Different person

I was going to answer elsewhere but I will respond here quickly for now.

>Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time

Ah, not exactly.

The electron isn't in both "A" and "not A" states, it is in one state which is a superposition of "A and not A".

I understand the distinction seems meaningless, but it makes all the difference

Also, the discussion points seem to be veering to interpretation of QM which is a can of worms we shouldn't really open.

QM is a very useful tool, but we have to be very clear when we are discussing QM results versus QM interpretation. The former is agreed upon by all people who study QM, the latter is still up in the air .

>if quantum mechanics genuinely entails violation of the principle of noncontradiction,

It doesn't.

It just allows for unintuitive states, that are commonly mistakenly described in ways that make it seem like the principle of noncontradiction is being violated.

Yeah, these last 1-2 years have started feeling like "the future" for me.

Only idiots finish this joke for you.

Missed out on calling it broken hart

An interesting and atypical perspective to be sure, but evolution tries all sorts of things, so it isn't too out there for some people to feel less ownership of their thoughts, decisions and actions.

Slightly higher than average levels of subclinical (so still within "normal" limits) depersonalisation (which exists on a spectrum in aus all) may explain what you feel, who knows.

You seem to believe that (and correct me if I am wrong here) if you thought or acted using "free will" you would somehow consciously decide what you think, say or do a priori to the thought, vocalisation, or action. However, here we would come to a problem.

Now, this a priori "conscious decision" has been done without a priori thought process.

So to have "real" free will we need to take an a priori decision about out a priori decision.

So on and so forth ad infinitum

At no point will you be satisfied since at the bottom of the rabbit hole there will always be thought/decision will come to you without an a priori decision is process.

You seem to be asking too much of what a reasonable definition of free will could provide. Essentially, your definition of free will seems intrinsically paradoxical, in which case, of course you don't think you have it.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

> It’s entirely possible to subjectively perceive yourself to not have free will.

How would that even work?

>as not drinking during pregnancy is also a form of eugenics according to the author.

That's not really Eugenics, more Eu-evodevo.

If you generalize eugenics that much, then every single action you take can be determined to be either a eugenic or dysgenic action depending on the time scale and level of detail you examine outcomes.

First of all Eugenics works.

It all depends on how you define things.

The most general/broad definition of eugenics includes a broad set of attitudes and actions some of which are commendable, others reprehensible.

However, the word as used typically is not this general form, but specifically the Eugenics of the early 20th century that was inspired by Social Darwinism.

This form of Eugenics is both wrong and reprehensible.

So am I a Eugenicist (social darwinist variety)? I am not.

Am I a Eugenicist (In the sense that I believe that genes have profound impacts on the organisms that they contribute to, and that knowledge of these impacts can and in some cases should be used)? Sure, the devil is in the details however.

>We aren’t there yet

This is specifically what the article is about though. People don't trust that robots are "there yet" when they make mistakes and they are less forgiving than they are towards other humans.

Who knows? Could be more could be less

True, but I propose that:

If you had exactly as much money and exactly as much fame as Beyonce and you had the exact same skin color as Beyonce, and looked exactly like beyonce.

In fact even if you were a carbon copy of beyonce in all measurable aspects except that you aren't beyonce, you still wouldn't be treated exactly the same.

Eh, not really satisfying tbh.

If you accept this definition of grandmother, the situation could be entirely not incestous.

A man adopts an adult woman, then she adopts him, then they are both adopted by a third person. Then the original two adopt you.

The conditions are satisfied without any incest.

Yeah, sister and grandma are in conflict.

Sister implies that your father is your mother's father too.

Grandma implies you mother is your father's mother too.

Schroedinger's parentage I guess.

Edit: we are only talking about genetic relatives here, no legal loopholes please, these don't count as relatives for the purposes of this scenario

Eh, both could...

I did say that we can't do without it in the previous sentence.

>You're missing the inherent virtue of democracy: it provides the maximum dispersion of power throughout a population, which matters because in a free society everyone should have an equal voice, virtually by definition.

Direct democracy would provide maximum dispersion, what we have in most countries is representative democracies.

In a nutshell it is the method we have decided to do this:

>How could we decide which cabal of intellectuals is granted tyranny over us?

Not saying that we can do away with representative democracy, we can't (at least not for now if we want a functioning society)

Just that although a useful tool, it is just a popularity contest to see which king will be ruling over us.

>AI will create some new jobs, but overall lead to a net decrease in jobs. In other words, it will replace more workers than it requires

Which will conveniently free up a lot of people for caregiving jobs (which will only increase in demand as the population ages)

It's in the EU, lets say that

A teacher (and doctors) starts at about $12.5/hr I'm not sure about other jobs.

Average wage is about $9, minimum wage is about $4.5

But there is a lot of undeclared/untaxed work here so these figures are probably artificially low (as in there are many people on unemployment benefits that are making quite a lot of money in undeclared work.

This was the case for many years, though the exact pay varies in accordance to your rank.

About 10-15 years ago the union managed to get specialists a considerably higher wage. It still is the pay for people who haven't fully specialized.

Yes. Converting to dollars: $13 per hour for the first 40 hours then overtime kicks in.

I don't know because I'm not from america, but when I worked in hospital here, over a 5 week period, we were expected to have 3 of the weeks would be 60 hours long, and the other 2 would be 80 hours long. Luckily I'm out of that situation, now.

I've had friends who were expected to work 120 hour weeks for a period of 3 months, but that was in a different specialty.

So I did a bit of digging so the average in america is about 50 hours per week. About a quarter of which work 60-80 hours per week.

We are probably from everywhere.

Ie we probably have ancestors that lived on almost every part of the globe