I am unable to respond.

No. You keep getting yourself banned by breaching our site posting guidelines. The ban system works automatically. The lengths of bans are based on the number of active warning points you have. Surely you have read the warnings and bans policy by now, along with the site rules. (?)

This is an example of your prejudicial behavior toward me.

Here is a list of the reasons for your most recent 7 warnings:

• off topic thread hijacking attempt
• thread hijacking again
• Attempted hijacking of a thread onto a pet topic.
• Knowingly persisting in a lie after it was exposed. Refusing to apologise for a false accusation he made against another member.
• Trying to reopen a closed topic by posting about it in a different thread.
• attempted thread hijacking - trying to move the discussion onto an unrelated pet topic again
• off topic - repeat offender

Now, I don't know about you, but I can see a clear pattern here.

How many times do you think it will be necessary for me to warn you to stay on topic, before you finally get the message?

Above are only your most recent 7 warnings. But in your time here, you have been warned no less than 35 times.

Is it too much to ask you to abide by the posting guidelines you agreed to when you signed up?

I always answer your "questions", you just refuse to accept them.

You respond to cherry-picked parts of my posts. Your most common behaviour is to ignore three quarters or more of what I have written to you, and to post irrelevant replies to the other quarter. Seldom do you answer direct questions. When you do, it is usually just to repeat prior assertions, with no new information. You also regularly repeat false claims that I have previously debunked.

Here is yet another example of an answer that was rejected out of hand.

I never reject your answers "out of hand". You should read my reasons for rejecting your claims. You should try thinking about them, rather than running off to google something else you don't understand but you think will make a good cut-and-paste.

OK, here it is.

The number of protons determine the type of atom (element).

I directly addressed this claim of yours in no fewer than FOUR separate posts. In each of those posts I explained why you have this precisely backwards. Each time, you ignored my objection to your claim and simply repeated it.

The most recent, detailed explanation I gave you about the specific error in this statement of yours was back in posts 427 and 428. Almost immediately after that explanation, you simply repeated your assertion again, while totally ignoring the content of posts 427 and 428.

And here you are, over a month later, still making the same error.

As usual, you have cut-and-pasted something irrelevant, which does not address the specific objection I put to you more than a month ago. You have linked to a random wikipedia article, which happens to be about the proton-to-electron mass ratio, and just cut and pasted some random sentences.

Did I mention the proton-to-electron mass ratio? I did not. Have you and I ever discussed that? Not as far as I can remember. Is it at all relevant to the question of whether "the number of protons determines the type of atom" is a true statement? It is not.

So...

This is in response to you accusation that I never respond to your "critiques".

You haven't answered my critique of your claim that "the number of protons determines the type of atom".

You have "responded" with random irrelevancies, as you so often do, but none of those address the objection I raised.

Why don't you go back, read posts #427 and #428 and, you know, answer the questions I put to you there? You will need to actually read the posts, try to understand my point, think about your response, and try to construct a reply. You can either agree with me or disagree. If you are going to disagree, you will need to identify what I got wrong in my posts. Explain to me where I went wrong.

Understand?

Are you now going to ban me for responding to your accusation that I never respond?

Stop being a cry baby. If you're going to persist in making faulty claims, be prepared to defend them. Stop trying to change the subject. Stop posting irrelevancies.

Alternatively, you could just admit your error and we can move on.

Or worse, that I am somehow proselytizing my private religion?

Do you understand why I have categorised your blind devotion to the cults of Tegmark, Hammeroff and Bohm a personal religion? Or not?

I am taking a little vacation from this unhealthy environment. See ya.....

Welcome back.

 

[James R]

Question about "free will".

Taking the old example of regularly ordering a particular flavor of ice-cream as a deterministic brain function, it is assumed that the store has a variety of other flavors beside you favorite flavor.

Can it be said that in reality there is a "superposition" of available flavor choices in that store?

No.

