Post AD357DmsuwP97K16zA by Coke@gleasonator.com
(DIR) More posts by Coke@gleasonator.com
(DIR) Post #AD2B3BLGTNfCwPax5k by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T19:53:20.595663Z
1 likes, 2 repeats
@judgedreadFrom Gab:>>We now have no consensus morality, no consensus metaphysics and no common culture. The downsides are obvious. Yet... nothing can make me BELIEVE that those silly Jewish fables are true.You're a Deist, yes? I agree that these old Jewish stories are of minimal use to you. Fortunately, I have something else that I think you (and @TradeMinister ) will find very interesting, something quite free of superstition, newage (rhymes with sewage), or other typical religious bullshit. Best of all, it's empirically verifiable.I'm by no means the first person to figure out what I'm going to describe -- I think von Neumann was the first to understand this -- but as far as I know getting this precise idea reformulated in effortpoast form hasn't been done before.No formal knowledge (or belief!) in quantum mechanics or mathematics beyond the most basic arithmetic will be required to understand either the thought experiment or the relevant implications. Performing the real version of the thought experiment is tricky, but at this point it's been done many times with the same result, much to the consternation of physicists.So let's get started!
(DIR) Post #AD2E4KxkULkMvnq1Tc by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T20:27:10.024863Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@TradeMinister @judgedread Part I: Quantum EntanglementPeople who have taken junior QM can skip all this and go straight to the disturbing implications in Part III.We want to take a look at quantum entanglement, a situation in which pairs of particles share a particular property with peculiar characteristics. There are many ways to create such entangled particles, but for simplicity we will be talking about pairs of photons. It turns out that if we take an electron and an antimatter electron (positron) and collide them, they will annihilate each other and create two photons. This pair of photons will have entangled polarization -- it is this polarization that we want to study:electron + positron -> photon + photonOnce created, these photons will travel away from each other. We want to run each photon through a polarizing filter -- just like in polarized sunglasses! -- and into a detector. The polarizing filter has a preferred orientation, an angle between 0 and 90 degrees, which we'll represent as follows:photon -> filter[angle] -> detectorIf we add in a computer with a display to the detectors, and have a scientist on each end measure the result, the complete experimental setup looks like this:scientist1 <- computer1 <- detector1 <- filter[angle1] <- photon1 <- (electron + positron) -> photon2 -> detector2 -> filter[angle2] -> detector2 -> computer2 --> scientist2The nature of the entanglement of the photon pair is as follows: if the filters are aligned -- they have the same angle, say 0 degrees -- then if one photon is detected, the other *never* will be. Thus only the following combinations are allowed:detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[0] -> no detectionno detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[0] -> detectionEmpirically, each of these scenarios occurs "at random" with 50% probability. The nature of this "randomness" is of critical importance, we'll return to it in Part III.If the angles of the filters are offset by 90 degrees, however, then either *both* photons are detected or *neither* are:detection <- filter1[90] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[0] -> detectionno detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[90] --> no detectionAgain, each of these two scenarios occurs 50% of the time.If the angles of the filters differ by 45 degrees, then all four detection combinations occur with equal probability: the detection of the two individual photons are uncorrelated. Intermediate angles (such as a 22 degree difference) give partial correlation.Now normal, sane, sensible people (including physicists) want to think that each of the photons has a well defined parameter, "polarization", which is determined at the time the pair of photons are created (or perhaps earlier). In Part II we will demonstrate that (with one possible loophole, which doesn't affect the amazing conclusions in Part III) this *cannot be true*.
