Palindromers has to worry about the fact that each word, each letter added, should be read backwards. "... [theory] doesn't replace, rather [[its creator] provided it for free]"? The reality is no one knows how any of this works, and there are more than twenty different interpretations. This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake. Newtonian physics is still valid and still taught at schools since it adequately explains the movement of objects at an approximate level that is good enough for most people most of the time. Example A MAN, A PLAN, A CANAL : PANAMA I'm just saying, let's not act like we have a ton of viable theories to fill out the rest of the road; in the meanwhile, we still have to perform measurements and make predictions, and the projection postulate is handy for that. The Crossword Solver finds answers to American-style crosswords, British-style crosswords, general knowledge crosswords and cryptic crossword puzzles. The players will never be able to access the seed, therefore the best they can do is make decision based on the value of the generated random numbers they observe and their probabilities. That's not even counting things like spectral lines, the stability of atoms, etc, etc that were unexplained in 19th century physics, and explicitly known at the time to be at odds with classical physics. dCode retains ownership of the online 'Palindromes Generator' tool source code. There are multiple plausible explanations and the remaining difficulties have more to do with philosophy than physics. I am wondering why you think the belief, that different models are too hard to distinguish experimentally, is incorrect - after all, the achievment of such a distinction would seem to be highly motivating. Interestingly, the opponents of Afshar's interpretation do not all agree on why they think it is wrong.). No, a touch over 100 years ago Einstein came up with a new set of equations that more precisely describes the movement of objects. I tried many times but the page not rendering , i am not understanding where i did wrong? My layman feeling wrt. EDIT: To clarify: by less predictive power I mean that it neither explains new effects or predicts new unknown ones, nor explains known phenomena or generates existing theories as special examples. provided for free as a courtesy. QM, and Copenhagen school in particular, is that we're searching for too computationally simple mental models. Bell's inequalities talk about "measurements". a bug ? palindrome,semordilap,backward,letter,reverse,text, Source : https://www.dcode.fr/palindromes-generator. Like I said in another comment, if we ever do observe entangled states directly, people will jump on board one of these alternate explanations like lightning. While worldviews can be overturned and paradigms can be shifted, it is (significantly) harder than it was before. Bell inequalities are a consequence of this modelisation. makes no sense. So whatever new framework that has to supercede our current framework has more ground to cover than it did even in the recent past. Submit your funny nicknames and cool gamertags and copy the best from the list. Nicknames, cool fonts, symbols and tags for PowerLine – demogordon, demogorgon, ━ 67k YT, ꧁༒₦Ї₦ℑ₳༒꧂, 99.99K, hit. The manosphere has been associated politically with the far-right and alt-right. no data, script, copy-paste, or API access will be for free, same for Palindromes Generator download for offline use on PC, tablet, iPhone or Android ! The definitions I have found always invoke the presence of a "classical system"/"observer". If we could invent a device to replicate that property perfectly and measure it repetitively we could then estimate ever more accurate boundaries for the "true" value of p, no? When the Pentium 4 mispredicts a branch, it takes many, many (up to ~20) cycles to recover. But until we do, the question of why we never. Create good names for games, profiles, brands or social networks. Bell's inequalities show that there isn't a local state that can be there. I think you misunderstand. We are a leading online assignment help service provider. What laymen usually wants is to understand how the world evolve. I think the criticism of occam's razor is valid. That does sound like how one reaches a local maximum, to use the term from the article. It took astronomical observations with early telescopes to provide data points favoring a mixed geo/heliocentric model, and then further observations, work of Kepler and Newton's theory of gravity for heliocentric model to finally start making sense. A potential better theory will initially look bad in comparison, it needs work to develop past the accepted one. As a construction company owner, you need a profit and loss statement that conveys information in a format that will identify how much you are truly making as a profit. Please, check our community Discord for help requests! I don't think it's entirely right to