On the origin of probability in quantum mechanics.

Goddamn that is a good paper. Some of the questions have been partially answered since then, though it would take me too long now to write about that. I love how it shows that philosophy is not divorceable from quantum mechanics (or, really, any human endeavor).

I’ve been thinking a lot about probability lately, in this context and others, and how it’s a flawed but useful tool.

For N sufficiently large and |c+| ≠ |c−|, it can be shown that the vast majority of the 2N realized observers (i.e., weighting each distinct observer equally) see an outcome which is highly unlikely according to the usual probability rules. Note that counting of possible outcomes depends only on combinatorics and is independent of c±. As N → ∞, for all values of c± (excluding exactly zero), almost all of the realized observers find nearly equal number of + and − spins: there are many more outcomes of the form, e.g., (+ + − + − · · · + − − +) with roughly equal number of +’s and −’s than with many more of one than the other. This had to be the case, because counting of outcomes is independent of the values of c±, leading to a symmetry between + and − outcomes in the combinatorics. In contrast, the Born rule predicts that the relative number of + and − outcomes depends on |c±| . In the large N limit almost all (distinct) observers experience outcomes that strongly disfavor the Born probability rule: almost all of the physicists in the multiverse see experimental violation of the Born rule. Or: almost none of the physicists in the multiverse see outcomes consistent with the Born rule.

That’s something I’d realized myself, though I’d not put it quite that formally. Reality is essentially broken, because no matter how you think about it, using the best tools we have, there is something strange going on: either causality is false (this appears to be true in this universe), or you lose locality. And in most formulations of QM probability is completely wacky in irreconcilable ways! And it just seems to be the way the universe works.

The first ten on today’s playlist:

Those are some skills right there, ya’ll:

Her chair looks really uncomfortable though.

Examples of men in television/film depictions driving small cars as being weird or emasculating.

Silicon Valley.

I think this kind of thing is really insidious. It's really common too. I can't find a picture of the other good example I am thinking of. pic.twitter.com/PMMcr9hnU4

— Angie Schmitt🚶‍♀️ (@schmangee) February 17, 2021

Driving a car with such a short wheelbase is horrendous. And those small cars invariably have absolutely shitty brakes. The Smart ForTwo has a stopping distance of 124 feet.

My car — which outweighs that one by 1,700 pounds — has a 60-0mph stopping distance of 108 feet. That’s a difference of 16 feet. That is not minor. My car has saved me from several accidents in Florida that absolutely would’ve occurred if I’d had worse brakes.

Make a small car that doesn’t drive like a garbage can with shitty brakes, I might consider it.

If you look at the resignation of Donald McNeil and what has occurred with Slate Star Codex and the NYT as a contest for jobs and authority (which gets one jobs), then it all makes a lot more sense.

Like what #MeToo morphed into, and many other intra-elite competitions, this is all just extended elite internecine warfare for the declining number of professional jobs out there.

COVID-19 Cases Are Dropping Fast. Why? Four reasons: social distancing, seasonality, seroprevalence, and shots.

The actual order of reasons:

1) Seaonality.

2) Seroprevalence.

3) Social distancing/masks.

4) Shots.

Quickly, “shots” will zoom up to overtake the other three, though seasonality matters a lot more than anyone is giving it credit for. By August, as I’ve noted before, the lockdown scammers will be searching far and wide for reasons to keep us all sequestered away from the world as daily case rates will be so low.

I’m tired of reading about this, but this just isn’t true.

Scott Alexander built up a large and immensely influential readership completely on his own, writing a blog that, whatever its faults, stepped far outside of the narrow and parochial currents that Very Serious Media refuses to leave.

The real problem is that Slate Star Codex and the NYT were on the same beat, essentially. They were competitors. That’s why the viciousness of the feud! There were not really any unconventional views (as I think of them) on SSC, and everything was firmly within orthodox thought and convention, just as with the NYT. It was not nearly as deep as it appeared, though I did like some of the work on there — but every post needed to be thousands of words shorter.

Family feuds are always the most hard-fought ones. No different here.

Bill Gates roasted for saying rich countries should eat ‘100% synthetic beef.’

Well, he’s not yet pushing the “eat bugs and live in the pod” narrative, but I think he’s supposed to be the mild face of that movement. The good cop. Other billionaires who are the designated bad cops will excecute the pincer movement from the other side.

Is it a formal conspiracy? Mainly, I want you to understand why that question doesn’t matter. Focusing too much on explicit intent rather than de facto outcomes means that you look at what people “really” mean to do, at what’s in their hearts, which is less than irrelevant. Who gives a rip what’s in their hearts, what they “really believe?”

What happens in the world is what matters, and formal conspiracy or not, these are the people who’d gladly have you subjugated and contained so they could stay as rich as possible. We’ve seen it with lockdowns of late and we’ll be witnessing much more of that in the very near future.

The first ten on today’s playlist: