![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
Sounds nice. Possibly while not killing them or milking them, while also trying to breed them back to a more naturally viable state?
Sounds nice. Possibly while not killing them or milking them, while also trying to breed them back to a more naturally viable state?
Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.
Wouldn’t you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere?
Mouse brain maybe?
œuf and chœur as well, I suppose? Though I don’t know if that is how they are commonly spelled
Weird that France has both œ and æ. I only ever saw the latter in Nordic languages, but apparently it is occasionally used in French.
What a horrifying disaster.
Neat! Didn’t know that.
How am I supposed to estimate the pH value of a given wetland area without specialised equipment?
Possibly. I can’t come up with any major results that wasn’t either logic, engineering or tradition. But it’s an interesting question. What might count as science before then?
They also said it about potatoes, fresh water, indoor plants, cotton clothes, thinking about the moon and wooden stools.
Canada is not a Euro-zone country.
And also, Ireland is south of Denmark.
Not sure I understand, who is being called names?
And sure, laws like these are always a compromise, with no objectively true answer.
The point of having an age of consent (in this case 16 in the UK) is not popularity, and not just parental awareness or protection from people in positions of power.
It’s a decision by society that kids below this age are incapable of grasping the full consequences of their consent.
Of course the limit is going to be somewhat arbitrary, and you can definitely argue that age of consent laws are bad without being a creep, but you’d have to argue that a 15 year old understands the ramifications of consent.
Original from Perry Bible Fellowship: https://pbfcomics.com/comics/one-more-day/
Weird that the text was re-written, I wonder if the comic was somehow translated and translated back to English?
The “message” does not have any local effect on reality - when you measure your particle, you have no way of figuring out if its partner was already measured elsewhere. The effect it does have is on the global state, maintaining the correlation that was encoded from the start.
If you write up the density matrix for the system before and after measurement of one of the particles, you can see that while the density matrix changes, it does not change in a way one can measure.
What I will concede is that before the first measurement the global state is |00>+|11>, afterwards it is |00> or |11>. This projection appears to happen instantaneously, no matter the distance, which is indeed faster than light.
But calling the wave function collapse a signal or a message or a transfer of information is misleading, I would say. In your example, we know that the initial state is |00>+|11>, and that the result of the first measurement is then, say, 1. Then no further information is required to know that the other measurement will result in 1. No messages required, no hidden variables, simply the process of elimination.
I would like to say that this is indeed a confusing subject, but that the math is clear, and that I am arguing what is my impression of the mainstream view in the field.
I fully understand the concept of entanglement and the experiments you mention, but I’m still to understand what you mean when you say “something” is being transmitted between the particles.
As you say, this “something” cannot contain information, and it also cannot influence the particle physically, since there is no way to distinguish the physical state of the particle before and after it receives this “something”. So the signal contains nothing, and has no effect on physical reality. That sounds a lot like “nothing” rather than “something”.
I completely get the argument that somehow the two particles must agree on what result to give, but in the theory this is just a consequence of how entanglement and measurements work. No transmission required.
Indeed. I’m not completely sure what point you are trying to make, but my point is not a hidden variable point. The states can be in a perfectly correlated superposition without any hidden variables, and still not “share anything” upon collapse into an eigenstate.
I will concede that it looks a lot like one particle somehow tells the other “hey, I just collapsed into the |1> state, so now you need to as well”, but at a closer look this seems to happen on its own without any such message being shared. In particular, while the collapse of one state causes the collapse of the other, there is no physical way to distinguish between a state that was collapsed due to entanglement, and one that wasn’t. At least not until you send a sub-FTL signal to explain what happened.
So if physically, the state of particle 1 before and after particle 2 was measured is indistinguishable, how can we say that “something” was shared from particle 2 to particle 1?
I don’t think we are - the previous comment is talking about the total genocide of all domesticated animals, which seems beyond sheep under solar panels.