Social Social Thread - Talk About Anything (You Are Allowed to Talk About)!

[Sedda]

SK I'm in Virginia. Can you sense my nen? #animetakeover

 

[pidgezero_one]

posting should be illegal

 

[Shaya]

This section was a lot more peaceful a few years ago...

Don't worry, with the power of Marth's great all embracing love and guidance, peace and prosperity will return to these lands which Sakurai had hid from him. It was a sign from the creator when Smash 4 ended up having 6 Marth clones that the time was right for the shores of the new world to be found.

(Maybe)

Could only imagine Marth being terrible in a game like 64 though, unless he had obscene hitboxes/kill power, probably be a stooped up spamus with out a projectile.

 

[pidgezero_one]

shaya i do a double take every time i get a notification that starts with "Shaya liked your post"

as in, an additional double take on top of the double take i already do whenever i get a notification that contains the words "liked your post"

 

[The Star King]

SK I'm in Virginia. Can you sense my nen? #animetakeover

No because I still don't know what nen is

This is the part where you hijack the bus and pick me up, remember?

Shaya I'm not sure what you're blabbering about but I suppose I appreciate the effort

 

[Sedda]

I'll see what I can do. I'll be here until 4

 

[Shaya]

Shaya I'm not sure what you're blabbering about

I'm a Marthaholic.

shaya i do a double take every time i get a notification that starts with "Shaya liked your post"

as in, an additional double take on top of the double take i already do whenever i get a notification that contains the words "liked your post"

Stop saying things that aren't detrimental to people's sanity, then I'll stop.

 

[ballin4life]

no the results / predictions are the same, its just that the interpretation is less pathological

Less pathological in your opinion, though many disagree.

wtf do you mean by traditional, lebesgue is modern bro, traditional would be reimann. is there is a new widely accepted measure theory that people care about? i've been reading ams notices for 6+ years and havent seen anything new
oh wait the rest of the sentence is innacruate like the rest of your post: Almost every set is non measurable; Probability is defined as being the lebesuge measure of a set. The sets with no lebegsgue measure have no probability.

I just meant "standard". As in volumes don't change under rotation, volumes can be added, and axiom of choice is assumed. Probability is defined as a space of outcomes, events, and a measure. If it isn't measurable according to your given measure, then it cannot be in the set of events so the probability is not defined.

no
there is a reason why its called a paradox. your example is moot cause rolling 2 six sided dice does not choose a number 1 - 12.

Yes it does.

real life is the stuff that remains true irregardless of what mathematical axioms you assume.

Nothing can be proven to be true besides mathematics.

most physicists would disagree and claim that space is mathematically continuous

That's just one model. I'd think it'd be possible to devise an equivalent fully discrete model of space that is consistent with experimental evidence, though that's not my area of expertise (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33273/is-spacetime-discrete-or-continuous has some discussion). I was more asking how you reconcile "infinity doesn't exist" and the typical "space is continuous" model - if space is continuous then that seems to certainly be an infinity right there.

the concepts are useful, i said that. what is ridiculous is that physicists push the idea that the physics model is what defines the universe, and not vise-versa. you especially see it with the guys on tv going on about finding a perfect unified theory of everything: an equation for the universe. not going to happen if they keep using math that doesnt apply to the real world (like infinity)

If said math produces accurate predictions then it works for me. Your complaint is possibly valid in the sense that physicists might push certain models over others because they prefer the way the math works out. I suppose you'd count the typical quantum mechanics interpretation as part of that.

Upon reading the QM arguments and the referenced wikipedia pages, I like the de Broglie-Bohm theory. So I guess I have a question; @ ballin4life , why do you need to disprove determinism?

Because one time battlecow said he was proud to be American. I said it doesn't make sense to be proud of something that you didn't accomplish - you just got lucky to be born in the US. It wasn't an accomplishment; it was just luck. So you should be "happy" to be an American, but "proud" to me indicates some kind of accomplishment.

Anyway, battlecow responded to this by saying "well the universe is deterministic so you don't ever accomplish anything since it is all determined".

