Quantum Entanglement (A Love Story)

Walking is elite exercise fwiw. You just have to do enough steps to unlock the true powers.

Although I suspect the difference between full-on sedentary and walking a little bit is a huge disparancy, I still believe it is worth walking the extra mile.

It was during my morning walk that I heard on the radio there were TWO BEAR SIGHTINGS in southeast michigan.

Bears are serial killers. They need to un**** this situation immediately.

2 + 2 is way chiller now that it is much smaller and there are almost no rules left.

Imagine not being able to write about poker in the house of blogs. LMAO.
......

I won +145 today, forgot if I mentioned that. My goal was 600 by the end of the weekend.

Future civilizations will look back on the old forum rules akin to banning books 1000 years ago.

I kind of feel like I died along the way at some point and this 'reality' is actually heaven revealing itself.

Poker has been a more meaningful pursuit of mine for a long time. I wish it was always fun to play, but game conditions need to be right. Finding a great fun game that plays $1/2 blinds and runs 7 days a week is just what the doctor ordered. It's been roughly 13 years since I've enjoyed playing poker in Michigan.

I'm really geeked that I'm still improving at the game. I've noticed over time it has been getting easier and my breadth of knowledge has grown tremendously. I've done it mostly by independently thinking about the game and playing a bunch. I'm sure if I used tools it could accelerate my development.

If I had more stamina I could support myself playing nl10 online. 12 hour days of online is impossible though. And I would give up my freedom to chose how I structure my day, aka poker's single greatest asset.

nl20 is a garbage limit that doesn't run all the time. I will be making a jump to nl50 when my online roll grows to at least $3K. I'll probably lose and move back down though. I seem to be great against bad players and bad against good to great players.

Book banning and burning around 1000 years ago (roughly the 11th century, ~1026 AD) was part of a long tradition of censorship, mainly driven by religious and political authorities seeking to suppress ideas seen as heretical, immoral, or threatening to power structures.

In the medieval period, especially in Christian Europe, the Catholic Church played a major role in condemning texts deemed theologically dangerous. Secular rulers and Islamic authorities also engaged in similar practices elsewhere.Key Examples Around That EraSappho's poetry (allegedly 1073 AD): The works of the ancient Greek poet Sappho (from ~600 BCE) were reportedly targeted. Some later accounts (often from Renaissance scholars) claim that Pope Gregory VII ordered her writings burned in 1073 due to their homoerotic themes and perceived immorality. However, historians note this story lacks strong contemporary evidence and may be exaggerated or legendary. Much of Sappho's work was already lost or fragmented by then due to natural attrition and earlier censorship.

Peter Abelard (1121 AD): A prominent medieval philosopher and theologian was forced by the Council of Soissons to publicly burn his own book on the Holy Trinity (Theologia). He was accused of heresy for applying logic and reason too freely to doctrines like the Trinity (seen as risking Sabellianism). He was briefly imprisoned but later continued teaching. This is one of the better-documented cases from the early 12th century.

Other medieval book burnings targeted heretical Christian texts, Jewish works (e.g., the Talmud in the 13th century), or philosophical writings conflicting with Church teachings. Book production was mostly by hand (manuscripts), so losses were significant but not always total—copies sometimes survived in secret.

Broader Historical ContextBook banning wasn't new in 1000 AD:Ancient precedents included Qin Shi Huang's mass book burnings in China (213 BCE) and Roman actions against subversive or prophetic texts.
In the early Middle Ages, Christian leaders sometimes burned pagan, Manichaean, or non-canonical works.
Motivations were usually religious orthodoxy, political control, or moral concerns—rulers and clergy viewed certain ideas as threats to social order or faith.

By the 11th century, during the Gregorian Reforms under Pope Gregory VII, the Church was centralizing power and cracking down on perceived deviations. The famous Index Librorum Prohibitorum (formal list of banned books) came much later (from 1559 onward), but ad hoc condemnations and burnings were common earlier.

In short, yes, books were banned and burned 1000 years ago, primarily for religious heresy in the European context, though records are patchy due to the era's limited documentation. This fits a pattern seen across civilizations: authorities trying to control narratives by destroying dissenting or "dangerous" writings. Many such acts ironically preserved awareness of the forbidden ideas through the controversy they created.

I'm a punk rock kid
I came from hell with a curse
She tried to pray it away
So I f*cked her in church!