Thus, when ordering chocolate and told that the store is out of chocolate, forcing you to make an alternate choice, does the ability to make a "considered" choice of an alternate flavor, from the range of available flavors, introduce a measure of free will in the decision making?

No.

 

[Write4U]

• thread hijacking again
• Attempted hijacking of a thread onto a pet topic.

How in hell can I hijack my own thread? This thread was "given" a title that allows me to change the topic at will. Now you complain that I am not stayingon-to[ic? I am in fact honoring the thread title.

Your answer to my serious question in #662, was totally useless as far as "information" is concerned. You are a useless source of information.
You may want to work on that.

But I get your message.. Back to a more benign enviroment. Bye bye!!!

 

[James R]

How in hell can I hijack my own thread?

First, I would need to go back and check the details of the warnings I listed above to see whether they related to the current thread or a different one. Most of the warnings you have received for thread hijacking have been in threads that were not "my own thread". As you are aware, you have a bad habit of trying to move discussions onto one of your three-or-so obsessions. It's like you're unwilling to try discussing anything else.

Second, every thread here has a topic. It doesn't matter if you started a thread on a topic. If you later try to hijack it onto a different topic, it doesn't matter a jot if you consider it to be your thread. Threads on this forum don't belong to you. They are all subject to moderation. They are for everyone, not just for you - even the ones you start. This is a discussion forum, not your blog.

Third, we come to the question of the current thread. Its ostensible topic is "Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo". Ironically, it was originally split off from another thread in which you tried to take the discussion off topic. It was left open mostly because you proved that you can't control yourself when it comes to posting repetitively and compulsively about your three obsessions, and partly because has been a useful dumping ground for your any off-topic posts in other threads.

The topic, however, has no focus. Much of the recent discussion you and I have had here has been about your repeated claims about the "mathematical universe". Maybe material on that topic should be split to its own dedicated thread and this one closed. That is a big job, however.

Your microtubule topic was done to death and eventually closed. In 3000 posts you learned nothing new, apparently. Your maths-adjacent topic is on its last legs. Over period of years, you haven't managed to learn what a mathematical function is, or a derivative, despite your making of repeated erroneous claims about them, which were repeatedly corrected by other posters. You have also been unwilling to address my specific objection to Tegmark's idea, despite my directly asking you to do so more than 25 times.

I don't think you understand quantum mechanics sufficiently (indeed, at all) to even begin to grasp what Bohm was on about with his pilot waves. You are only really capable of discussing Bohm's pseudo-religious ideas about physics, in the same repetitive way that you discuss Tegmark's ideas and ideas about consciousness in microtubules.

Is there any topic left that you're capable of and interested in discussing, which hasn't already been covered ad nauseam in this thread and in your other ones?

This thread was "given" a title that allows me to change the topic at will.

I agree. That's a good argument for closing the thread.

Your answer to my serious question in #662, was totally useless as far as "information" is concerned. You are a useless source of information.

Would it help if I told you all the things that are wrong in your questions about the ice-cream shop?

Would you be open to learning something? Would you even acknowledge the effort I put into trying to teach you?

I think we both know the answers to these questions. Tell me: why should I want to waste more time on your latest word-salad concoction?

But I get your message.. Back to a more benign enviroment. Bye bye!!!

Okay. Bye, Write4U! Have a nice life.

(You know, you could have just said "Hey, James R, you made some good points in post #427. It looks like you were right and I was wrong. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me." But you do you.)

 

[exchemist]

How in hell can I hijack my own thread? This thread was "given" a title that allows me to change the topic at will. Now you complain that I am not stayingon-to[ic? I am in fact honoring the thread title.

Your answer to my serious question in #662, was totally useless as far as "information" is concerned. You are a useless source of information.
You may want to work on that.

But I get your message.. Back to a more benign enviroment. Bye bye!!!

Tot ziens.

But I bet you'll be back within a fortnight. (I'm posting this prediction in the hope you will try to prove me wrong .)

 

[James R]

Write4U:

On second thoughts, regarding your accusation that I am "useless source of information"...

