That sentence says that you do not know enough about the human mind to make that same assumption.

People could be born to have a psychopathic functioning brain but that does not in any way mean they're little monsters,if you think Hitler is an exception then that might just be your feelings twisting reality for you.

No darling. I think you don't know a lot about psychopathy. I'd recommend studying material that is more recent. Neurology and psychiatry are constantly evolving.

A severe case of psychopathy, as was probably the case with Hitler, is impossible to be treated in any way whatsoever. Because it's a deficiency of the actual brain. And it's not possible to treat with medication, because a whole portion of the brain is not funcional. They can't feel empathy for another living being, or remorse. A true psychopath can go through a human body like it is a cold piece of metal.

And most of them, especially the more severe cases, have chronic boredom, which drives them to seek things that are more extreme. Like burning and gutting puppies as children. Setting a box of frogs on fire to watch them jump. Things like that. This is more common than we'd like to think.

No physicist on the planet agrees with your argument that because there isn't a unified theory that QM's effects, observations, and research are bunk. Keep digging yourself deeper into the ground though through fundamental ignorance.

??? How did you go from racism to slavery? We're talking about the 1940s, not the 1800s here champ. Get in the right century at least.

Which thought of yours have I not considered? I think I've responded to all of them...

So now we've not only left the appropriate century, but we've gone to an entirely new millennium? All I can do is laugh at the futile attempt here.

I've entertained all of your thoughts and thoroughly refuted them. In what way is that closed-minded? You sound like you're simply upset that I do not agree with your sophomoric ideas on the subject. 

The absence of a unified model does not implicate the existence of such a model which shows how very little you understand about the universe ... 

Also as narrow minded as you are how can you be so certain that it is not quamtum mechanics that falls out of favour to reconcile with general relativity or rather the other way around like you envision ? You've had zero substance so far to contribute this discussion ...

Because I'm addressing the claim you made that destiny is a real thing. That concept is contingent upon determinism, which QM clearly does not follow. It's not me who has to reconcile this, because I don't carry absurd baggage like destiny...

Point me to one physicist touting a deterministic model of QM to ground your ideas in reality rather than fantasy if you want me to take you seriously.

BTW did you even learn that probabilistic and deterministic are mutually exclusive yet? I posted that definition for you to read but you chopped it out of my reply to save yourself from additional embarrassment. Oops? 

So I assume it's now OK to normalize colonialism, am I right ? Ironic how you dug your own grave here ... 

It's not me who has an issue here. Your original argument was that racism is a worse outcome than a world war, which so far you've avoided with red herrings and taken absolutely no lengths to support. I will reiterate my initial reply: good luck convincing anybody of that.

Well for one thing you're hypocritically dismissing the concept of destiny all the while being so resolute in a stupid assumption of a better world without Hitler with NO PROOF to back up your assertion all the while scoffing at me every chance you can get in which my cynicism leads me to believe that you are acting in bad faith ...

Despite playing devil's advocate the whole time you've never addressed the core concerns in my alternative views to which you so readily dismiss ... 

Let's just leave no evidence or hypocritical view points as the biggest flaws to your arguments ... 

I've dismissed destiny with concrete science. Not my fault you haven't read a book since 2009. Under certain frameworks it's obvious to see why Hitler's death would offer superior moral value to the world. You have to invoke additional events to say things like "...but but but what if that causes aliens to come and destroy the planet?" Ridiculous at best.

I assume fuck the progress made from the past then ?

 Do you even understand what I said? Try actually making an effort.

Ouch, kinda pathetic that this is coming from a guy who probably has no formal training in either the sciences or mathematics. The sooner you stop spouting off shallow shit about quantum mechanics the more coherent your argument will get and I can promise you that ...  

I'm not upset or anything like that. In fact, I sort of pity you because of the fact that you've made zero compelling arguments so far ... (you're not teaching me crap because both you and I know you're intellectually dishonest about this whole discussion)

I'm warning you that you're suffering from dunning kruger syndrome and that you're biting off more than you could possibly chew because you don't who you're dealing with here that's more than just a layman and has an idea of what they're talking about ... (if you weren't so wishy washy you could've concealed it better)

I'm happy to compare resumes any time but just be aware that your posturing only makes you look like a delicate flower with a fragile ego. Please look up argumentum ad vericundiam and become intimately familiar with it before continuing this dialogue.

The arguments are convincing to those capable of rationality. Not so much to those who are more interested in puffing their chest out.

Sir, if anybody is suffering the DK effect (note: not syndrome) it is you. I have repeatedly demonstrated why the things you've said are wrong, whether scientifically or linguistically. You've yet to concede any of these concrete facts.

Come at me bro.

Because I'm addressing the claim you made that destiny is a real thing. That concept is contingent upon determinism, which QM clearly does not follow. It's not me who has to reconcile this, because I don't carry absurd baggage like destiny...

Point me to one physicist touting a deterministic model of QM to ground your ideas in reality rather than fantasy if you want me to take you seriously.

BTW did you even learn that probabilistic and deterministic are mutually exclusive yet? I posted that definition for you to read but you chopped it out of my reply to save yourself from additional embarrassment. Oops? 

It's not me who has an issue here. Your original argument was that racism is a worse outcome than a world war, which so far you've avoided with red herrings and taken absolutely no lengths to support. I will reiterate my initial reply: good luck convincing anybody of that.

I've dismissed destiny with concrete science. Not my fault you haven't read a book since 2009. Under certain frameworks it's obvious to see why Hitler's death would offer superior moral value to the world. You have to invoke additional events to say things like "...but but but what if that causes aliens to come and destroy the planet?" Ridiculous at best.

Do you even understand what I said? Try actually making an effort.

I'm happy to compare resumes any time but just be aware that your posturing only makes you look like a delicate flower with a fragile ego. Please look up argumentum ad vericundiam and become intimately familiar with it before continuing this dialogue.

The arguments are convincing to those capable of rationality. Not so much to those who are more interested in puffing their chest out.

Sir, if anybody is suffering the DK effect (note: not syndrome) it is you. I have repeatedly demonstrated why the things you've said are wrong, whether scientifically or linguistically. You've yet to concede any of these concrete facts.

Come at me bro.

1) Suppose that the dim(row(A))=m but the dim(col(A))=n and suppose that n>m. The rank(A)=m but why is the nul(transpose(A))=0 ?

2) Under what conditions is a path integral supposed to path independent ?

3) What are the two key objectives achieved by using the Jacobian matrix ? 

But you can't have that scenario.  If you elect to kill him, you are doing so with the knowledge of his future actions (otherwise you are killing a random baby for no reason).  And if you have knowledge of his future actions, you have the power to change those actions.

These strict hypotheticals are always premised as a no win situation. I prefer to take the Kobayashi Maru route.