1. Clemente (RF)
2. Gehrig (1B)
3. Junior Griffey (CF)
4. T. Williams (DH)
5. Aaron (LF)
6. Boggs (3B)
7. Bench (C)
8. Jeter (2B)
9. Smith (SS)

Bench: Mays, Bonds, Ruth

Game 1 - Gibson
Game 2 - R. Johnson
Game 3 - Maddux
Game 4 - P. Martinez
*Game 5 - Gibson
*Game 6 - Maddux
*Game 7 - R. Johnson, P. Martinez, Rivera

SU: T. Wakefield
C: M. Rivera

Manager: Lasorda

* - If Necessary

Clemente bats leadoff to get his 3,000th hit out of the way PRONTO :(

I provided Grokky a template of my method of solving hard problems.

I came up with it on my morning walk today.

It replied:

Got it. That's a solid, disciplined method. Big picture → extreme reduction → reconstruction → reality-check → paradigm update → bidirectional mastery. It's basically how the best physicists and engineers actually think, even if they don't admit it.So let's apply your exact method to the electron in the double-slit.

1. Big picture events

We fire single electrons.
Without which-path detection: interference pattern builds up (wave behavior).
With which-path detection: two clumps, no interference (particle behavior).
The change is triggered by physical interaction.

2. Break it down with imagination to smallest pieces

Imagine the electron as something extremely simple before it hits anything.What is the absolute smallest level? Not "electron" as a billiard ball. Not even "wave function" as a magic cloud.At the deepest level we currently have: it's an excitation of the electron field. A localized ripple in a quantum field that permeates all space. That ripple carries charge, spin, mass, etc.When it approaches the two slits, that field disturbance can spread and go through both openings because fields don't have to take one rigid path.

3. Build it back up

The spreading field goes through both slits → creates two overlapping disturbances on the other side → where the ripples add constructively you get high probability of the excitation "collapsing" into a real hit → where they cancel you get near-zero probability.The detector screen interaction is another physical coupling that localizes the excitation into a dot.When you put a which-path detector at one slit, you're introducing a real physical field interaction right there. That couples the electron field to the detector's degrees of freedom (atoms, photons, whatever). The coherence between the two paths gets destroyed because the phases get entangled and randomized into the environment. No more clean adding/cancelling.

4. Investigate what the actual smallest pieces are

This is where your 20-hour electricity video comes in — and you're right to want it.

Electricity at the deepest level isn't "electrons moving like little balls." It's:Quantum electromagnetic fields
The electron field coupled to the photon field
Virtual photons mediating forces
All of it quantized and relativistic

The "physical interaction" you correctly intuited is never gentle at the quantum level. Any attempt to localize or distinguish the path transfers momentum/energy via field quanta (photons or phonons or whatever the detector uses). That transfer entangles the systems irreversibly in practice.

5 & 6. Copy-paste + top-down / bottom-up mastery

Your old paradigm (classical particles + waves) gets updated to: the electron is never a classical particle with a hidden definite path. It's a field excitation whose delocalized state only becomes localized through irreversible physical couplings.The "weirdness" mostly disappears when you stop imagining a tiny marble and start imagining interacting ripples in underlying fields.

I ran out of steam.

Typical for 4 hours of sleep.

No poker tonight.

No nothin really.

stone cold just showed up. i got high off the vape again. i am writing volumes of posts and I'm also not - in the future.

i am quantum mechanics

come at me bro

probably high but im not quite sure

definitely tired

i guess i can express the fundamentals of NLHE through my play only

it's as though many lines of hardened theory are baked into my bet raise and folds

"why did you do that?"

"it's literally too difficult to explain."
"but i followed a chart preflop, the rest was quick thinking combinatorics with alien geometry"

i don't find the best play all the time or nearly enough to be a true crusher.

but i find it enough to make up for the times i find the 2nd best play.

i prefer to bet half pot 3-way much more than when i am heads up

i wonder if there is anything to that?

i seem to know when its time to play possum and 'gamble', and when its time to ramp up the aggression.

by gamble, i just mean try to bink something.

the thought-action is similar to baseball.

if you think too much while you're at the plate you are ****ed.

if you think too much in a hand, it's very likely you made a mistake somewhere in your thinking (which can **** up the entire tree of thoughts) and you will make an imperfect play.

unless you're a great player. then think away with all your might.

it's like you are in a corn maze. there are numerous exits and each respresents a +EV action. in order to get to the exit you must logically trace your way through the field, or in poker terms, quantify the action - understand the relative value of your cards - and estimate a good betting pattern.

but when i'm playing it's just pickup basketball. it's all finesse. "this seems good, i'll do that." (there is no follow-up question of 'why does it seem good', ergo there is no explanation needed or presented in my mind.)

there is some aspect of careful planning. i do think about future cards in different baskets and i'm able to somehow connect that to the meaning behind each bet.

to know i have and use all of these tools...

and to know it took decades of play and thinking to acquire them...

i feel pretty good about my position in the game of poker for the rest of my functioning life