tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.comments2024-01-15T16:21:42.238+02:00Unitary FlowCristi Stoicahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00577217435388643300noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-57514490086926278172024-01-15T16:21:42.238+02:002024-01-15T16:21:42.238+02:00Thanks!
Yes, a consistent model is enough (and ne...Thanks!<br /><br />Yes, a consistent model is enough (and necessary) to show the consistency of the axioms. And indeed, a model is made of sets and relations, so set theory needs to be consistent. I'd take it a step further: even if an infinite-length proof can show an inconsistency, the theory can't be true. But just like I have to trust my senses and my mind, at least enough to be able to make any move or have any thought, I also trust set theory, at least enough to be able to make any proof :) Cristi Stoicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00577217435388643300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-70072662001620558602024-01-15T15:55:54.128+02:002024-01-15T15:55:54.128+02:00Nice argument. I think you are talking about Searl...Nice argument. I think you are talking about Searle’s syntactic/semantic gap, adding new probabilistic angle to it.<br />Namely, the mind cannot just consist of blind syntactic processes, for it would infinitesimally likely that it corresponds to coherent semantics.<br /><br />I can make a connection with my background, that is mathematics, this actually makes a lot of sense:<br />In math, if one starts building up theories by syntactic/computational means (i.e. axioms and proof), there is very seldom guarantee that that theory is consistent. Only if we can fathom the structures that give rise to certain theory, that we believe the theory is consistent.<br />(In fact mathematicians today are not sure whether someday someone may derives contradiction from for example ZFC set theory axioms, because to argue about the structures of set theory one necessarily need to use set theory.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-40739006144923739532023-01-25T12:34:32.827+02:002023-01-25T12:34:32.827+02:00I would be beneficial for most of the people.
This...I would be beneficial for most of the people.<br />This content is simply exciting and creative. <br /><a href="https://https://www.gsmarena.com.bd" rel="nofollow">mobile</a>David Beckhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117305698282375317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-11582677867022868422022-08-28T02:07:45.893+03:002022-08-28T02:07:45.893+03:00Lololol let the boasters boast! Their college year...Lololol let the boasters boast! Their college years only brought them that much closer to the same end we’re all facingFlipticsteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-84126477383661542122020-12-10T23:40:53.481+02:002020-12-10T23:40:53.481+02:00Anonymous from the post on February 29, 2016 at 8:...Anonymous from the post on February 29, 2016 at 8:37 PM, your knowledge of Picasso is fantastic! I recently acquired a Picasso painting and I simply adore it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-407762430240205132020-07-02T18:32:54.699+03:002020-07-02T18:32:54.699+03:00Randomly take one of his paintings (the one with t...Randomly take one of his paintings (the one with the asymmetrical face and body structures) and Show it to the professionals or everyone/anyone and tell them it was done by a non art college student. I bet not many will even like itgracie gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11047334894977909717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-21651611490705577342020-03-17T13:59:13.812+02:002020-03-17T13:59:13.812+02:00Thanks for sharing this post with us. Thanks for sharing this post with us. kikinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-3928664703016509342020-01-15T21:48:51.865+02:002020-01-15T21:48:51.865+02:00Of course he wasn't any "Great Artist&quo...Of course he wasn't any "Great Artist". His drawing and painting skills were mediocre, his words about Raphael are only a bravado, he had never demonstrated such talent in figurative art as the best Renaissance artists. His drawings from school years, which his fans demonstrate as an irresistible argument are not bad, but nothing more...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488506757287033932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-33118662170833214442020-01-08T11:46:47.796+02:002020-01-08T11:46:47.796+02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13323492266485625127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-90514945067900364032019-09-25T19:44:30.265+03:002019-09-25T19:44:30.265+03:00Firstly, I want to say well done to Christi for hi...Firstly, I want to say well done to Christi for his observations, which no one has been able to convincingly counter, since he is essentially dealing with the a myth of an artist promoted by the rich and their publicity campaigns embedded in countless blog and social media platforms. An artist who can't draw or paint, does not understand observation, proportion, composition, animation or design and provides no proof of same.<br /><br />My background? I worked for Walt Disney and have not only specialized in drawing but have won industry awards for my artwork. I continue a highly satisfying and rewarding career.<br /><br />Picasso did not paint "Science and Charity" did not paint "Child's' First Holy Communion" or the realistic works pre 1900's. When I asked for proof that he did, no one could provide any, so it follows it is more likely his dad painted them with minimal input from Picasso.<br /><br />Strictly speaking, i can see errors in every 'realistic' work by Picasso, and I assume he simply retreated into non realistic output to avoid criticism of his poor skills.<br /><br />I am not convinced he was bored with realism, because he obviously never mastered it. I think he was challenged by it and gave in. He was not gifted in the sense that Singer Sargent was gifted; and he knew it. Only a fool, or beneficiary would think otherwise.<br /><br />Picasso's art looks terrible! Whatever he or to be precise the dealer who hired him, were hoping to achieve clearly failed to materialize, or have much lasting influence, since we see today the continuing dominance of realism.<br /><br />Neither Picasso or modernism as a whole provide a real alternative to the art they rail against, and most of the hype that surrounds him is just divisive nonsense or gallery BS.