- #1
- 14,169
- 6,650
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humorblue_leaf77 said: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 said: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.PeroK said:There is also "dark humour", a mysterious, powerful force that we barely understand.
As seriously as we take all other research in "quantum consciousness".Demystifier said:
It is not in that group.strangerep said: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.rubi said: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.Demystifier said: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...Demystifier said:
But it's published in a peer reviewed journal with IF>2.DrClaude said: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".PeroK said: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.Demystifier said:But it's published in a peer reviewed journal with IF>2.
You are absolutely right!DrClaude said: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.
rubi said:
He got in a bit early, but the date on the article itself is April 1st.Demystifier said: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,mitchell porter said:I hope I may be permitted a link to a vixra preprint proposing an "un-collider". It has something to offend just about everyone.
This phrase refers to the fact that the arrival of the month of April, typically known for its warm weather and springtime, occurred two weeks earlier than its usual date.
April came earlier this year due to changes in weather patterns and global climate. This could be a result of human-caused climate change or natural variations in the Earth's climate.
Yes, it is unusual for April to come earlier than its usual date. This could be a sign of a changing climate and should be closely monitored by scientists and experts.
An earlier April could have various impacts on the environment, such as affecting plant growth and migration patterns of animals. It could also result in earlier blooming of flowers and plants, as well as changes in weather patterns and precipitation.
It is difficult to predict exactly how April, or any month, will behave in the future. However, if trends in climate change continue, it is possible that April may continue to come earlier in the coming years.