- #1
- 13,295
- 5,705
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humorSince you post it under BSM forum, I think it's therefore legitimate to ask what is the standard model of the theory of humor?![]()
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor
There are several standard models of humor, but they are all classical.
All people like humor, so in theory all people should like dark humor. Yet, only a small fraction of people likes dark humor, which is one of the biggest mismatches between theory and experiment in psychology.There is also "dark humour", a mysterious, powerful force that we barely understand.
As seriously as we take all other research in "quantum consciousness".
It is not in that group.As seriously as we take all other research in "quantum consciousness".![]()
I wouldn't agree, but that's not a thread on quantum foundations, so I will not elaborate.In fact, contextuality is precisely the difference between quantum probabilities and classical probabilites.
I mean this in a very precise mathematical sense. Classical probability theory is mathematically equivalent to quantum theory with only commuting observables. However, if you allow for non-commutativity, your theory will automatically be contextual (unless possibly ##\mathrm{dim}(\mathcal H)=2##). All quantum mechanical phenomena are consequences of this non-commutativity and hence contextuality.I wouldn't agree, but that's not a thread on quantum foundations, so I will not elaborate.![]()
If this hadn't been posted by you, I would have slapped it with an "unacceptable sources" warning. Seriously...
But it's published in a peer reviewed journal with IF>2.If this hadn't been posted by you, I would have slapped it with an "unacceptable sources" warning. Seriously...
Not to mention "complex Dilbert space".There is also "dark humour", a mysterious, powerful force that we barely understand.
I think you are mistaking Frontiers in physics with Frontiers of physics. The latter has an impact factor > 2, the former is not listed by TR, but used to be listed on Beall's list of predatory journals.But it's published in a peer reviewed journal with IF>2.![]()
You are absolutely right!I think you are mistaking Frontiers in physics with Frontiers of physics. The latter has an impact factor > 2, the former is not listed by TR, but used to be listed on Beall's list of predatory journals.
He got in a bit early, but the date on the article itself is April 1st.Alternative facts by Tom Banks:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1703.10470
Yeah that Viagra analog was unexpectedly tremendous and the hallucinations didn't bother me much,I hope I may be permitted a link to a vixra preprint proposing an "un-collider". It has something to offend just about everyone.