<br /><br /><br /><br />Versohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17006311202267369596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-36994313161675415182018-10-12T16:15:38.788+03:002018-10-12T16:15:38.788+03:00He was an artist, not above criticism. Some of wor...He was an artist, not above criticism. Some of works are quite hypnotic. Everyone seems to love his blue period. His general use of cubist color is still astonishing. It looked like he was trying to manipulate paintings and perspectives the way others manipulate photographs. His design is still regarded. <br /><br />And sometimes his work was ugly. And people will respond accordingly. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14705293065057431306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-61871054908322415092018-05-18T11:32:27.047+03:002018-05-18T11:32:27.047+03:00Most of us do not understand fine Wines, paintings...Most of us do not understand fine Wines, paintings or even sports in its true sense. We are only influenced by people around us and the influencers read "brand ambassadors" and paid advertising including editorials!<br /><br />Thus very often the successes aren't the best products or Artists or Authors but the ones who are good and marketed well!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785571119880251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-84555166780345381102018-05-18T10:42:44.993+03:002018-05-18T10:42:44.993+03:00I think many things and people we admire are becau...I think many things and people we admire are because someone else admires it too, not because we understand its intrinsic value. <br /><br />We do not understand Wine, Sport or paintings, we like what the majority likes...and their is fare amount of Marketing and promotion shaping our collective choice!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08466785571119880251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-14961964091644341722017-11-06T19:32:42.030+02:002017-11-06T19:32:42.030+02:00thankuthankuMary C. Hawkinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-19751360738062182122017-10-25T11:34:02.701+03:002017-10-25T11:34:02.701+03:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.lifeisthermalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18007629221165162210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-19278771210856003402017-09-17T17:34:29.923+03:002017-09-17T17:34:29.923+03:00nice postnice postJoseph Fergusonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09963573805505763930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-34810591114038448822017-08-25T08:21:12.783+03:002017-08-25T08:21:12.783+03:00One man's trash is another man's treasure ...One man's trash is another man's treasure as well as vice versa. Picasso was a skilled artist but it doesn't mean everyone will like his work on the merit of his abilities. Some folks like bacon, others don't :DSayCheesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01356452928462175208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-2525637040401824952017-05-17T11:54:20.714+03:002017-05-17T11:54:20.714+03:00Yes, such arguments taking too seriously virtual s...Yes, such arguments taking too seriously virtual stuff needed just because we don't know to do better math unfortunately plagues many discussions about QFT and quantum gravity.<br /><br />Regarding unitarity, on the one hand it is something I think it must be preserved, so that's why I preferred to extend the solutions through the singularities. And also that's why I am interested to save unitary evolution in the quantum measurement problem as well. And I think it is strange that the same people who want to save unitarity in black holes often adopt a wavefunction collapse position (which is not unitary and doesn't ensure the conservation laws - https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02076). Sometimes they say that QM is still unitary because of decoherence, but this only works with many worlds, and a single world still has these problems.<br /><br />On the other hand, given that Einstein's equation is local, like the other classical equations, I think that unitarity in QM and QFT is forced upon us mainly because quantization is made in phase space, so usual quantization is global. But I think that the theory can be local in the sense of the PDEs involved, and at the same time nonlocal in the Bell sense and also contextual, and also unitary. But in order to be like this, I think that conervation laws and conservation of information should be local (I think this is also required by relativity). So I find a bit meaningless the approaches trying to restore information lost at the singularity by looking at the horizon. So it is this belief I have in unitarity and the locality of the PDEs, quantized or not, that I think it is satisfied either if singularities don't really exist, or if they don't pose a problem but to the standard mathematical description (and not to other alternative equations, like those I propose here https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2231.<br /><br />So I have more reasons, merging into a sort of not-yet-formal view, which made be dissatisfied with the broken Cauchy hypersurfaces idea. And I think that Maudlin himelf is not satisfied, given that he advocates the position that time is real. I am not sure what this means, given that he discusses it in a second volume which is still work in progress, but I find hard to see how time can be real (hence has something absolute in it), and at the same time work well with broken Cauchy hypersurfaces, whose time coordinate is clearly assigned arbitrarily and ad hoc to get a foliation of spacetime into Cauchy hypersurfaces.