@negatratoron.bsky.social
What I think is the deeper side of this is that our representation of negative numbers just seems natural in some unexpected ways.
In (binary) 2's complement, the integer -1 is ...111, that is infinitely many 1's. In base 10, ...999.
In both cases, the divergent geometric series "sums" to -1.
In (binary) 2's complement, the integer -1 is ...111, that is infinitely many 1's. In base 10, ...999.
In both cases, the divergent geometric series "sums" to -1.
June 18, 2025 at 7:56 AM
What I think is the deeper side of this is that our representation of negative numbers just seems natural in some unexpected ways.
In (binary) 2's complement, the integer -1 is ...111, that is infinitely many 1's. In base 10, ...999.
In both cases, the divergent geometric series "sums" to -1.
In (binary) 2's complement, the integer -1 is ...111, that is infinitely many 1's. In base 10, ...999.
In both cases, the divergent geometric series "sums" to -1.
I'll just put my own answer to a question Piers asked early on: how do we know we aren't living in a simulation?
I think we are not living in a simulation, and the reason is that we experience things, have perceptions. I don't think a running computer program would experience or perceive things.
I think we are not living in a simulation, and the reason is that we experience things, have perceptions. I don't think a running computer program would experience or perceive things.
May 24, 2025 at 4:53 AM
I'll just put my own answer to a question Piers asked early on: how do we know we aren't living in a simulation?
I think we are not living in a simulation, and the reason is that we experience things, have perceptions. I don't think a running computer program would experience or perceive things.
I think we are not living in a simulation, and the reason is that we experience things, have perceptions. I don't think a running computer program would experience or perceive things.
Ah well, I'll watch it anyway. Nice bookshelf.
May 24, 2025 at 4:51 AM
Ah well, I'll watch it anyway. Nice bookshelf.
BTW just so you know who you're dealing with, I'm more or less a libertarian. I think Joe Rogan is a total nut half the time, but sometimes I happen to agree with his takes.
May 21, 2025 at 1:19 PM
BTW just so you know who you're dealing with, I'm more or less a libertarian. I think Joe Rogan is a total nut half the time, but sometimes I happen to agree with his takes.
Also the very idea is already a losing move. Joe Rogan isn't "the conservative Somebody", he's just Joe Rogan. I think it's unlikely to make a comeback by copycatting.
May 21, 2025 at 1:16 PM
Also the very idea is already a losing move. Joe Rogan isn't "the conservative Somebody", he's just Joe Rogan. I think it's unlikely to make a comeback by copycatting.
I agree, the subtle flavor of the magic is one of the great things about these stories.
The set of magic uses doesn't have to be empty - it just has to have measure 0 - so that it cannot be proven to occur.
The set of magic uses doesn't have to be empty - it just has to have measure 0 - so that it cannot be proven to occur.
April 28, 2025 at 3:53 PM
I agree, the subtle flavor of the magic is one of the great things about these stories.
The set of magic uses doesn't have to be empty - it just has to have measure 0 - so that it cannot be proven to occur.
The set of magic uses doesn't have to be empty - it just has to have measure 0 - so that it cannot be proven to occur.
I'm kind of doing that. Started out programming computers, did that post-high school for a bit, recently went and got an undergrad degree in physics, and planning to go to grad school for physics now. I cannot see myself entirely leaving software, it's too fun, but I'm branching out.
April 11, 2025 at 8:28 AM
I'm kind of doing that. Started out programming computers, did that post-high school for a bit, recently went and got an undergrad degree in physics, and planning to go to grad school for physics now. I cannot see myself entirely leaving software, it's too fun, but I'm branching out.
Not to over-explain since I know you're a very smart person, but that's exactly what money is. As long as your exports (wonderful content, especially on physics) exceed your imports, you have a trade surplus.
April 4, 2025 at 7:15 PM
Not to over-explain since I know you're a very smart person, but that's exactly what money is. As long as your exports (wonderful content, especially on physics) exceed your imports, you have a trade surplus.
That was me, sorry. I'll quit emailing you.
March 31, 2025 at 6:08 PM
That was me, sorry. I'll quit emailing you.
Looks like your top question has 137 upvotes. Fine structure constant detected!
March 27, 2025 at 1:28 AM
Looks like your top question has 137 upvotes. Fine structure constant detected!
[3, last] object reaches the singularity, and in fact before it reaches the event horizon.
Since no physical event horizon ever forms (only a close approximation to one), you don't have to worry about information crossing it.
Since no physical event horizon ever forms (only a close approximation to one), you don't have to worry about information crossing it.
March 23, 2025 at 7:21 AM
[3, last] object reaches the singularity, and in fact before it reaches the event horizon.
Since no physical event horizon ever forms (only a close approximation to one), you don't have to worry about information crossing it.
Since no physical event horizon ever forms (only a close approximation to one), you don't have to worry about information crossing it.
[2] eventually evaporate, then in fact no event horizon ever forms. It's true that in the idealization, from the perspective of an in-falling object the event horizon is reached in finite time, but that's actually not physically relevant because the black hole evaporates before the in-falling
March 23, 2025 at 7:17 AM
[2] eventually evaporate, then in fact no event horizon ever forms. It's true that in the idealization, from the perspective of an in-falling object the event horizon is reached in finite time, but that's actually not physically relevant because the black hole evaporates before the in-falling
[1] What a cool video!
IMO there's no information paradox, since a black hole is a non-physical idealization like a point mass or point charge.
I think that assuming two things, (1) that to a distant observer an object takes infinite time to cross the event horizon, and (2) that black holes
IMO there's no information paradox, since a black hole is a non-physical idealization like a point mass or point charge.
I think that assuming two things, (1) that to a distant observer an object takes infinite time to cross the event horizon, and (2) that black holes
March 23, 2025 at 7:16 AM
[1] What a cool video!
IMO there's no information paradox, since a black hole is a non-physical idealization like a point mass or point charge.
I think that assuming two things, (1) that to a distant observer an object takes infinite time to cross the event horizon, and (2) that black holes
IMO there's no information paradox, since a black hole is a non-physical idealization like a point mass or point charge.
I think that assuming two things, (1) that to a distant observer an object takes infinite time to cross the event horizon, and (2) that black holes
grand total: the program is one line shorter
March 20, 2025 at 5:11 PM
grand total: the program is one line shorter
So many questions. If position space and momentum space are just Fourier transforms of one another, what's behind the asymmetry between them: why do classical objects interact based on their relative positions and not their relative momenta?
February 4, 2025 at 6:03 PM
So many questions. If position space and momentum space are just Fourier transforms of one another, what's behind the asymmetry between them: why do classical objects interact based on their relative positions and not their relative momenta?