(DIR) Post #AD2G20FGkCgE0T31W4 by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T20:49:09.318045Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@TradeMinister @judgedread Part II: Bell's InequalityI'm going to define six possible states of the LEFT detector in our system:State A: The polarizer is set to 0 degrees and the photon *is* detected.detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1State notA: The polarizer is set to 0 degrees and the photon is *not* detected.no detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1State B: The polarizer is set to 22.5 degrees and the photon *is* detected.detection <- filter1[22.5] <- photon1State notB: The polarizer is set to 22.5 degrees and the photon is *not* detected.no detection <- filter1[22.5] <- photon1State C: The polarizer is set to 45 degrees and the photon *is* detected.detection <- filter1[45] <- photon1State notC (nazi!): The polarizer is set to 45 degrees and the photon is *not* detected.no detection <- filter1[45] <- photon1With this in mind, we can then set the angles of the left and right polarizers in our system and measure the detection probabilities. If we set the left polarizer at 0 degrees and the right polarizer at 22.5 degrees, we get a detection at *both* ends ~7.5% of the time:detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[22.5] -> detectionNote that the left polarizer is in State A. However, had the left polarizer had its filter set at 22.5 degrees, there would have been zero probability of a detection because the right filter is also at 22.5 degrees and had a detection -- and when the angles of the filters are the same we *always* get opposite results. This means that the left polarizer must also be in State notB. Thus the empirically measured probability of the combined state A and notB is ~7.5%.Next let's set the left polarizer to 22.5 degrees and the right polarizer at 45 degrees. Again we will get a detection at both ends ~7.5% of the time, because we simply rotated the entire apparatus by 22.5 degrees:detection <- filter1[22.5] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[45] -> detectionNote that the left polarizer is in State B. However, had the left polarizer had its filter set at 45 degrees, there would have been zero probability of a detection because the right filter is also at 45 degrees and had a detection -- and when the angles of the filters are the same we *always* get opposite results. This means that the left polarizer must also be in State notC. Thus the empirically measured probability of the combined state B and notC is ~7.5%.Finally let's set the left polarizer to 0 degrees and the right polarizer at 45 degrees. Now we will get a detection at both ends 25% of the time, because each possible combination is equally probable:detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[45] -> detectionNote that the left polarizer is in State A. However, had the left polarizer had its filter set at 45 degrees, there would have been zero probability of a detection because the right filter is also at 45 degrees and had a detection -- and when the angles of the filters are the same we *always* get opposite results. This means that the left polarizer must also be in State notC. Thus the empirically measured probability of the combined state A and notC is 25%.To summarize:Probability(A and notB) = 7.5%Probability(B and notC) = 7.5%Probability(A and notC) = 25%Note that P(A and notB) + P(B and notC) = 15% < 25% = P(A and notC)It turns out that this relatively simple expermentally verifiable observation causes a big problem, as we will see next.
(DIR) Post #AD2IOGK5qcaO9N2uzQ by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T21:15:35.291991Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@TradeMinister @judgedread Part II continued:To see why, take a look at the attached Venn diagram. It's logically necessary that P(A and notB) + P(B and notC) be GREATER THAN or equal to P(A and notC). The second combination is the green area (A) plus the orangeish area (A intersect B), while the first combination has both of these areas *plus* the green-blue area (A intersect C). It is thus logically necessary that if *any* system is in a well defined combination of states A, notA, B, notB, C, and notC that the following must always be true:P(A and notB) + P(B and notC) >= P(A and notC)However 15% < 25%, so something must be wrong -- and something indeed is. The bad assumption we made was that the photons had a well defined polarization prior to the scientists' measurements. What we have shown is that this cannot be the case: the individual photons *do not* have a well defined polarization prior to measurement, even though their polarizations *do* have a well defined *angular difference* of 90.This thought experiment is known as the EPR paradox, and Bell was the first to grasp this amazing consequence.Take a bit to convince yourself of the preceding logic before we move on to the metaphysical consequences in Part III: for this idea to be useful it needs to have the status of *knowledge* rather than belief, "faith", etc. The only pieces of information that you need equipment to observe are the measured percentages of P(A and notB), P(B and notC), and P(A and notC) in the photon experiment. Rest assured that physicists way more paranoid and skeptical than us have beaten this to death, and the solidity of the conclusion is now the basis for actual technology, namely quantum encrypted fiber optic communications.easy as abc.png
(DIR) Post #AD2KMQoS4nCy0pV6qO by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T21:37:40.041769Z
3 likes, 1 repeats
@TradeMinister @judgedread Part III: Initial Metaphysical ConsequencesLet's go back to the configuration of the system where both the left and right polarizers are set to 0 degrees, in which only two possibilities exist:detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[0] -> no detectionno detection <- filter1[0] <- photon1 <- (e+/e-) -> photon2 -> filter2[0] -> detectionThe way quantum mechanics deals with this situation is by explaining that the overall system is in a superposition of two states, with each state corresponding to one of the possible measurement combinations. This superposition persists up until the point where a scientist measures whether a detection has occurred or not, at which point the system "collapses" into one of the two possibilities with 50% probability, at "random". It's important to note that this outcome of this "random" measurement *cannot be predicted by physics even in principle*. If it could be, that would mean that there was some hidden variable, some differentiating information about the polarization state of each photon that existed prior to the measurement -- and this would result in us getting different statistics than what we actually measure. The source of this randomness thus lies "outside" the domain of physics and thus all sciences based on physics.The great triumph of Bell is that he has shown that physics itself can be used to demonstrate the limits of its own explanatory power: the mechanism that generates the randomness behind every quantum measurement could be God, Satan, Vishnu, Odin, Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, anything -- but physics will never be able to tell you the details of *why* a particular photon in our thought experiment is or is not detected.