<br /><br />About the dispute between physicsts and philosophers, I agree with you here too. We need each other, and we need to simultaneously be physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers (at least the critical thinking part from philosophy is something we need more as physicists). We always need philosophers to try to poke holes in our theories. If they are doing it right, we can improve the theory. If they only show they didn't understand, we need to improve the conceptual and explanatory part. So I was disappointed when I saw a blog article about Maudlin paper, which I won't mention here, in which the tone was kind of elitist and condescending both towards Maudlin, and towards philosophers of physics in general. Maybe it was just an impression I had, but the blog comments around that article, and the facebook comments, proved that the other readers understood this as a green light to become aggressive against Maudlin and philosophers in general, without justification (not that aggressiveness and rudeness can be justified even when one is right :) )<br />Cristi Stoicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00577217435388643300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-69834292614462847682017-05-17T10:41:01.194+03:002017-05-17T10:41:01.194+03:00I also don't find the 'virtual black holes...I also don't find the 'virtual black holes' argument terribly convincing. Ultimately, these things are really just terms in the perturbative expansion approximating a process that is itself by construction unitary---so that if we were able to work without the approximation, we wouldn't ever notice any hint of the possible non-unitarity introduced by evaporating virtual black holes. I think that hastily reifying such virtual objects is about as misleading as claiming that a particle is 'in two places at once' in a superposed state---perhaps useful as a figure of speech among those that know what they really mean, but if taken too seriously, implying a sort of pseudo-classical picture that distorts what's actually happening. <br /><br />That said, I'm also not sure Maudlin's paper proposes an answer to the information loss problem as most see it---after all, the 'whole universe' at a certain point in time after the evaporation of the BH is given by a (non-Cauchy) hypersurface stretching from r=0 to spatial infinity, and if it makes sense to call this the whole universe, then there is in fact information missing from it---that pertaining to all the stuff that fell into the black hole (that is, all inextensible timelike curves ending at the singularity). <br /><br />But that may itself be naive, in taking such a hypersurface to describe the state of the universe at any particular time. Maybe that kind of talk should just as well be regarded as a façon de parler as talk about particles being in two places at once. <br /><br />In the end, I think there is potential for an interesting debate here; unfortunately, I think that's unlikely to manifest, mainly due to the 'physicists-vs.-philosophers'-kind of sociology that's unfortunately still too pervasive. It's true that Maudlin's tone, which is going to seem needlessly confrontational to most physicists, doesn't help the issue, but there's really no reason to respond in kind. But eh, that's just me tilting at windmills I suppose.Jochenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418841955052661428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-26560077039916717012017-03-12T10:57:44.077+02:002017-03-12T10:57:44.077+02:00@MA Maybe I touched a sensitive side of yours, it ...@MA Maybe I touched a sensitive side of yours, it was unintentional. Your emotional reaction seems to me to be caused by the fact that after reading this post you are unsure about Picasso and your own artistic sense, and you took it personally. I hope this is not the reason of your reaction, and after it passes, you can explain me how those things I see as "mistakes" actually contribute to the artistic message of the painting. Seriously, I really hope you can do this, because if you can make me see, then new horizons will open to me too :)Cristi Stoicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00577217435388643300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-2233046185037872402017-03-12T10:13:46.763+02:002017-03-12T10:13:46.763+02:00It is modern way of bolstering up your authority.....It is modern way of bolstering up your authority.... Claim that you have a degree in something. <br /><br />Anonymous poster took you down quite brilliantly. Perhaps you should re-read your own reply in return to comprehend how unsure you sound. <br /><br />Then Adrian G comes along simply to call him/her a troll and signed off with 'your art school graduate'.<br /><br />But this 'spider rico' made me laguh the post. As this person gave her identity away whislt claiming to be something she isn't.<br /><br />Rather it was Picasso who was the trained artist. And very highly trained artist too. Nonsensical posts such as this to atract attention just make you look silly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14561874445076130285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-54820338188311753812017-01-20T17:12:19.416+02:002017-01-20T17:12:19.416+02:00I'm a professional classically trained painter...I'm a professional classically trained painter and I have an MFA in Art History. Never believe the nonsense about Picasso. He was NEVER as good as a child as Raphael, or Titian, or Rembrandt. He had talent and potential, but in no way mastered deep,hard, classical techniques to garnish superior skill in painting. Take Picasso's Guernica and compare it to Goya's The Third Of May 1908. Although both paintings are technically perhaps weaker than a Rembrandt, or a Titian, both paintings attempt to display the anguish and atrocities of war. It is a fact the Goya painting, is the far superior painting in relaying it's message. There's an old saying, the more minimal the art, the more maximum the explanation. Like a glorious Sunset, great art never needs explanation.Spider Ricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05602902237837460541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-74410227124395947812016-07-19T23:38:31.818+03:002016-07-19T23:38:31.818+03:00The first time I read Anonymous's comments I t...The first time I read Anonymous's comments I thought he was serious and was preparing to post a long reply. Now I realize that he's just a troll.<br /><br />With regards,<br />Your art school graduate.Adrian Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-42094971542334784282016-05-23T07:50:16.001+03:002016-05-23T07:50:16.001+03:00Interesting discussion. I am adding a trackback to...Interesting discussion. I am adding a trackback to the original arXiv paper so others can also read.<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/trackback/1604.07422Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124350264510724511.post-9249420234468128612016-03-29T09:38:15.235+03:002016-03-29T09:38:15.235+03:00Dear Vesselin,
Thank you for your interesting com...Dear Vesselin,<br /><br />Thank you for your interesting comments and for the facebook discussions regarding FTL.Cristi Stoicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00577217435388643300noreply@blogger.com