I remember events somewhat differently: they first encouraged people not to buy up n95 masks because it was more important that healthcare workers have them. That was true. Then they said homemade/cloth masks don't work, and that was also true in the sense that a mask doesn't provide the wearer with reliable protection from COVID. But then they realized that maybe it did "work" in the sense of reducing the infection rate, particularly when worn by infected persons. That is somewhat true... certainty it was a reasonable guess and a valid change in tactics even though later studies cast doubt on how worthwhile it was. You see "liars", but I see public health officials scrambling to make the best decisions (within the framework of their medical understanding) while working with a lot of unknowns in a serious, quickly changing situation. If course, it didn't help that some politicians were overzealous and/or hypocritical in applying mask mandates. Localities that closed public beaches, for instance, were clearly being absurd. It's the job of a politician to balance competing concerns (medicine vs economics, for instance), and there were many who did a shit job.

Since we're not taking about infinitesimals, I fail to see the relevance.

You are correct. That's precisely how MWI is thought to work.

The premise of the argument is that, to conserve superposition information, you would necessarily need to prove that it would be grouped with information QM requires to be conserved, when viewed in a space that permitted it to be conserved. If it isn't, then there's no mechanism to preserve it, so no MWI.

No, because the paradox relies on infinitesimals, which have no cogmate in the material world.

Not strictly correct. You would be correct for all consequences over any statistically significant timeframe, but (a) I've purposefully included things that aren't actually outcomes, and (b) over extremely short timeframes (femtoseconds and attoseconds), differences would emerge very briefly, because different mechanisms take different routes.

Remember, the maths only concerns itself with outcomes, not the path taken, so identical maths will be inevitable for non-identical paths.

I would contend that it should be possible to find an implication of each interpretation that only exists in that interpretation. If, for example, Many Worlds is true, then it necessitates that any sort of information cannot be destroyed and vice versa, when considering the system as a whole. If Many Worlds is false, then superposition information is lost when superposition collapses, you cannot recover from the collapsed wave a complete set of all superposition states that existed. I'm sure that someone will point out that superposition isn't information in some specific sense, but that is the whole point. Many Worlds is impossible if you can show that superposition ISN'T the sort of information that IS conserved, because Many Worlds requires, by its very nature, that it is.

This gives us a test that does not require us to look into other universes and can be done purely by theoreticians. If you regard the system as a 5D system, then is that information conserved or not? Yes or no. If yes, then that does not "prove" Many Worlds, but it does mean that only interpretations that preserve that information in some form are viable. If no, then Many Worlds, and all other interpretations that preserve that information in some form, are ergo impossible. Instead of filling out questionaires on what you think is likely, try to prove that it can't be possible and see if you succeed.

I would also argue that physicists thought that the Lorenz contraction was a neat bit of maths by mathematicians that had nothing to do with reality, until Einstein cottoned onto the fact that it actually did. You cannot trust physicists who have an innate dislike of mathematics. This doesn't mean that maths always represents reality, but it does mean that it does so unreasonably often and unreasonably well.

Because it's not free: it was bundled with the purchase of my PC and the manufacturer paid a hefty sum for that privilege. Why do we tolerate abusive behaviors from the products we buy?

Bad analogy, because science has no choice but to use the lanes that the signals are emitted on. You, on the other hand, can use absolutely any frequency you please. That won't affect you.

I disagree. First, the bands used for astronomy are regularly used by others, which is one reason why radio telescopes have radio silence zones. Second, astronomy certainly trumps the need for cat videos or porn. Thirdly, you really really don't need all the frequencies that are currently being used for domestic purposes, because they're being used very inefficiently. You can stack multiple streams onto far fewer lanes and use multiplexing. Fourthly, whingers lost any sympathy they might have got from me by voting in twits who keep cutting the science budget. If we had space radio telescopes, you could do what the F you wanted on Earth, but because of the current lunatic situation, you're not only grabbing what scientists need, you're stopping them from alternative solutions as well.

No one? I'm disappointed in y'all.

> There's not much taught in a college class that can't be learned from books. Yes, but how do you know which books, and which chapters, and who do you get clarifications from, and what projects do you undertake to get beyond book knowledge, and what tools (labs, software, specimen, etc) do you use, and who struggles thru the learning with you providing mutual support, and what group do you discuss literature and philosophy with, and who provides expert perspective, where do you find a community of fellow scholars, and how do you evaluate your progress, and how do you signal to the job marketplace at large that you've acquired some skills and are capable of holding a professional position? You might be able to figure out or stumble upon some of these answers (hard to do since you're starting from a position where you don't know much), but a University can answer all of them.

TLDR version: "Good ideas" that are actually good are rare, more often than not they aren't.

Long version:

Now, that's not to say people can't experiment with ideas. We know, from US research, that you can temporarily (2 hours max) put humans into a dormant state and revive them successfully. It's used in some types of operation, when a beating heart is not a viable option.

If you do that, glucose uptake drops significantly in regular cells but not in all types of cancer. If the decrease in the most-active of human cells after hibernation is by a factor of X, then it follows you should be able to locally increase glucose-based chemotherapy around the tumour by a factor of X and guarantee healthy cells remain inside levels they can tolerate.

Since hibernation of this sort involves removing all blood and replacing it with a saline solution, washing the chemotherapy out would obviously be possible before reviving the person.

Would this work? Well, it'll work better than bleach, but a quick sanity check shows that this method is (a) impractically risky, (b) likely problematic, (c) likely to produce disastrous side-effects, and (d) unlikely to be effective. Shutting down the body like this is not safe, which is why it is a last-ditch protocol.

What does this tell us? Simply that "good ideas" on paper by someone who isn't an expert are likely very very bad ideas, even if "common sense" says they should be fine.

Now, there ARE cancer treatments being researched which try similar sorts of tricks to allow ultra-high chemotherapy doses, by actual biologists, and those probably will work because they know what they're doing.

Translation: No matter how good you think an idea "should be", it probably isn't. There will be exceptions to that, but you should always start by assuming there's a flaw and look for it. If the idea is actually any good, it'll survive scrutiny and actually improve under it.

Avpidimg confirmation bias is hard, but if you persist in looking for what is wrong with your idea and then try to fix the issue, you'll either avoid penning yourself in a corner or argument-proof your vision. Either way, you're better off.

The obfuscation was a feature. Not a strong degree of security but not nothing. Dumping the database of urls would be insane and invite all kinds of scrutiny and abuse.

40 years? That's so cute.

(whoops, replied to the wrong post .. meant the one below)