🇵🇸Tim Henke (tɪm 'ɦɛŋ.kə)

Screenshot of the French wikipedia pages for the UAE which in French is the EAU, which is the French word for water

I think it's a little bit silly for the French to name a country in the desert "WATER"

I confess that I don't know so much about how Aristotle took possibilities

Doesn't mean they have perfect control over their vassal state, of course. The fascist ideology tends to have a mind of its own

But when the US does something, they do it in the name of their own empire.

The Onion myth vs fact slide Myth: As commander-in-chief, Trump has the authority to take military action FACT: it is unconstitutional for a US prersident to declare war without the approval of the Knesset

Love the Onion but it's once again important to reiterate: Israel is US imperial outpost not the other way around

Implications about Israel controlling the US are at best misunderstandings and often veer into antisemitism

The US are protecting their imperial interests, not being controlled by them

I'm only saying this:

If |ψ〉describes a single conscious experience and |ϕ〉describes a single conscious experience, then |ψ〉+ |ϕ〉will generally not represent a single conscious experience

If we take MWI seriously, you are always in a superposition of classical states, and therefore in a superposition of conscious states

But I'm not trying to combine anything. I'm only taking a single property of consciousness, which is the assumption that it's classical

Of course, that is an assumption, and you're welcome to disagree. But I need no further theory of consciousness to make these claims

Of course if you, like Penrose, believe that quantum effects are central to consciousness then the argument doesn't hold up. And indeed those people usually come to their own idiosyncratic interpretations

But I think this is a very rare view and not much to support it

I don't understand why this is needed

If you accept that states of consciousness are classical (i.e. a superposition cannot represent a singular experience) then I don't think you need anything further to perform this argument. You need no further specifics about what it is

I'm a big fan of when people create conferences or seminars whose acronyms are fun little words, but I'm an even bigger fan of when in their emails they forget to explain what the acronyms mean so you just get invited for the DANCE seminar with no extra context

Why do you require a full-blown theory of consciousness?

And then Gleason's Theorem shows that the only assignment of probabilities that will prevent you from getting Dutch-booked is Born's rule

Additionally, general statistics arguments show that you are Born-almost-certain to see the frequencies line up with the Born rule

This is inevitable from the Bayesian perspective. If we agree that for every proposed bet you must agree accept at least one side of the bet (so if you reject certain odds for a bet, you must accept the opposite odds) then the Dutch book argument forces you to assign probabilities to the outcomes.

perform a measurement needs to conceptualise your future experiences. Of course on an intellectual level you know that both will happen, but there is history where a future you will *experience* both

I would argue that the only reasonable thing you can do is assign probabilities to them.

So my view is this:

If you get put into a superposition of two classical states, there are two experience histories to consider:

you who's about to be perform a measurement -> you who measured spin-up
you who's about to perform a measurement -> you who measured spin-down

The you who's about to

This is correct!

But to get to your point about the singular self: yes, the notion of the singular self clearly breaks in the MWI

But it won't ever *feel* like it breaks. If you just consult your experience, you will still *feel* like a singular self

The Born rule then arises from examining that experience

No, hold on, that's not what I said.

I said both future versions will consider themselves to be you.

I didn't say you consider both future versions to be you.

Big difference.

You have to admit she's poasting good, but still I continue to ask why she gets twitter in prison

Life hack: you can just eat expired meat and dairy products. Very few places have laws against it and most hospitals are not allowed to keep you against your will

"unconditional surrender whether they say it or not" is a pretty amazing phrase

One nice thing I'll say about Noem is that now that she's finally fired I will no longer confuse her with Leavitt

Donald Trump is a child rapist

Fantastic discussion with psychologist @lewan.bsky.social about the role of science in democracy, why autocrats always go after science and scientists, and what the hell is happening in the US.

One not to be missed!

Clip: youtube.com/shorts/YNNbs...
Full: youtube.com/watch?v=nHz3...

🧪⚛️

New episode of #ScienceCounterpunch out now.

That's correct. For now I'm happy with pre-relativistic

I'm not necessarily assuming our ontology maps onto some mathematics. But I will be needing some sort of description of any kind

Eventually I don't mind discussing "stuff", but for now I'd like to focus on the kinds of configurations of stuff

Eliezer Yudkowsky writing a long tweet not worth your time, but a highlighted word is "apocalypsii" because that's what he thinks is the plural of apocalypse

Look, I'm not one to rag on people's spelling

But I will say that it's unbelievably yudcore to invent an intellectual-sounding plural and be so unbelievably confident that you were right that it's not even worth a quick google search

Then we're entirely in agreement

The only thing I claimed to be unique about MWI (afaik) is treating observers as honest-to-god quantum objects (Hilbert spaces and Schrödinger evolution)

But many other interpretations likewise resolve the measurement problem. There are many solutions

I think you can weaponise Gleason to show that no such Corn rule can exist

Same