discard comparatively less developed theories based on their relatively weaker predictive power. About. [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325915-400-quantum-... Part of the authors premise is that a more correct theory could have less predictive power out thr gate and might not be pursued as a result. I am not aware of any interpretation that has the Born rule without assuming something equivalent to it. I still haven't understood why people keep saying that there is randomness in QM. No one says that ideas of 100 yaers ago were all wrong, just not so true as current. You can't just wave away the collapse mechanism, what do you make of the double alit experiment? Thanks to your feedback and relevant comments, dCode has developed the best 'Palindromes Generator' tool, so feel free to write! And if you evolve the target's wave function with the wave function of the particle, then there is no stochastic collapse. Synonyms for element include component, constituent, factor, feature, ingredient, detail, principle, essential, dimension and facet. What is usually misunderstood about QM is that QM isn't a model of the world. Sure it is valid, but in reality most scientists don’t religiously stick to Ockham’s razor and oppose alternative theories that give correct predictions. Until this time, the older earth-centric models with all of the epicycles were 'better', even though totally unrelated to reality. dCode has a dictionary of nearly 500 palindromes words, here is an exhaustive list : A, AA, AAA, AAAA, ABA, ABBA, ACA, ACCA, ADA, AEA, AEAEA, AFEEFA, AGA, AHA, AIA, AIBOHPHOBIA, AIIA, AILIHPHILIA, AJA, AKA, ALA, ALALA, ALLA, ALULA, AMA, AMMA, ANA, ANANA, ANNA, AOA, APA, APIPA, ARA, ARAARA, ARARA, ARORA, ASA, ATA, ATAATA, ATTA, AUA, AVA, AWA, AYA, AZA, B, BAB, BB, BBB, BEEB, BIB, BOB, BOOB, BRB, BUB, C, CAAC, CAC, CARAC, CBBC, CBC, CC, CCC, CDC, CFC, CIC, CINEGENIC, CIVIC, CMC, CNC, CPC, CQC, CRC, CSC, CTC, CVC, CXC, CYC, D, DAAD, DAD, DCD, DD, DDD, DEED, DEGGED, DEIFIED, DEKED, DELED, DELEVELED, DENNED, DERED, DETARTRATED, DEVIVED, DEWED, DFD, DHD, DID, DIOID, DIXID, DND, DOD, DOOD, DSD, DTD, DUD, DVD, DYD, E, EBE, ECCE, EE, EEVEE, EGGE, EIRIE, EKE, ELE, ELLE, EME, ENE, ENIMINE, ENONE, ENYNE, EOE, EQE, ERE, ESE, ESSE, EVE, EVITATIVE, EWE, EXE, EYE, EZE, F, FCF, FF, FGF, FINIF, FINNIF, FMF, FSF, FYF, G, GAG, GEG, GG, GGG, GHG, GIG, GKG, GLENELG, GMG, GOG, GOOG, GRG, GTG, H, HADEDAH, HAH, HAJJAH, HALALAH, HALLAH, HANNAH, HATTAH, HEH, HGH, HH, HOH, HPH, HRH, HSH, HTH, HUH, HUHUH, I, ICI, IOI, IPI, IRI, IRORI, ISCSI, IUI, IWI, J, JJ, JJJ, K, KAIAK, KAK, KANAK, KAYAK, KAZAK, KEEK, KINIKINIK, KINIKKINIK, KINNIKINNIK, KK, KKK, KOOK, KRK, KUK, L, LAAL, LAVAL, LBL, LCL, LDL, LEMEL, LEVEL, LIL, LL, LOL, LOLOL, LOOL, LSL, LTL, LUL, LVL, LYSYL, M, MAAM, MADAM, MALAM, MALAYALAM, MALLAM, MAM, MANAM, MAQAM, MARRAM, MASAM, MCM, MDM, MEEM, MELEM, MEM, MFM, MGM, MHM, MIM, MINIM, MLM, MM, MMHMM, MMM, MMMM, MOM, MONOM, MPM, MSM, MUM, MURDRUM, MVVM, MZM, N, NAAN, NAN, NANNAN, NAURUAN, NBN, NEN, NEVEN, NGN, NIN, NISIN, NMN, NN, NON, NOON, NRN, NSN, NUN, O, OBO, OGO, OGOPOGO, OHO, ONO, OO, OOO, OPPO, OSO, OTO, OTTO, OWO, OXO, P, PAP, PBP, PCP, PDP, PEEP, PEP, PGP, PHP, PIP, PIPPIP, PNP, POOP, POP, PP, PPP, PRP, PSP, PULLUP, PUP, PVP, PWP, PZP, Q, QAANAAQ, QAZAQ, QOQ, QQ, R, RACECAR, RADAR, RAR, REDDER, REDIVIDER, REER, REFER, REIFIER, REPAPER, RETTER, REVER, REVIVER, REVVER, RLR, RNR, ROR, ROTATOR, ROTAVATOR, ROTOR, RR, RSFSR, S, SAAS, SAGAS, SAKAS, SAMAS, SAS, SBS, SEDES, SEES, SEITIES, SELES, SELLES, SEMEMES, SEMES, SENES, SENINES, SENONES, SERES, SERRES, SES, SESSES, SEXES, SFS, SGS, SHAHS, SHS, SIMIS, SIRIS, SIS, SJS, SKS, SLS, SMS, SNS, SOKOS, SOLOS, SOROS, SOS, SPS, SRS, SS, SSS, STATS, STETS, STOTS, STS, SUCCUS, SULUS, SUS, SUSUS, SVS, SXS, SYS, T, TAHAT, TALLAT, TAT, TBT, TEBBET, TEBET, TEET, TENET, TERET, TERRET, TET, TEVET, TFT, THT, TIRRIT, TIT, TMT, TNT, TOOT, TOROT, TOT, TRT, TST, TT, TTT, TTTT, TUT, TUTTUT, TWT, TXT, TYT, U, UHU, ULU, UMU, UPU, URU, USU, UTU, UU, V, VAV, VIV, VV, VZV, W, WAAW, WAKAW, WAW, WNW, WOW, WOWWOW, WSW, WW, WWW, WWWWW, X, XANAX, XXX, XXXX, Y, YAY, YEY, YOY, YY, Z, ZIZ, ZUZ, ZZZ, DESSERTS I DESIRE NOT SO LONG NO LOST ONE RISE DISTRESSED, DOC, NOTE: I DISSENT. Except explicit open source licence (indicated CC / Creative Commons / free), any algorithm, applet or snippet (converter, solver, encryption / decryption, encoding / decoding, ciphering / deciphering, translator), or any function (convert, solve, decrypt / encrypt, decipher / cipher, decode / encode, translate) written in any informatic language (PHP, Java, C#, Python, Javascript, Matlab, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem. Turing machine as an abstract concept is known to not hold a solution to the halting problem. Personally I choose to believe that the theory is just incomplete because nobody can even define what a "measurement" really is, meaning in which cases what we do is a "measurement" and in which cases it is not a "measurement". A FAST NEVER PREVENTS A FATNESS. Click the answer to find similar crossword clues. A palindrome of letters is a text which order of letters stays the same if it's read from right to left or left to right. It is written by Steven Knight and directed by Francis Lawrence.It also stars Sylvia Hoeks, Hera Hilmar and Christian Camargo.Executive producers include Knight, Lawrence, Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping, and Kristen Campo. Click the answer to find similar crossword clues. Enter the answer length or the answer pattern to get better results. Update: writing this reminded me of [1], in which a simple experiment by Shahriar Afshar, that arguably challenged one tenet of the Copenhagen interpretation, provoked a disturbingly over-the-top response, which supports your position on how work on quantum fundamentals is opposed (though, personally, I doubt it succeeds in challenging the Copenhagen interpretation. We will take care of all your assignment needs. Our understanding of something as common as metals and insulators depends heavily on quantum mechanics. Synonyms for construction include building, assembly, creation, development, erection, fabrication, making, composition, establishment and manufacture. We can't expect the same to be true for more advanced fields, we can't say "yeah, this "new/underdeveloped" idea does seem reasonable, but it does not solve everything as well as our existing theory that we've been iterating on for decades, so let's not waste time on that". Or development and studying interpretations of quantum mechanics (which btw yielded results in Quantum Information Theory). Things like how the earth might be round, and circle the sun. You can request for any type of assignment help from our highly qualified professional writers. In the Everett/Many Worlds interpretation the appearance of randomness can be explained as an emergent phenomenon resulting from not being able to predict which part of the wave function we will end up in before running an experiment. Gleason's theorem also makes a big assumption when you require that the measurement outcomes are associated with POVM elements (or projection operators if you don't like POVMs). But would that not also imply that we should be able to measure the quantum world with quantum devices? Yet, in most cases they don’t stand up the test of time. Quantum Foundations was strongly disfavoured as a research pastime for decades - not because Shut Up and Calculate gets the right answer (it doesn't for many problems, including those that involve gravity) but because the risks of failure and obscurity were too high, there were few academic champions, it was seen as academically fringe, and the potential rewards for bolting something new onto the Standard Model without fundamentally changing its assumptions were much higher. - that was my recollection also: the epi-cycles had greater predictive power and accuracy. It wasn't until Kepler showed that a) the orbits were actually elliptical and b) the planets speeded up when they approached the sun and slowed down as they moved away that the actual movements of the planets could be more accurately predicted. We simply don't know, and we have no idea when shall we know. And therefore, there is also no such thing as a "measurement", it's also an approximation. Example A MAN, A PLAN, A CANAL : PANAMA. Physicists are “stuck” with existing theories not because they like them, but because they work so well it’s hard to invent something that even works equally well (not to mention something that works better). There are some important details that are still being debated. Thank you! It's a useful approximation, but of course in reality, there is no such thing as a non-quantum thing. So the second example is actually the same as: Online Dictionaries: Definition of Options|Tips Options|Tips models.py class Post(models.Model): head = models.CharField( The "part that is difficult" that you identify as being unresolved by MWI is also completely unresolved by pilot wave theory, or qbism or consistent histories or any other interpretation (as far as I am aware). Now the boundary between QM and "classical physics" is one where your quantum system will interact with 10^{double digit} amount of other quantum-relevant bits. I DIET ON COD, GO DROOP - STOP - ON WARD DRAW NO POTS, POOR DOG, In English, palindromic words can be 11 letters long such as DETARTRATED or AIBOHPHOBIA (neologism), there is also ROTAVATOR, REDIVIDER, MALAYALAM, EVITATIVE, DELEVELED, CINEGENIC in 9 letters. > Also, IIRC, the predictions made by heliocentric model were less accurate than geocentric ones, one important point is that ground observations include mars moving backward fairly often. I have a feeling that searching for what constitutes "a measurement" in such scenario is missing the point, and even talking about the macro system being entangled