Recent content by pines-demon

Ok, but it still has four clock faces? This might be a dumb quesiton but I thought I was missing something. Also, just for the sake of understanding the question, if the base was an equilateral triangle, would that visibility property change?

I don't get it what is this property of the clock in the Big Ben that allows somebody to see it from every angle? Does it not have just 4 synchronized clocks? And I guess we are assuming the base is always a square?

I am ok both ways.

That works for me.

Maybe the subforum should be in the "art, music, history, literature" forum instead of the general discussion forum.

The most visible problem in Barandes unistochastic formalism as an interpretation is that there is no example of it outside quantum mechanics.

OP needs to read: How to Better Define Information in Physics

What about music? has it reached critical mass?

Also obituaries are already posted there. Edit: and Nobel prize predictions could go in the history forum too

Maybe with the right potential geometry and the right energy you can make the transmission be 0 for specific point in space.

I still think more of his papers will become relevant even later, he made predictions for superglass for example.

Does QBism make any sense? For me it is not so different from sollipsism. If there is an old discussion about it that could read on it?

I think is just the idea that we should recover classical mechanics from quantum mechanics and not the other way around. For me it is challenging the idea that we should use classical ideas to construct a quantum mechanics interpretation. Anyway, he does not give much else, he just start...

Done

Sure the probabilities are epistemic, as they can be in Bohmian mechanics but the formalisms are so different that I do not know if that even helps answering that question. Agree. The video is not really on topic.