Recent content by javisot

The two points mentioned by Jaime and Ibix are very important. The expansion of the universe is a property of spacetime itself (it's not a receding "edge of the universe"), and it's crucial to understand the difference between the universe and the observable universe. To add a third point, the...

It should also be noted that, in practice, offering a switch is a provocation. Far more people than usual, when offered a switch, think, "If they're offering me a switch, it must mean something". They accept the switch without needing to understand the probabilistic framework. It's a difficult...

True, I didn't see the simplified version Ibix proposed. Simply using the three cards is enough.

You simply need three glasses, a stone, and a contestant. 1- Hide the stone in one of the three glasses. 2- Tell the contestant to choose a glass. 3- Instead of revealing whether that glass contains the stones, uncover one of the glasses they didn't choose that doesn't contain the stone...

True, Barandes doesn't give his opinion in this clip, he simply shows how the situation is.

So you have set A with 1 box and set B with 99 boxes. You'll agree that the car is more likely to be in set B, It's more likely that the car is in one of the 99 boxes you didn't choose. When you remove boxes from set B, it's still more likely that the car is in set B. Finally, when only 2...

And would all those trajectories go from past to future?

These are two distinct levels: 1- That a Stochastic-quantum correspondence exists 2- That this correspondence can serve to unify classical and quantum physics 1-Ok 2-?

This seems like an exaggeration to me. There is no evidence that the Barandes interpretation helps unify classical and quantum physics. If it can be considered a consensus interpretation/reformulation, then it helps unify classical and quantum physics about as much as any other consensus...

You understand what I'm saying. So, Ibix, the conclusion is that the rule is what matters, not whether Monty does it randomly or not. Monty is perfectly replaceable by an automated system that doesn't depend on knowing the contents of the trapdoors.

So Dale, are you saying that in this version with trapdoors and Monty's ignorance, the contestant is indifferent as to whether he accepts the switch or not?

No, that assessment doesn't make sense. You could say that above the trapdoors, the goats are hanging from ropes, supporting their own weight, so they'll eventually fall. Meanwhile, the car is securely attached to a rope and won't fall. With that, you already have a system of three trapdoors...

You can do the following: we're no longer talking about doors, we're talking about trapdoors in the roof. These trapdoors are designed to withstand heavy loads, like a car, but not light loads, like a goat. After a certain time, the two goats will fall while the car remains on top. The initial...

You've explained the Monty Hall problem again, but you still haven't explained the quantitative difference you claim exists between "randomly, Monty always opens a door containing a goat" and "non-randomly, Monty always opens a door containing a goat." In both cases, Monty always opens a door...