Let's try the experiment one more time, shall we? Perhaps the results will be different this time around. Or perhaps I'll be wasting my time again. Anyhoo, this shouldn't take long.

Question about "free will".

Taking the old example of regularly ordering a particular flavor of ice-cream as a deterministic brain function, it is assumed that the store has a variety of other flavors beside you favorite flavor.

Can it be said that in reality there is a "superposition" of available flavor choices in that store?

No, it can't. The word "superposition" is a scientific term that has a specific meaning. For example, in quantum mechanics it refers to the quantum state of a system that is not one of the eigenstates of a particular observable. One way to picture what a quantum superposition looks like, from a pop-science perspective, is to imagine that the system is, in some sense, in two or more incompatible states simultaneously. In quantum physics, the superposition "collapses" to one of the eigenstates when a measurement of the particular observable is made.

In your ice cream shop example, wherein a shop has several different icecream flavours, the different flavours are not in a quantum superposition. One tub has banana flavour. Another has chocolate. Another has rum and raisin. etc. None of the tubs - nor the system of all tubs considered together - is in a superposition of states. A superposition would be like having a single tub containing icecream of an underdetermined flavour - undetermined until somebody looks at the tub, whereupon the tub would be seen to contain exactly one flavour (e.g. only chocolate, or only rum and raisin).

So, coming back to your question again, the answer is "No, it cannot be said that 'in reality' there is a superposition of flavour choices". It's not even a good analogy.

Is this useful information for you, Write4U? Will you thank me for taking the time to write out a detailed, comprehensive answer to your question? Or will you ignore it or whine about it? Have I wasted my time on you again? We'll see.

Thus, when ordering chocolate and told that the store is out of chocolate, forcing you to make an alternate choice, does the ability to make a "considered" choice of an alternate flavor, from the range of available flavors, introduce a measure of free will in the decision making?

The answer to this question, once again, is "No."

If you originally had the free will to choose among, say, three flavours - e.g. banana, chocolate or rum and raisin - and the shortage of chocolate flavoured icecream reduces the number of available flavours from three to two, this does not introduce a measure of free will into your decision making. In fact, it places a new limitation upon the number of choices you could previously freely make.

If, on the other hand, you originally (when there were three available flavours) did not have free will to choose one flavour or another, then removing one flavour will not magically give you any measure of free will. I think this is obvious. If you disagree with me, you should explain why and we can discuss your misconception further. However, for now, I will leave it at this.

Is this useful information for you, Write4U? Will you thank me for taking the time to write out a detailed, answer to your question? Or will you ignore it or whine about it? Have I wasted my time on you again? We'll see.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said: "Can it be said that in reality there is a "superposition" of available flavor choices in that store?"

James R said:
In your ice cream shop example, wherein a shop has several different icecream flavours, the different flavours are not in a quantum superposition. One tub has banana flavour. Another has chocolate. Another has rum and raisin. etc. None of the tubs - nor the system of all tubs considered together - is in a superposition of states. A superposition would be like having a single tub containing icecream of an underdetermined flavour - undetermined until somebody looks at the tub, whereupon the tub would be seen to contain exactly one flavour (e.g. only chocolate, or only rum and raisin).

This is a perfect example of your sloppy reading and kneejerk response to my posts.
I did not put the icecreams in superposition, I put the choice of available icecreams in superposition.

Q: In principle, can choice be in superposition

Copilot
The idea is that until a decision is made, all possible choices coexist in a kind of "superposition." Just like a quantum particle, a choice could be said to exist in all possible states until it's acted upon, or in other words, until it's observed by making a decision. This thought experiment raises questions about free will, determinism, and the nature of reality itself.

If you had read my post a little more carefully, you should have made that distinction.

 

[exchemist]

This is a perfect example of your sloppy reading and kneejerk response to my posts.
I did not put the icecreams in superposition, I put the choice of available icecreams in superposition.