(DIR) Post #AD2KsgNJkdrtXqBgDg by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T21:43:29.758728Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @judgedread Good introduction to QM entanglement. One of the best bits is that experiments show it operates not only forward but also backward in time: QM demonstrates conclusively that Relativistic flexible 3D+T spacetime is just a better, higher-energy approximation than Classical Mechanics, but further, that the core rules and Weltanschauung (Yesss! Finally get to use that word!) of both are apparently irrelevant at the QM level, which is clearly fundamental to Classical/Relativistic.TL;dr: the world is fundamentally not really what it appears to be, and we could be living in a Maldacena hologram.Husky_1635975788820_8TTXW3ZINH.jpg
(DIR) Post #AD2LNYUF86fo3a9EkC by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T21:49:04.529323Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @judgedread And it is precisely in that randomness, or more exactly the aggregate effects of that QM level, that anyone/thing capable of controlling that randomness could produce what might appear to be miracles: this is where synchronicity, the collective unconscious, the Dynamic Ground (Washburn), can affect the flow of events in our macro world.
(DIR) Post #AD2MeBKYZqZ57G6pxw by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T22:03:17.121745Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@TradeMinister @judgedread Part IV: Measurement and YouEverything I've talked about so far is trade knowledge among physicists, who do their very best to not think about it and the philosophical consequences so that they don't go insane and can get actual work done. We here at FSE do not suffer from these restrictions and so can press forward.QM explains that in our photon pair experiment, the system is in a superposition of two states prior to measurement. We're going to expand the description of one half of the system to reveal a new problem:photon -> detector -> computer -> screen -> your brain -> thought: "detection!"ORphoton -> detector -> computer -> screen -> your brain -> thought: "no detection!"In this description you are the experimenter. This formulation reveals a fundamental problem: the photon is a quantum particle, but the detector, computer, screen, and brain are also just collections of quantum particles. This means that the interaction of the photon with the rest of the stack should put the detector, computer, screen, and brain in a superposition of two states.Note that you, the experimenter, *never* experience being in a superposition of the two states: if you make the measurement, you always either have the subjective experience of "detection" or "no detection". The following conclusion seems to follow immediately from this:You are not your brain. In fact, you are not a physical system at all.
(DIR) Post #AD2MqCEH3tCnNVtq6a by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T22:05:27.402235Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister I have no interest in mystical nonsense. Untag.
(DIR) Post #AD2NhkuaqLk6IBEW00 by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T22:15:08.175595Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures I was sure that TradeMinister had started this thread, so PKDick was its nature.You are doing nothing new. This is the magic of the mysteries. At least one founder of quantum physics STARTED as a deep mystic, and he skewed his descriptions to pander to those seeking meaning.The unspoken assumption is as follows: IF man is not pure matter THEN man has meaning.We now know something about generating immaterial worlds, and of their significance.Is Mario leading a deeply meaningful existence every time Super Mario Cart is powered on?Hmm.
