Quibblekrust
@Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 5 days ago:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. No real arguments from me. It was a mistake on my part to equate what I had in my mind with the meme above. It is really is two different things.
I just spontaneously remembered the FTL drive from the novel “Variable Star” by Spider Robinson and Robert Heinlein. The operator of the drive must hold multiple mutually contradictory thoughts in their mind at once, for hours at a time, in shifts with the other operators. Usually two at a time for redundancy. A failure to have at least one operator holding the required mental state would stall the drive and restarting it was very difficult.
It was never really explained how it works, but it’s taken totally seriously. It’s not like flying in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” where you fall and forget to hit the ground. I thought it was a clever idea. To make consciousness an explicit part of FTL travel by basically holding your mind in a superposition of thought.
- Comment on Wild Ones 6 days ago:
What is that even supposed to mean? Did they make a typo?
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
Not exactly. At least I don’t think. Einstein didn’t believe in quantum mechanics at all, or that it was inherently random until measured. Bohr said it was, but I don’t think he necessarily equated conscious observation with measurement. Einstein believed there must be hidden variables, but if there are, they’re non-local.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
it’s a moot point because it’s the sensor is the “observer”, and it’s not “being observed” that affects the outcome.
Thing is, that’s an assumption. You dont know that for sure. Just like you can’t prove the speed of light isn’t different in different directions. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be free to believe that, but you must admit it’s an assumption.
I’m not a really mystical person, but I don’t discount the possibility. That would be arrogant. Simply being conscious is rather bizarre. How does the universe even support that? What is it? Is there a consciousness field? Why does a blob of fat, protein, and sodium ions give rise to consciousness? Surely, life could have evolved and thrived without experiencing life. I can easily imagine mindless, robotic life just doing it’s thing.
Since no one can currently explain any of that, and no one can know for sure a wavefunction has collapsed until you’ve lookef at the results, I also don’t discount that consciousness might play a role. I remain agnostic about it.
imply that there’s something special, different about consciousness.
If you don’t think there’s something special and unusual about consciousness, I don’t know what to say. 😄 I don’t believe in a soul, but at least I admit that consciousness is special, and that the universe is weird because of that.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
Well, if you look at the plate, then you’ve collapsed the wave function, and the data on the hard drive is then determine, and can’t contradict the result on the plate.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
Damn, that’s quite the write-up! I actually haven’t watched any of her videos in over a year, but I used to watch them a lot, so I figured I’d give her credit for part of my education. Her takes did seem a little odd at times, but it was refreshing to watch a science curmudgeon sometimes. I simply got sick of her schtick after a while, and did read a little controversy about her. I had no idea about the trans stuff.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
I mentioned my sources of science news because you accused me of being misled by… somebody. So fuck you.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
You need to work on your grammar, spelling,.and punctuation. I can’t understand a thing you’re saying.
I’m KFC Double Downing on the double slits being doubly doubtful until you’ve observed the result.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
We were talking about colloquial use of a word like “literally”, and not entire bodies of science being replaced with religious terms. Those two things are not even remotely similar.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
You have a stick up your butt.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
Well, no. Not if you put a detector in one of the slits. It collapses the wave function, and the interference pattern disappears.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
Yes, communication works best when people agree on what words mean, and a great, great many people have agreed that “literally” means things other than “literally”.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
I don’t understand. How can they “get” a wave pattern if they didn’t look at the data?
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 6 days ago:
Haha, no I haven’t. I don’t believe in magic. I watch mainstream YouTube science channels, and not any “mystical” ones. PBS Spacetime, Dr Ben Miles, Quanta Magazine, Sabine Hossenfelder, etc.
So, I ask you: please design an experiment that proves the outcome is determined precisely when the detector detects the particle going through the slit, and not when a person observes the recording the detector made. You can’t. You can’t prove that the detector detected something until you look at the result, and until you do, for all you know, it’s in a superposition. That’s all I’m saying.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 1 week ago:
Words mean what people think they mean when they say them. Nothing else. Miscommunication can occur if the speaker and listener don’t have the same concept in their head, but it doesnt change the fact that words are just people serializing their thoughts with sounds or text. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are documentative.
- Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too. 1 week ago:
Nah, man, it’s literally how it works (for all we know). The wave function doesn’t collapse until the data is read. You can’t prove otherwise, so people are free to believe it.
- Comment on What is grass? 1 week ago:
It’s something dinosaurs smoked to get high.
- Comment on Electricity explained 3 weeks ago:
Spoiler
I have no idea how much of this information is slop. I think it’s funny that ChatGPT made a decent attempt at this. You can downvote if you want, meatbags, but I think it’s funny.
- Comment on It's called fashion, sweaty, look it up 4 weeks ago:
That is what sweaty means, yes.
- Comment on It's called fashion, sweaty, look it up 4 weeks ago:
Sweaty
🥵
- Comment on who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science 4 weeks ago:
The fact that that “right” angle isn’t square makes me so angry.
- Comment on Tough luck 4 weeks ago:
Chads have deoxyribododecahedron genes.
- Comment on Birthing pains 5 weeks ago:
I dunno, ducks have maze-like vaginas to avoid pregnancy from rape. Evolution optimizes for the survival of the species, not for reproducing some maximum possible amount. Perhaps they evolved when limiting reproduction wad a benefit to the species.
- Comment on Real 5 weeks ago:
Soon, though, using gravitational lensing of the sun. Sometime around 2035 maybe.
- Comment on shiny ❍⩊❍ 5 weeks ago:
Nwver heard of Smell-O-Vision!?
- Comment on (ﾉ☉ヮ⚆)ﾉ ⌒*:･ﾟ✧ 5 weeks ago:
Snails and slugs have eyes. I feel like this shouldn’t be a surprise, and yet I was surprised, too.
- Comment on Witness 1 month ago:
There are dozens of us.
- Comment on po-tay-toes 1 month ago:
Potatoes are proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.
- Comment on sow sow sow 1 month ago:
It’s theorized that this is why oak trees make an inordinate number of acorns every 7 years. It tricks the squirrels to burying more acorns than they could possibly consume without them getting used to the abundance.
- Comment on send thoughts and peer review 1 month ago:
It figures a religious nut would think it’s called a “car engine” light and not a “check engine” light.