If you had read my post a little more carefully, you should have made that distinction.

A “choice” is not a physical system. So who is being sloppy?

By the way, that must a record for leaving in a huff then returning. What did you do? Go for a piss?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

This is a perfect example of your sloppy reading and kneejerk response to my posts.

Now you're just being combative for the sake of it. I wrote you a considered response, not a knee-jerk response. I addressed your questions in detail. My reading was not "sloppy". Your writing was sloppy. My interpretation of what you wrote was perfectly valid. If you meant something different - as you now claim - you should have tried to express your meaning more clearly in the first place.

Don't blame me for your mistakes. Be thankful that I bothered to respond to you at all.

Remember what I asked before posting my response? No? I wrote:

"Is this useful information for you, Write4U? Will you thank me for taking the time to write out a detailed, comprehensive answer to your question? Or will you ignore it or whine about it? Have I wasted my time on you again? We'll see."

Your answers to my questions are now apparent.

Was the information I provided useful for you? We'll never know. If it was useful, you're not admitting that. If it wasn't useful, then I wasted my time on you again, as I expected I would.

Did you thank me for taking the time to write out a detailed, comprehensive answer to your question? No. You responsed like a brat continuing a temper tantrum.

Did you ignore the content of my response? Mostly, yes, you did.

Did you whine about it? Yes, you did, most certainly.

Have I wasted my time on you again? Yes, most certainly I have. As predicted and expected.

I did not put the icecreams in superposition, I put the choice of available icecreams in superposition.

What you wrote was ambiguous and could fairly be interpreted either way. Of course, you're not man enough to admit that. You're a baby who wants an excuse to keep whining.

Considering your alternative question, about the choices being in a superposition, my answer is still: no, they aren't.

When making a choice of which flavour of icecream you will have, there are only two possibilities: 1. you have not made a choice and 2. you have not yet made a choice.

There is no half-way house in which you have both made a choice and not made a choice, simultaneously.

So, no superposition, again.

Your icecream example has failed in two different ways.

Is this useful information for you, Write4U? Will you thank me for taking the time to write out a detailed, answer to your question? Or will you ignore it or whine about it? Have I wasted my time on you again? We'll see.

Oh, and, I don't regard MS Copilot as an authority on any of this, like you do. I disagree with its answer to your question, quoted above. What do you think about that?

 

[Write4U]

What you wrote was ambiguous and could fairly be interpreted either way. Of course, you're not man enough to admit that. You're a baby who wants an excuse to keep whining.

No, that admission concedes the point. I was correct in the application of that term in context and your answer was ill considered.
Why don't you admit your mistake , for once. But no, you insist on denying me any credit at all. That is the essence of prejudice.

Oh, and, I don't regard MS Copilot as an authority on any of this, like you do. I disagree with its answer to your question, quoted above. What do you think about that?

And you are an authority on all of this? Mental myopia comes to mind.

p.s. exchemist said:

A “choice” is not a physical system. So who is being sloppy?

The metaphor I used was in context of choice and free will, not about different flavors of ice cream.

W4U said: "Can it be said that in reality there is a "superposition" of available flavor choices in that store?"

I don't see how my use of the word "choice" in context is in anyway ambiguous, unless there is a pre-existent bias.
I am constantly told to make my arguments "in your own words", but you don't want to hear my words because they are sloppy and too general.

Now do you understand why I use quotations by authoritative sources? Usually those statements have been peer reviewed and accepted in their semantic form. But then I am accused of plagiarizing.

And my question has become completely lost.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

No, that admission concedes the point.

Why "No"?

I conceded the point that what you wrote could fairly be interpreted in two different ways.

Clearly, you think otherwise, though you have made no argument for your position on that.

I was correct in the application of that term in context and your answer was ill considered.

In my most recent reply, prior to this one, I explained why the alternative interpretation - the one that says you were talking about a superposition of choices - doesn't work either.

Why did you ignore my substantive response to your "superposition of choices" question?