 

[pidgezero_one]

I'm a Marthaholic.



Stop saying things that aren't detrimental to people's sanity, then I'll stop.

how can i stop what i don't start? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Shaya]

These people probably don't truly understand the weight of your avatar, nor you currently having a normal monicker, and how much worse things can be with your Canadian clique of clowns lovable conversationalists around, I guess they don't play smash 64?

 

[pidgezero_one]

These people probably don't truly understand the weight of your avatar, nor you currently having a normal monicker, and how much worse things can be with your Canadian clique of clowns lovable conversationalists around, I guess they don't play smash 64?

i have a dark history

and a few of them play smash 64 but i dont think any of them would beat me now, theyre more into smash 4

the only canadian clown who is a regular presence in this community is YBOMBB and im pretty sure he hasl ike 6 posts

 

[McGodd]

Just watched TTGL for the first time. Blew my mind so hard I don't even know what to do with myself. I feel lost.

This thread seems to always have something silly happening in it. I lurked for a long time before posting and one of the things that turned me away from posting way back when was all the absurdity going on in this thread
I wish everybody would chill so our community didn't look terrible.

 

[pidgezero_one]

im considering using the XxJiGgLyPuFf_DuDe_420xX tag again

 

[caneut]

This section was a lot more peaceful a few years ago...

Stop living in the past.

 

[Shaya]

im considering using the XxJiGgLyPuFf_DuDe_420xX tag again

mixmatch between the name prospect and also your current avatar

 

[Olikus]

Stop living in the past.

stop living in the present

 

[pidgezero_one]

mixmatch between the name prospect and also your current avatar

I think you of all people know that when I use that name my posting quality goes up by at least 50%

 

[Shears]

I guess my attraction towards determinism comes from my dismissal of free will's existence. Most of my life I've never really believed it to be true and I've never heard a good argument that proves it, or even suggests that it could be likely. Now the absence of free will doesn't mean things are determinable but I don't like the idea of thinking that deep down, at the smallest level of the universe, things are just random and indeterminable. To think math and science ends there, effectively saying "from here on out nothing matters because its all random and thats as far as it goes", doesn't seem like its correct, it seems like its cheap. For example, a person flips a coin, what is the probability that it is heads or tails? We typically think of it as 50% but in reality, one is 100% while the other is 0%. If the resources were at hand to observe and calculate everything acting upon the coin, it is determinable what the outcome will be before the coin is to hit the ground, but since we don't have the time or resources to do this during the coin flip, we simplify it by saying 50%. This makes me suspicious about events at the quantum level. They say "we don't know what will happen but its X% that it goes this way and Y% that is goes the other way". The proof is suspect to me, I believe either the theories are wrong or there hasn't been the discovery as to what determines events because we don't have the resources or time at the moment (like a person determining a coin flip). The issue is there are more unknowns than solutions and thats what leads to these probabilities and suggestions of randomness. I believe that either there is a solution that hasn't been discovered or the models need to be reconsidered and/or discarded. I will admit that my understanding of QM is from reading/thinking I've done on my own and not a formal education from professors, but I don't think saying things happen because of "magic" is an acceptable answer. Its one thing to say "we don't know yet but for now we assume random" and another to say "we don't know so therefore it is random". Probability is used to simplify possible outcome potential because not enough information is given to make a determination, not because the information does not or could not ever exist and determination is impossible.

Because one time battlecow said he was proud to be American. I said it doesn't make sense to be proud of something that you didn't accomplish - you just got lucky to be born in the US. It wasn't an accomplishment; it was just luck. So you should be "happy" to be an American, but "proud" to me indicates some kind of accomplishment.

Anyway, battlecow responded to this by saying "well the universe is deterministic so you don't ever accomplish anything since it is all determined".

I have a lot of respect for this.

 

[caneut]

you ****** need jesus

 

[THE_MAAFIA]

All this talk of physics makes me think of this:

 

[Shears]

All this talk of the super mario bros super show makes me think of this:

 

[Studstill]

Nothing can be proven to be true besides mathematics.

