Oblarg

Actually, you have it backwards. The human brain is great at seeing patterns when there are none, not the other way around. Any basic psychology class could teach you that. You don't seem to understand the math behind quantum mechanics. That's alright - take some physics classes, and you'll say things which are less silly.

The "interpretations" do nothing to change the equations themselves, which deal with probabilities. You want a really simply example? Consider radioactive decay.

Specifically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio...nics#Comparison Oblarg, note the column 'deterministic'? Note how many interpretations are? Does nothing to change the fact that quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities.

Yes, it just is. You may as well ask "why does everything exist." You won't get an answer, because it's not an answerable question.

Uh, yes - the equations themselves. They deal with probabilities. That's rather the entire point of the uncertainty principle. I don't know about you, but when I see a system which is defined in terms of probabilities, I call it probabilistic. I do not think that there's some imaginary "guiding function" secretly working behind the probabilities, because that's a meaningless proposition.

You're missing the point - it itself is not much more than a baseless, untestable "what-if." The math "what if" doesn't directly conflict with the equations that describe quantum mechanics, but it is still baseless and untestable. It's akin to the belief in a god who decides how nature's random number generator works - there's no way to disprove it, it doesn't directly conflict with the equations, but it is ultimately meaningless. The fact is that the equations are all probabilistic. @Krezack - appeals to authority mean nothing. I can dig up some creationists who've been at very prestigious colleges, yet that would do nothing to validate creationism.

There is no "math" to support it other than simply renaming some of the variables. It's not a theory, it's not even a testable hypothesis. It's simply baseless speculation by people who don't like the fact that all of quantum physics is defined in terms of probabilities, something that you clearly don't understand.

Virgin Steele is awesome. Somewhat pretentious and absurdly ambitious, sure, but awesome regardless. How many other heavy metal bands can make gigantic, multi-part concept album adaptations of Greek tragedies with tons of interludes and ballads that actually work? Just about none.

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics. That's ok - not very many people do. Take some physics classes, then get back to me. I find it interesting that you're telling ME I don't understand QM when it is you who is discounting one of the main interpretations of QM (Bohm's) without any logical reason. It's not one of the "main interpretations" of quantum mechanics. In fact, it hardly qualifies as an "interpretation" at all, as it does nothing to change the fact that the laws which govern quantum mechanics are probabilistic in nature. Baseless speculation about the workings of nature's random number generator doesn't qualify as legitimate determinism.

I believe it was Feynman who said "anyone who tells you he understands quantum mechanics is lying." But that's not the type of understanding I'm referring to here.

Unfortunately, all you're doing is showing that you don't really understand quantum mechanics. That's ok - not very many people do. Take some physics classes, then get back to me.

Yes, we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem Non-local hidden variables are pretty meaningless, and local hidden variables don't work. You could believe that there's some supernatural entity governing the behavior of particles within the probabilistic laws set forth by quantum mechanics, but such a thought is untestable and therefore irrelevant - the fact remains that quantum mechanics is only describable with probabilistic laws, not deterministic ones. Quantum mechanics itself is a probabilistic description of the universe. Deterministic (Newtonian) mechanics simply do not describe the universe at a small scale.

The point of Schrodinger's cat is that you can only have a quantum state if the cross-terms make physical sense. A cat cannot be partially dead, therefore it cannot be in a quantum state. It's a very easily resolved paradox - one only has to know the difference between a cat and a particle.

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this. Did you miss out on the point of Schrodinger's Cat? Don't blindly apply micro to macro. I don't think you fully understand Schrodinger's cat. The fact that a cat cannot be in a quantum state does not make the universe deterministic. The rules that govern the macroscopic universe (newtonian mechanics) are nothing more than a limiting behavior of quantum mechanics. This is absolutely essential to our understanding of physics. Things don't suddenly start following different rules when they get below a certain size. The uncertainty principle states in very clear terms that the universe is probabilistic.

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this. Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe. In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things. No, it's not. The universe is quite clearly probabilistic.

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

The fact is, while there has been a lot of recent searching for variation in various physical constants (they're trying to do this with the Fine Structure Constant, as well), there have been no conclusive results. As far as we can currently tell, constants are indeed constant. A lot of modern theoretical physics is a bit of a joke, anyway - it's not science if it doesn't make testable predictions.

It's alright, Kaftan, most other people don't understand physics, either. Time and space are obviously real, and to "treat them as if they are illusions" is the most meaningless thing I have heard in a long time.

I like the art direction of those photos, especially the lighting - looks much more sleek and clean, like the first game.

Caps better win tonight.

ME3 was never really high on my list. They dropped the ball with ME2, so now it's "will they get back up to the quality of the first game" rather than "will the quality stay high?" To be sure, ME2 did do a fair number of things better, but the improvements are dwarfed by the blunders.

Is that yet another expansion, or a new game? Standalone expansion. Lots of changes. What types of changes? Is it going to be d/l or both d/l and (retail) store? Retail, I believe. Some of the changes: - Each faction has split into two: Loyalists, and rebels. Differences between the two not yet specified, but each comes with a unique, new tech-tree. - New Titan-class ships, much larger than Capital ships. - New Corvette-class ships, small and maneuverable. - More levels of each Capital ship ability - More victory conditions - Updated graphics

Is that yet another expansion, or a new game? Standalone expansion. Lots of changes.

I'd say Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion has ME3 beat for my most anticipated game.

Well, people will finally recognize overfishing as a legitimate concern once several Important Species are extinct in a few decades (the bluefin tuna, for example).