Why did you again not thank me for providing you with a useful answer to the question you thought you had asked?

You're very ungrateful and rude, Write4U. Didn't your mother teach you manners?

Why don't you admit your mistake , for once.

I admitted, in my previous post, that I had failed to consider the other possible reading of your question - not a superposition of icecreams, but a superposition of choices.

I have now considered both possible readings and I have responded to your questions using both contexts.

Have I made a mistake somewhere, as you claim? If so, please point out my mistake.

But no, you insist on denying me any credit at all.

What do you want credit for? Asking an ambiguous question? I give you full credit for that.

Anything else?

That is the essence of prejudice.

I don't think you know what prejudice is, Write4U. You asked a couple of questions. After considering them, I answered them, in detail, TWICE.

Where does the prejudice come in? Tell me.

And you are an authority on all of this?

Am I an authority on all of what?

If you're asking whether I know about icecreams and choices, I can say that I have some familiarity with both of those.

If you're asking whether I'm an expert on quantum superpositions, I think it would be fair to say Yes, I am.

If you're asking whether I'm an expert on MS Copilot, I can say that I am not. However, I did not claim to have any special expertise about that - or about either of the other things I just mentioned, for that matter, until you asked about it.

Mental myopia comes to mind.

You're just trying to insult me. Stop being such a baby.

The metaphor I used was in context of choice and free will, not about different flavors of ice cream.

Funny that TWO different people both interpreteted your question in the same way, which YOU now claim is the wrong way, isn't it?

Do you think that the problem might be at your end, maybe?

Are you willing to take any responsibility at all for what you wrote? Or are you going to keep making excuses while you try to insult people who have been decent enough to respond to what you posted?

I don't see how my use of the word "choice" in context is in anyway ambiguous, unless there is a pre-existent bias.

Do I really have to break it down for you?

Okay.

You wrote:
"Taking the old example of regularly ordering a particular flavor of ice-cream ... it is assumed that the store has a variety of other flavors beside you favorite flavor.

Can it be said that in reality there is a 'superposition' of available flavor choices in that store?"

The first sentence talks about the variety of flavors in the store. That's not about choice. That's about the physical icecream in the store.

Your question immediately follows, and you specifically ask about "available flavor choices in that store"?

This is where the ambiguity lies. Here are two possible readings:

• Can it be said that in reality the icecream flavors in the store - which somebody can choose - are in a superposition?
• Can it be said that in reality the choices in the head of a person - who is considering which icecream flavor to select in the store - are in a superposition?

Can you see the ambiguity yet? Or are you going to keep deny there is any ambiguity, out of pure spite?

But note: I have now given my answers to BOTH of the two interpretations above.

Will you admit that I have given you comprehensive answers to both possible interpretations of your question? Or will you continue to whine about my supposed "prejudice" or "pre-existing bias"?

I have done you the courtesy of allowing for your preferred interpretation of your question. I have answered your question fully and honestly.

What more do you want?

Why can't you graciously acknowledge my generous responses to your questions?

I am constantly told to make my arguments "in your own words", but you don't want to hear my words because they are sloppy and too general.

Stop being a baby. At least this time around you did use your own words in formulating your questions. Full credit to you for that. Not so much for appealing to MS Copilot yet again to do your thinking for you after the fact.

I have heard your own words. I have responded to you. So don't be a cry baby and whine about how nobody listens to you.

Now do you understand why I use quotations by authoritative sources?

I understand why. You're afraid to stand behind your own ideas, so you want a buffer that you believe allows you to blame somebody else for the stuff you get wrong.

Do you think that MS Copilot is an authoritative source that can expound on your ideas for you?

Usually those statements have been peer reviewed and accepted in their semantic form. But then I am accused of plagiarizing.

You're still being a cry baby. Plagiarism is when you don't cite your source, Write4U. If you acknowledge your sources, you won't be accused of plagiarism.

Come on, this stuff isn't difficult.