Dude, that needs an inspirational poster, stat. Also, I made it into SK`s signature! Best day eva!

Could only imagine Marth being terrible in a game like 64 though, unless he had obscene hitboxes/kill power, probably be a stooped up spamus with out a projectile.

64 has that character, lol, it`s amazing: You`re clearly referring to Captain Falcon.

I guess my attraction towards determinism comes from my dismissal of free will's existence. Most of my life I've never really believed it to be true and I've never heard a good argument that proves it, or even suggests that it could be likely. Now the absence of free will doesn't mean things are determinable but I don't like the idea of thinking that deep down, at the smallest level of the universe, things are just random and indeterminable. To think math and science ends there, effectively saying "from here on out nothing matters because its all random and thats as far as it goes", doesn't seem like its correct, it seems like its cheap. For example, a person flips a coin, what is the probability that it is heads or tails? We typically think of it as 50% but in reality, one is 100% while the other is 0%. If the resources were at hand to observe and calculate everything acting upon the coin, it is determinable what the outcome will be before the coin is to hit the ground, but since we don't have the time or resources to do this during the coin flip, we simplify it by saying 50%. This makes me suspicious about events at the quantum level. They say "we don't know what will happen but its X% that it goes this way and Y% that is goes the other way". The proof is suspect to me, I believe either the theories are wrong or there hasn't been the discovery as to what determines events because we don't have the resources or time at the moment (like a person determining a coin flip). The issue is there are more unknowns than solutions and thats what leads to these probabilities and suggestions of randomness. I believe that either there is a solution that hasn't been discovered or the models need to be reconsidered and/or discarded. I will admit that my understanding of QM is from reading/thinking I've done on my own and not a formal education from professors, but I don't think saying things happen because of "magic" is an acceptable answer. Its one thing to say "we don't know yet but for now we assume random" and another to say "we don't know so therefore it is random". Probability is used to simplify possible outcome potential because not enough information is given to make a determination, not because the information does not or could not ever exist and determination is impossible.

Absolutely, you`re completely justified in your suspicions, and certainly not alone, Einstein had some great words on the subject, but I prefer Kaku`s:
"It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct."

I have a lot of respect for this.

Indeed, powerful stuff.

 

[MCG]

My background is in chemistry but I have taken a few classes on quantum mechanics. My knowledge on QM is definitely lacking but I feel there are a few things I should point out. Any physicist feel free to correct me.

For example, a person flips a coin, what is the probability that it is heads or tails? We typically think of it as 50% but in reality, one is 100% while the other is 0%. If the resources were at hand to observe and calculate everything acting upon the coin, it is determinable what the outcome will be before the coin is to hit the ground, but since we don't have the time or resources to do this during the coin flip, we simplify it by saying 50%.

On a macroscopic scale I agree 100% with you.

This makes me suspicious about events at the quantum level. They say "we don't know what will happen but its X% that it goes this way and Y% that is goes the other way". The proof is suspect to me, I believe either the theories are wrong or there hasn't been the discovery as to what determines events because we don't have the resources or time at the moment (like a person determining a coin flip). The issue is there are more unknowns than solutions and thats what leads to these probabilities and suggestions of randomness. I believe that either there is a solution that hasn't been discovered or the models need to be reconsidered and/or discarded.

In quantum mechanics, you cannot describe a system in terms of position and momentum. One thing that I should stress more, The uncertainty principle is not experimental uncertainty but fundamental. You cannot mesure exactly complementary physical variables. If you accept quantum theory as valid, it means that no matter how expensive or sophisticated your instrument become, it is impossible to have perfect accuracy for some physical properties. It is not because you lack information on your system, unlike the coin flip situation.

On a macroscopic scale, you can describe perfectly a hypothetical simple system with position and moment and apply classical mechanics and find how the system behave at any time.

