The link in the reply requires an iPhone app, no Android or desktop support. That seems a bit limiting.
The mysterious part is not the square norm, it's that the universe looks like it conspires to present apparently non-local phenomena like the projection postulate as fully local. You can handwave it with many worlds, but it does not dissolve the mystery.
I assume you have evidence of your conjectures that voting is a problem? If so, can you list a few high-quality posts with strangely low voting total by less-known users here?
I think it's a useful mental check of what you really mean. It can lead you astray (e.g. "there is no reason to suggest that vaccine cause autism" is not obviously false, not without proper research), but it certainly works in the cases you describe.
downvoting on general principles of not giving publicity to forgettable shitty superficial publications.
I don't think an answer is needed, the article is so bad, I'm surprised NYT even published it. Best not even mention it again, lest it gets more publicity than it deserves.
Regarding usefulness of infinities in physics: the uncertainty principle requires literally infinite number of eigenstates for both position and momentum operators, and cannot be reproduced in the limit of a finite number of states taken to infinity.
I definitely have these experiences. Still can think about other things, but can't even focus on the topic I was fruitfully exploring a moment ago. And yes, not forcing the issue tends to help, can return to the issue some time later.
No, these are completely different. NYC and Equador are not random samples of places where a snowstorm is equally likely. A more charitable comparison would be "It's winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and there was a snowstorm in one of the major cities. Yovanni checks the weather app and says that it's in NYC."
Yovanni tells Zenia, "The winner of the lottery was Xavier Williams of California."
When evaluating the veracity of this statement, Zenia is not evaluating the odds of someone with that name winning a lottery. Someone won the lottery and their name has been made publicly available. What she is evaluating is Yovanni's general trustworthiness in this kind of situations. Does Yovanni like to make stuff up? To play pranks? Has reading comprehension issues? The odds of the lottery have zero to do with this. They would only matter if Yovanni could have some useful additional information, such as if it was a raffle at a party, and you knew that no one named Xavier Williams was invited.