 

[Write4U]

I conceded the point that what you wrote could fairly be interpreted in two different ways.

Yes, but you did not originally! All you did was a definitive "NO", which does not imply agreement or superposition of choice of any kind.
In fact it indicates a collapse of the superposition...

 

[Write4U]

A long time ago, I promised that in time my use of scientific terms in a more general sense other than for a narrowly defined function, would be justified.

Therefore, I want to revisit my use of the term "differential equation" (or more narrowly defined "difference equations") in context of many dynamical systems that are not chaotic is a perfectly acceptable use of the terms.
My statement caused considerable consternation at that time accompanied by ad hominem.

On further inquiry it appears that my use of the term differential equation in context of cognitive brain function, was perfectly sound.

The specific application is called Dynamicism and is used in relation to cognitive systems, which would include neural networks, such as the brain.

Dynamicism
Dynamicism, also termed the dynamic hypothesis or the dynamic hypothesis in cognitive science or dynamic cognition, is a new approach in cognitive science exemplified by the work of philosopher Tim van Gelder. It argues that differential equations are more suited to modelling cognition than more traditional computer models.

Dynamical systems theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And from Copilot:

Me: which is more narrowly defined ; differential equation or difference equation

Both differential equations and difference equations are mathematical equations used to describe relationships between variables. However, they are used in different contexts and have distinct definitions. Let’s break it down:

Differential Equations

Definition: A differential equation involves derivatives, which represent the rate of change of a quantity. They are continuous and often used to model physical systems, such as motion, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer.

Context: Used in fields like physics, engineering, and biology where processes change continuously over time or space.

Difference Equations

Definition: A difference equation involves sequences and discrete values, which represent changes at specific intervals. They are often used to model discrete processes, such as population growth in generations or financial investments over time.

Context: Used in fields like economics, computer science, and numerical analysis where processes change in discrete steps.

Comparison:

• Scope: Differential equations are generally more broadly applicable as they can model continuous systems, while difference equations are more narrowly defined to discrete systems.
• Application: Differential equations have a wider range of applications due to their ability to model continuous phenomena. Difference equations are typically used in specific scenarios involving discrete intervals.

In summary, differential equations have a broader definition and application, whereas difference equations are more narrowly defined to discrete, step-by-step processes.

It is clear to me that in continuing dynamical systems that are not chaotic, such as performed by the brain, most changes can be modelled and analyzed via differential equations.
And in discrete dynamical processes, such as performed by computers, most changes can be modelled and analzed via difference equations.

No?

 

[exchemist]

No, that admission concedes the point. I was correct in the application of that term in context and your answer was ill considered.
Why don't you admit your mistake , for once. But no, you insist on denying me any credit at all. That is the essence of prejudice.

And you are an authority on all of this? Mental myopia comes to mind.

p.s. exchemist said:

The metaphor I used was in context of choice and free will, not about different flavors of ice cream.

I don't see how my use of the word "choice" in context is in anyway ambiguous, unless there is a pre-existent bias.
I am constantly told to make my arguments "in your own words", but you don't want to hear my words because they are sloppy and too general.

Now do you understand why I use quotations by authoritative sources? Usually those statements have been peer reviewed and accepted in their semantic form. But then I am accused of plagiarizing.

And my question has become completely lost.

You can't apply the quantum mechanical concept of superposition to a metaphor. Quantum mechanics is part of physics and as such is concerned with physical systems. Not figures of speech.

 

[Write4U]

You can't apply the quantum mechanical concept of superposition to a metaphor. Quantum mechanics is part of physics and as such is concerned with physical systems. Not figures of speech.

But I am not applying the quantum mechanical concept of superposition. Nor am I applying it as a metaphor. The concept of superposition lends itself to many applications that consist of a choice between superposed possible future outcomes.

Schrodinger's cat also does not rely on quantum mechanics, as it posed as a rebuttal to the argument that the cat is both dead and alive until observation "resolves " the question if the cat has died or is still alive. But at some point in the experiment the state of the cat may be in superposition before it is resolved with or without an observer.
I believe that may well be one example where the superposition of states cannot be codified and predicted with an equation.