On a microscopic scale however, it works differently. Every information about the system is countained in the wavefunction. It describes the quantum state of the system. The wavefunction only gives us the probabilities of observable quantities. The process is usually describe as : you prepare a quantum state, you make a measurement, you get an observable quantity. You repeat the process, you prepare the exactly same quantum state, you make a measurement, you get an observable quantity. It might be the same it might not. You prepared the state exactly the same way. You made the measurements perfectly. And you can have different observable quantities (or also called eigenvalues). This is why it is not fit to use macroscopic analogies to describe microscopic behaviors.

Probability is used to simplify possible outcome potential because not enough information is given to make a determination, not because the information does not or could not ever exist and determination is impossible.

In classical mechanics yes, in quantum, no. From Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, D. Griffiths:

"For even if you know everything the theory has to tell you about the particle (to wit: its wavefunction), still you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a simple experiment to measure its position--all quantum mechanics has to offer is statistical information about the possible results."

In all honestly, I too firmly believed that with sophisticated instruments and apparatus you could mesure anything with near infinite precision. It is a seductive idea. The truth is, according to quantum mechanics, there is a fundamental limit. I agree with Studstill comment that it might be the silliest theory. But it's the best we have come up with so far. However I do not think that Einstein "had some great words" on the subject. That was only his belief. He was a determinist. He didn't like the idea of only have statistical information. For all the great things he discovered, science is not based on personal belief or how much you like an idea.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

happy halloween

****ing n00bs

 

[pidgezero_one]

I'm on my way *******

 

[Shaya]

Do you happen to have legal photo ID to prove you're Pidge Kirbynoob? Not going to be able to let you into the premises without one.

 

[Annex]

Feel peace and stay
SSB is the ****
I will love all of you at apex
Ask for help with yourself
Living can be too sad
****ing noobs...

 

[Shaya]

is 4, 6, 9, 6, 6, 3 a thing?

 

[Morin0]

／人◕‿‿◕人＼

 

[Shears]

My background is in chemistry but I have taken a few classes on quantum mechanics. My knowledge on QM is definitely lacking but I feel there are a few things I should point out. Any physicist feel free to correct me.



On a macroscopic scale I agree 100% with you.



In quantum mechanics, you cannot describe a system in terms of position and momentum. One thing that I should stress more, The uncertainty principle is not experimental uncertainty but fundamental. You cannot mesure exactly complementary physical variables. If you accept quantum theory as valid, it means that no matter how expensive or sophisticated your instrument become, it is impossible to have perfect accuracy for some physical properties. It is not because you lack information on your system, unlike the coin flip situation.

On a macroscopic scale, you can describe perfectly a hypothetical simple system with position and moment and apply classical mechanics and find how the system behave at any time.

On a microscopic scale however, it works differently. Every information about the system is countained in the wavefunction. It describes the quantum state of the system. The wavefunction only gives us the probabilities of observable quantities. The process is usually describe as : you prepare a quantum state, you make a measurement, you get an observable quantity. You repeat the process, you prepare the exactly same quantum state, you make a measurement, you get an observable quantity. It might be the same it might not. You prepared the state exactly the same way. You made the measurements perfectly. And you can have different observable quantities (or also called eigenvalues). This is why it is not fit to use macroscopic analogies to describe microscopic behaviors.



In classical mechanics yes, in quantum, no. From Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, D. Griffiths:

"For even if you know everything the theory has to tell you about the particle (to wit: its wavefunction), still you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a simple experiment to measure its position--all quantum mechanics has to offer is statistical information about the possible results."

In all honestly, I too firmly believed that with sophisticated instruments and apparatus you could mesure anything with near infinite precision. It is a seductive idea. The truth is, according to quantum mechanics, there is a fundamental limit. I agree with Studstill comment that it might be the silliest theory. But it's the best we have come up with so far. However I do not think that Einstein "had some great words" on the subject. That was only his belief. He was a determinist. He didn't like the idea of only have statistical information. For all the great things he discovered, science is not based on personal belief or how much you like an idea.

I'm uncertain about whether I believe in the uncertainty principle...