(DIR) Post #AD2NsqRebxOKdez7PU by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T22:17:08.422936Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @judgedread The theoretical physicists and in particular quantum cosmologists I've read don't seem at all to be trying to ignore anything. Sir Roger Penrose, one of my favorites, went on to develop a quantum theory of consciousness (his microtubules implementation might be wrong, but I thoroughly agree with him).My view, based on QM, extensive study of Jungian/Transpersonal psychology, and shocking doses of hallucinogens while gazing Fire Beings in high-mountain places of great Power, is that the world is fundamentally Awareness, immanent in the manifest world but not limited to it: that all life (and possibly even rocks, who could say) has some degree of awareness, and all awareness is linked at the QM level.Don't ask me to prove or argue any of this: fuggedaboudit. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/quantum-cosmology
(DIR) Post #AD2O2jQ5aNNDkJy1Zo by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T22:18:55.630575Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread @Countermeasures I didn't tag you. This is the second time you have whined at me: next time I will block you.I have no idea why @Countermeasures thought you were bright enough for this.
(DIR) Post #AD2ON7XvasgsMfM8HY by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T22:22:36.722263Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister I will save you the trouble.It was my mistake, but we really have nothing to discuss and you're crazy.
(DIR) Post #AD2RhbIJ06v0HSVQIK by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T22:59:55.696904Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread >You are doing nothing new. This is the magic of the mysteries.Yes, I think von Neumann was the first to conclude that consciousness was driving the measurement process. What *is* a bit new is the next part, where I add in some basic information theory -- this significantly constrains what can be going on.What's also somewhat rare is *compressing* the entire line of reasoning into a form that is comprehensible to non-specialists without either adding in a bunch of technical overhead OR cutting corners. I want to make sure that each link in the chain of reasoning is as strong as possible and empirically justifiable -- we share a common allergy to "woo-woo" bullshit, especially when it comes to science. >IF man is not pure matter THEN man has meaning.I'm not sure we're going to be able to get there using my line of analysis. What I think we *can* show is that man is something akin to a "container of information" -- but here I am using "information" in a technical sense: Shannon information aka reduction in uncertainty. This should quickly get us back into the realm of practical consequences for the memetic war.It should be clear to everyone at this point that most scientists have become dysfunctional / insane and that this is contributing significantly to our problems with the Psychopathic Elite. Some of this is just the usual degeneracy / corruption we continually bitch about here, but I think much of problem can be traced to an underlying metaphysical error, the assumption that "you are your brain" and the resultant reduction of humans to physical systems -- we can demonstrate empirically that this *cannot* be correct. Scientists reflexively cling to the notion that humans are physical systems because the obvious alternatives seem to all be superstitious nonsense. I think there's a third option available.>We now know something about generating immaterial worlds, and of their significance.The immaterial worlds we are constructing have a significant limitation compared to the default physics layer: it is very difficult for "randomness" to enter into these worlds except through the humans or connected hardware RNG. This may make them *qualitatively* different in ways that could lead to big problems.
(DIR) Post #AD2U3gLf5e78EcjUS8 by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T23:26:19.743010Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister>I have no idea why @Countermeasures thought you were bright enough for this.There is a line of reasoning in the AI business that claims that intelligence is fundamentally connected to the computational notion of *compression*. Dread has a superior ability to effectively reduce very complex ideas into simple pithy statements. I've seen ideas that I had previously written down in the form of several pages reduced to a single paragraph by Dread. This ability is invaluable, especially in the context of limited bandwidth situations e.g. the current memetic war to salvage what is left of America.We should not be surprised that Dread's ability comes with very strong filters to block noise of all kinds. The burden of not accidentally triggering such filters is on *us*.We are in the very unfortunate situation in which most scientists and "rationalists" today have made a metaphysical error by concluding that humans are physical systems. I think this error has made them more vulnerable to the societal corruption which is killing us. I don't think we can free the scientists from this error using existing "religious technology" because the scientists perceive big contradictions between their empirical observations and religious / mystical doctrines.I think Dread may actually be in a position to help us figure out something better. At the very least he is certain to be able to represent these ideas in a much more compact form for easy redistribution.