with the test system is pretty much skipping over all the interesting bits. So the outer planets sometimes appear to go backward with respect to a fixed point such as a star as the Earth undertakes them. We’re on a journey to solve and democratize artificial intelligence through natural language. As far as your last sentence goes, this is sort of what I was trying to argue in my comment above. ; is the execution speed bounded? It doesn't replace, rather complements it. or maybe we can somehow count to infinity by exponentially increasing the speed? Do not confuse with a semordilap which is a word that reads in both directions but is not necessarily the same word. I didn’t mean theories such as for example string theory, that has little predictive power at the moment, but has current theories as special cases and holds the promise of explaining things that current theories cannot. I think we're in agreement there (though IMO it's highly nonobvious that noncontextuality+POVMs automatically get you the Born rule, so I don't think it's "cheating" to assume that--obviously any set of axioms that let you derive Born will have such a property!). If you are spending cycles parsing text, the random nature of the data can eliminate many of the benefits of a deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep pipeline. "Physicists are “stuck” with existing theories not because they like them, but because they work so well it’s hard to invent something that even works equally well". The best format is a construction profit and loss statement identifying contract revenues, direct costs, indirect costs and the overhead expenses. To take a historical example, The publication of Bell's inequality motivated a successful program leading to its experimental verification; do you have in mind some potential experiment to distinguish between models that is being wrongly ignored on the grounds that it is too hard to persue? See is an American science fiction drama streaming television series produced for Apple TV+ starring Jason Momoa and Alfre Woodard in leading roles. So there's been a process of continuous refinement of existing theories which are known to be incomplete, and no concerted and sustained attempt to solve foundational philosophical problems - which is the level that Einstein, Newton, and other pioneers operated at. right on thanks for making this point - "Also, IIRC, the predictions made by heliocentric model were less accurate than geocentric ones." Think on it in a different way, most of the very revolutionary theories, those that changed how we see the world, were relatively more simple, they were generally simple enough that one fringe could develop them to a point where they shined so brightly as to be next to irrefutable. All very complicated for those ancient astronomers! The Crossword Solver found 139 answers to the principle crossword clue. There are theories/interpretations but no truly satisfying answers in the same way as for example Newton's equations were a satisfying answer to the elliptical movement of planets, even though we later found out in the 20th century that F ~ 1/r^2 was actually an approximation. They instead switch between being visible in the morning or the evening. Also, IIRC, the predictions made by heliocentric model were less accurate than geocentric ones. because they're working in macro scale, but QM is trying to deal with the smallest bits of our reality. Every gradient points slightly downward at the local maxima. Although its really cool I don't think Gleason helps you tie any particular interpretation to the Born rule, since you still have to make a jump to tie your measurement outcome to a POM/POVM element. Say we have a quantum property that is extremely close to p=0.5. Edit: To give one example of an approach that I think is promising: We start by describing the observer and environment through a density matrix (a probability distribution over possible wave functions) and introduce an interaction with a quantum system (e.g. There a lot of smart that are brave in thinking and propose wild explanations. an idea ? Everyone agrees Copenhagen is just kicking the can down the road. Intresting trivia: heliocentrism didn't show "shining brightly as to be next to irrefutable" - it was a fringe idea that could not be confirmed through observation at the time, required some pretty wild (for the time) assumptions - such as stars being very, very far away, to explain why there's no visible parallax from Earth's movements - and went against existing understanding of physics in general (such as, Earth is very big and heavy and bulky, so it's not obvious how could it be moving in circles very fast). a feedback ? it produces different predictions from the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which means it's not strictly a different interpretation, but its own falsifiable theory. The problem with the double slit experiment is that the target isn't treated