From Copilot

Me: does the collapse of the wave function always need an sentient observer or can the observer be any physical object?

Great question! The traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the collapse of the wave function occurs when a measurement is made by an observer. This has often been interpreted to mean a sentient observer; however, more modern interpretations and experiments suggest that the collapse can occur due to interactions with any physical object, not necessarily a sentient observer.

Decoherence is a process where a quantum system loses its coherent superposition states due to interactions with the environment. This interaction effectively "measures" the system and causes the wave function to collapse, even if no sentient observer is present. Essentially, it's the interaction and the transfer of information that triggers the collapse, rather than the nature of the observer itself.

In summary, it's not strictly necessary for the observer to be sentient. Any physical interaction that causes the system to lose its quantum coherence can lead to the collapse of the wave function. This is a fascinating area of research with many different interpretations and ongoing debates.

Penrose proposed that the collapse of the wave function may well happen due to a gravitational differential equation

From Copilot

Me: what is Roger Penrose's interpretation of the wave function collapse?

Roger Penrose's interpretation of wave function collapse is known as the Penrose Interpretation, which is a type of objective collapse theory. Penrose proposes that the wave function collapse is a physical process influenced by gravity. According to his theory, a quantum state remains in superposition until the difference in space-time curvature reaches a significant level. This difference is approximately a Planck mass worth of matter, which he refers to as the "one-graviton" level l,2.

Penrose suggests that this energy difference causes the wave function to collapse to a single state, with the probability based on its amplitude in the original wave function. This interpretation does not require a sentient observer for the collapse to occur; instead, it is an objective process driven by gravitational effects 1,2.

It is gravity that acts as the observer! I like it!

 

[James R]

Yes, but you did not originally! All you did was a definitive "NO", which does not imply agreement or superposition of choice of any kind.

There is no superposition, either of choices or icecreams, in your example. So my answer of "No" to each of your questions is correct.

Since you obviously have no intention of responding in full to my post, including to the many direct questions I asked you, I am not going to respond to any of your latest posts.

Have fun.

 

[Write4U]

There is no superposition, either of choices or icecreams, in your example. So my answer of "No" to each of your questions is correct.

I disagree.

from Copilot

Me: is choice a form of selection from superoposed states?

Absolutely, that’s a fascinating way to think about it! In the context of quantum mechanics, the concept of superposition refers to a system being in multiple states simultaneously until it’s observed or measured, at which point it collapses into one of the possible states.

When we talk about choice, especially in a philosophical or cognitive sense, it can indeed be likened to the selection from superposed states. Before a decision is made, our mind entertains multiple possibilities simultaneously. Each option exists in a kind of cognitive superposition. The act of choosing can be seen as collapsing this superposition into a single state – the chosen option.

This perspective bridges quantum mechanics and cognitive science beautifully, suggesting that making a choice is like resolving the uncertainty of our thoughts into a definite action.

Anyone care to comment on this logical argument?

p.s. I am putting Copilot through its paces.

 

[exchemist]

I disagree.

from Copilot




Anyone care to comment on this logical argument?

p.s. I am putting Copilot through its paces.

Well it's shit of course, but beyond that, no.

 

[Pinball1970]

Anyone care to comment on this logical argument?

Co pilot is good as a reminder, or getting more details regarding a concept you are already familiar with like wiki, in fact wiki is usually a source.
It is not good for asking random questions, especially about subtle physics concepts if you have no grounding.

One cannot and should not apply these very specific scientific and mathematical terms to everyday use. It is meaningless.
Like, “quantum,” “Entropy,” “Energy,” “Vibrations” and “differential equations.”

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Like our crazy friend kingiyk, you are developing a bad case of confirmation bias.

Did you think to ask your chatbot what are the objections to the idea that a choice from alternatives is a superposition?

Of course you didn't.