April came two weeks earlier this year

[Demystifier]

Or should we take
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1703.04647
seriously?

 

[blue_leaf77]

Since you post it under BSM forum, I think it's therefore legitimate to ask what is the standard model of the theory of humor?

 

[Demystifier]

Since 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.

 

[PeroK]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor
There are several standard models of humor, but they are all classical.

There is also "dark humour", a mysterious, powerful force that we barely understand.

 

[Demystifier]

There is also "dark humour", a mysterious, powerful force that we barely understand.

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.

 

[strangerep]

Or should we take
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1703.04647
seriously?

As seriously as we take all other research in "quantum consciousness".

 

[rootone]

Being a bit dim, I could never understand virtual jokes, although I do know that they must be fundamental objects for advanced AI. to happen.

 

[mitchell porter]

The joke is that the paper actually has nothing to do with physics. It's all just a linear algebra model of cognition. The paper could have been written without the word 'quantum' appearing once.

 

[mfb]

As seriously as we take all other research in "quantum consciousness".

It is not in that group.
They just use pieces of mathematics also used in quantum theory.

 

[rubi]

Psychologists have recently started to look into these quantum models. The point is that quantum probabilities are a generalization of classical probabilities that allow for the occurency of contextuality. In fact, contextuality is precisely the difference between quantum probabilities and classical probabilites. Psychology makes heavy use of statistics and hence it is natural that probability theories that allow for more general statistical features (such as i.e. entanglement) would eventually be applied outside of physics as well. I think this kind of research is exactly what needs to be done. Quantum mechanics is still kind of mysterious and if we can find examples of quantum statistics in other fields like psychology or maybe economics, we might also learn something about physics as well.

 

[Demystifier]

In fact, contextuality is precisely the difference between quantum probabilities and classical probabilites.

I wouldn't agree, but that's not a thread on quantum foundations, so I will not elaborate.

 

[rubi]

I wouldn't agree, but that's not a thread on quantum foundations, so I will not elaborate.

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.

 

[DrClaude]

Or should we take
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1703.04647
seriously?

If this hadn't been posted by you, I would have slapped it with an "unacceptable sources" warning. Seriously...

 

[rubi]

Here are some more related sources:
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9855

 

[Demystifier]

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

There is also "dark humour", a mysterious, powerful force that we barely understand.

Not to mention "complex Dilbert space".

Dilbert spaces arise naturally and frequently in humour, typically as infinite(± 2)-dimensional ill-functioning office spaces.​

 

[DrClaude]

But it's published in a peer reviewed journal with IF>2.

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.

 

[Demystifier]

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.

You are absolutely right!

 

[ShayanJ]

Here are some more related sources:
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9855

Interesting lecture.
I just don't understand the difference between "with and only with" and "only with"! Can somebody clarify?

 

[Demystifier]

Alternative facts by Tom Banks:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1703.10470

 

[DrClaude]

Alternative facts by Tom Banks:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1703.10470

He got in a bit early, but the date on the article itself is April 1st.

 

[mitchell porter]

I hope I may be permitted a link to a vixra preprint proposing an "un-collider". It has something to offend just about everyone.

 

[rootone]

I hope I may be permitted a link to a vixra preprint proposing an "un-collider". It has something to offend just about everyone.

Yeah that Viagra analog was unexpectedly tremendous and the hallucinations didn't bother me much,
Mind you, I have seen better hallucinations under cover, making out like they are not hallucinations at all.
Those orientals can be tricky