as a quantum system. Write to dCode! What you are saying is that whenever we, the observer, leave the QM model we use the collapse as a computational trapdoor function? Personally my impression is that the debate has advanced enough to the point where MWI can’t be outright dismissed based on this argument. The Crossword Solver finds answers to American-style crosswords, British-style crosswords, general knowledge crosswords and cryptic crossword puzzles. Get a 100% unique text with no plagiarism written according to your guidelines. If hard sticking to Ockham’s razor was true, Quantum loop Gravity, String Theory and many other theories wouldn’t be intensively studied for past 50 years. Once you design a turing machine that can solve the halting problem, I'm sure it'll be able to break Bell's inequalities too. could you please let me know , where i did wrong? Interestingly in this case the probabilities emerge from our lack of knowledge about the microstate of the observer/environment, so it’s actually thermodynamic uncertainty. I lumped that in with "assuming something equivalent to it" since Gleason's theorem (at least by my understanding) is exactly the statement that assuming non-contextuality+POVMs/POMs is equivalent to assuming Born's rule. Likewise quantum mechanics doesn’t replace General Relativity. If you can't - most likely - one opinion is as (in)valid as any other for now. Einstein couldn’t deal with randomness of Quantum Mechanics, put forward a hidden variable theory and it was (and still is) seriously considered, but he (and many others) weren’t able to put forward better-working theory. Yes, you are right to point this out. Obviously it's different for Mercury and Venus, whose orbits are inside ours. (Maybe not even an approximation, but maybe more like a projection...). What QM physicists tell them is there exist some inaccessible information, but using accessible information we have, we know how to predict all the accessible information (albeit stochastic-ally). (It would help tremendously if we ever measured quantum states that weren't "collapsed", but as we've never done this so far it makes most of the stochastic collapse stuff hard to justify, even if it seems intuitively like the right approach). If you can prove conclusively there's no randomness and no collapse and no need for either, a Nobel Prize awaits. The measurement is the theoretical duct tape between the "quantum world" and the "classical world". You’ll get a text that will catch the admission board’s attention from the very start and will keep them staggered by your self-presentation for a long time. That's why the wave function "collapses": Because it collides with the non-quantum target. Those better models didn't get resistance from the established physicists. > But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker. The old scientists that (very vocally on that case) resisted change were the same that uncovered the problems with the old models and laid out the first theories on how to fix those problems. It is proven (see Bell inequalities) that randomness in QM isn't due to lack of information. This is exacerbated by the fact that in physics in that most everything outside the early universe and black holes (which aren't easily accessible experimentally) seems to conform to our current framework -- there is both more to fit in and less data to work with. a spin). I am not particularly a many-world proponent, but I do not think it is fair to level this accusation as an issue for many worlds without bringing up that every other interpretation has the same "flaw". The Crossword Solver found 190 answers to the principles crossword clue. IMHO that interpretation is implausible. The idea that people cling to the obviously false projection postulate out of obstinance is really strange to me, there just aren't very good alternatives available (at least not with the math fully worked out). it took a while to formulate a movement form that satisfied that constraint better than epicycles. When the FPGA CPU core takes a branch (or not), it wastes 0 or 1 cycles. Another fresh take on the issue I recently stumbled across by accident. But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker. you have it wrong, QM is the only physical theory that has randomness as an inherent part, as compared to e.g thermodynamics where randomness is due to lack of information. You can't "copy" data in QM: operations can neither destroy nor create information. Yes, but hundred years ago we were "stuck" with another worldview that was explaining everything fine, and i assume ther was a big resistance from estabilishment to addopt new ideas. Enter the answer length or the answer pattern to get better results. So we might look back at today after 100 yaers and see similar situation. The typical example to help computer scientists to understand is the seed of a pseudo-random generator in an online casino. No, this is