 

[mixa]

you can believe this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKmoJ95Ngdw

 

[<Fruity>]

Jouske playing on http://www.twitch.tv/jouskeind right NOW!

 

[Studstill]

happy halloween

Couldn`t commit to the head shaving and nose disappearing? Still a good Krillin costume, nailed the power level.

@ MCG , nice post.

 

[MCG]

I'm uncertain about whether I believe in the uncertainty principle...

And that's fine. It's normal to be skeptical about it.

Richard Feynman wrote the probably most popular book on physics for undergradutate. It is freely available online. In his third volume on quantum mechanics, he introduces the uncertainty principle early and mentions the implication.

The complete theory of quantum mechanics which we now use to describe atoms and, in fact, all matter, depends on the correctness of the uncertainty principle. Since quantum mechanics is such a successful theory, our belief in the uncertainty principle is reinforced. But if a way to “beat” the uncertainty principle were ever discovered, quantum mechanics would give inconsistent results and would have to be discarded as a valid theory of nature.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

was at a chess tournament in New York (the village, giant-ass parade there) during Halloween.

Saw a guy dressed up as Captain Falcon taking a photo with a person dressed up as Shrek.

Kinda glad I missed the parade wut.

 

[Kahnu]

was at a chess tournament in New York (the village, giant-*** parade there) during Halloween.

Saw a guy dressed up as Captain Falcon taking a photo with a person dressed up as Shrek.

Kinda glad I missed the parade wut.

koberi likes to eat brownies co nfir med

 

[BananaBolts]

When it comes to people insulting competitive communities, the one pejorative term that I hate the most is tourney***.

*** is the British word for cigarette if I'm not mistaken. I went ahead and censored the word before I got an infraction.

 

[Shaya]

The only physical meaning of the word ***/***got that I'm aware of meant burnable wood (whatever that specific term is). It's colloquial use has been pretty common throughout history as an insult to an objectified minority, and only in British English places does it frequently double up as a cigarette (deriving from it's actual original use as a noun).

From the very old and senile, to infertile women, to men returned from war without limbs and were effectively useless, to some sort of negative connotation of homosexuality, I would not be surprised if it encompasses an entirely different meaning within the next 50 years (as it already is developing as a sort of synonym to "negative clique of any social consequence: e.g. tourney***"). I actually get annoyed at this stage if people get insulted by it usage for "homophobic" reasons (unless its specifically used as such) it's one of those automatic "well you're an idiot that's part of the problem for why this word is remotely insulting [still]".

 

[Vale]

"u sucks"
"no u sucks"
"u both sucks"
"smash is cool"
"everyone sucks"
"physics and math have undoubtedly proven that u sucks"
"remember when kero didn't top 8 lol xD"
"hey guess what. u still sucks"
"sucks to sucks"
"stuff"

- what i've gotten from the last week and a half of discussion

 

[caneut]

The only physical meaning of the word ***/***got that I'm aware of meant burnable wood (whatever that specific term is). It's colloquial use has been pretty common throughout history as an insult to an objectified minority, and only in British English places does it frequently double up as a cigarette (deriving from it's actual original use as a noun).

From the very old and senile, to infertile women, to men returned from war without limbs and were effectively useless, to some sort of negative connotation of homosexuality, I would not be surprised if it encompasses an entirely different meaning within the next 50 years (as it already is developing as a sort of synonym to "negative clique of any social consequence: e.g. tourney***"). I actually get annoyed at this stage if people get insulted by it usage for "homophobic" reasons (unless its specifically used as such) it's one of those automatic "well you're an idiot that's part of the problem for why this word is remotely insulting [still]".

A *** is a annoyingly loud person on a harley davidson motorcycle

"u sucks"
"no u sucks"
"u both sucks"
"smash is cool"
"everyone sucks"
"physics and math have undoubtedly proven that u sucks"
"remember when kero didn't top 8 lol xD"
"hey guess what. u still sucks"
"sucks to sucks"
"stuff"

- what i've gotten from the last week and a half of discussion

nice
.