historically incorrect. /EDIT. It compliments it. But there is no such thing as a "classical world", it's just a useful approximation. If you don't consider measurement ontologically special, then you need to somehow derive a physically meaningful Born rule without reference to measurement, which so far is something that AFAIK has only been accomplished in theories with large amounts of nonlocality and extra assumptions. This is one example of the fact that the Earth 'laps' the outer planets because it has a faster orbit. I also think that this is what people like Feynman refer to when they say things like "nobody understands QM", it's actually "nobody understands the wave function collapse", the rest is just maths. Edit: maybe you were joking? Sounds like an interesting point of view. Is string theory not pursued by “mainstream science” because (at least for now) it has less predictive power than standard model? (Although it could be argued he actually got paid for it later with Nobel prize.). Sure. dCode is free and its tools are a valuable help in games, maths, geocaching, puzzles and problems to solve every day!A suggestion ? Tool/Generator to find palindromes. It’s just that constructing something correct and new IS really hard. Not a moment before. For example de Broglie–Bohm theory requires you to assume the original distribution of the particles follows the Born rule. We simply know more now, and have a better understanding of our limits. Why wouldn’t it be pursued? I was mostly saying, I don't think MWI helps us understand where the probabilities come from any more than any other interpretation--you need something more. A symmetrical palindrome is a palindrome that uses the letters AHIMOTUVWXY which are symmetrical along a vertical axis. QM is a model of "what we can observe from the world" based on "what we can observe from the world". in which case sorry (it missed the mark). We stick to QM despite its weirdness/randomness because it works extremely well, not because we like it or think things must be this way and require no further study/“it is the most efficient and parsimonious possible model“. definition of - senses, usage, synonyms, thesaurus. Of course while it’s good to search for alternative models/theories/explanations, unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. This is all hand-waving. Most other areas of physics - like GR, SR, thermodynamics - can get away with aggregating matter into points, perfect spheres, etc. things like that). The Everett/Many Worlds interpretation cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics without extra assumptions (e.g. the Born rule) that don't have any physical basis within the context of MWI. I would love to consider measurement something ontologically special, but it's not possible because there is no well-defined definition for what a measurement is. I don't think we should consider it "real" or "true". Example: A palindromic phrase that begins with NEVER should end with REVEN which can be cut to form words like (O)R EVEN. What is the list of palindromic words in english? There's no question about that, the only question is how the abstract concept assumptions pertain to the real world (infinite tape? But when dealing with equations at an astronomical scale, Newtonian physics start to break down. Isn't that the observer becoming entangled with the measured system? But that just kicks the can down the road, because there is no well-defined definition of a "classical system" either. The overall effect is that the outer planets sometimes trace out a little spiral, and the further they are from the sun, the more these spirals dominate their overall motion (because we are lapping them more often). The work that Einstein did on quantum mechanics was indeed "complimentary", i.e. > unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. QBists just postulate it, consistent histories just postulates it etc. People gave good answers but forgot to mention the most important part in my opinion: In the second example the X of the list comprehension is NOT the same as the X of the lambda function, they are totally unrelated. AFAIK it can in fact be derived through Gleason's Theorem under the assumption of noncontextuality, so I don't think it's fair to say that. On the other hand nobody has any clue what the quantum measurement / wave function collapse actually is. But measurement's aren't real. This does serve as an example backing TFA's thesis: some accepted theories, like (then) geocentric model, may be just local maxima - theoretical dead ends. It's either inherent randomness or just a deep hole in the whole thing (similar to the alien chess thought experiment problem).
Recessed 50 Amp Receptacle, Dog Throwing Up Only In Middle Of Night, Can Assault With A Deadly Weapon Charges Be Dropped, Geese V Formation, Whose Line Is It Anyway Hbo Max Missing Episodes, Geraldine Fitzgerald Spouse, How Much Storage Does Origin Take Up,