(DIR) Post #AD2UMRDNa3WUninnVY by laurel@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-03T23:29:43.112291Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @TradeMinister To be fair the uncertainty principle of QM, which was formulated decades before Bell's theorem, doesn't make any predictions on what happens inside the black box that is being defined. It could very well be Satan or God or Maxwell's demon for that matter. Whatever happens where the uncertainty principle applies is *by definition* unknowable if QM is correct. That is what the uncertainty principle is.In a way Bell's experiment is a verification of the uncertainty principle being true. Even the original paper was a reaction to Einstein's "theory" that QM is wrong.(he thought that since the uncertainty principle states that the exact speed and position of a particle is unknowable according to QM, it's either exact speed or exact position, then how about we take an atom that degrades into exactly two well known elements, measure one's speed, other's position and work our way back with conservation of momentum to get the original atom's exact position and speed). Well apparently he was wrong, "locality" is also wrong or there is a way to transmit force between entangled particles (God, Satan, Maxwell's demon) that is far faster, for now infinite, than the speed of light.All physics theories are models that have unknowable parts. Their jobs is not to explain rather to provide a way to deal with reality, sort of like a tool. Of course for the science worshipper none of this matters.Bell's experiment not only exposes that "unknowable" part but magnifies it, demonstrating how non local this action from a distance at infinite speed really is. I remember the last experiment to validate entanglement had a 10km "tube", and that was more than a decade ago.You've got an excellent description of the experiment although I disagree with PART IV. The entanglement collapses not when there is an observer, but when there is an interaction that can be classically modeled. It doesn't really matter whether a person watches or not. The moment the interaction can be described in a classical way the entanglement *will* collapse and the cat *is* going to die. The particle hitting the detector is one such phenomenon, a detector is a classical object just like the computer, the screen, etc.
(DIR) Post #AD2X9CcCqkffcRnMlU by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:00:56.509988Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures I'm pretty good at compressing, Dread is annoying and has perhaps once said something interesting; I blocked him.
(DIR) Post #AD2Y8LMKxDWUP2Wiqu by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:11:59.496148Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures I just posted a very pithy analysis of the problem of post-1970 science. It's not philosophical, it's economic. Almost all science is now funded by government or government dependent corporations. Scientists sell their integrity very cheaply, contrary to the ridiculous liberal myths. Of course liberals are the ones doing the bribing and beating with sticks so they think that the anthropologist who says there is no such thing as race is following the science, not avoiding the lash.As to the nature of the mind and information, I am convinced by Bostrom, and a few things I have seen, that the universe is an artifact, the product of a meta-dev team. We are running on a computational substrate in a base universe (probably).But how would knowing this alter the behavior of a psychopathic enemy? There are strong instincts that should be warning antifa off. Just a look in the mirror should cast doubt on their entire life strategy, but it doesn't.I take a Darwinian approach. Instead of trying to repair bad people devise systems that select for good ones. Obviously this is not easy.
(DIR) Post #AD2YYVAN79iSLdP4OO by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:16:43.145052Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures Anyways, your exposition was very good, but most people aren’t goimg to want to wade thru the percentages and such. I think it might be better to just explain the two-slit experiment and the variations (my favorite, I forget the details, is where a disentangling detection is done in such a way that it affects the diffraction-pattern after at least part of the measurement).I would be interested to hear what my colleague @Prodigal thinks of QM; I don’t think he’s a hard-science guy, but I think he can hang with us if we explain as needed, and he’s a Jehovah’s Witness, so I expect he won’t whine at us about ‘mystical bs’ or being tagged.(BTW, I expect to be mostly offline for a day or so starting tomorrow).
(DIR) Post #AD2Zfus62cSW3JxFS4 by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:29:15.846771Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel >In a way Bell's experiment is a verification of the uncertainty principle being true.The uncertainty principle is actually a different issue than what I am addressing (but of course related). As I will get to soon, the uncertainty principle can actually be thought of as a statement of the maximum amount of information that can be bound to a particular amount of energy.>All physics theories are models that have unknowable parts.The magic of Bell's theorem and the related experiments is that they demonstrate experimentally that certain things, namely the outcome of any particular measurement, *cannot* be determined in advance by scientific analysis. This is an extremely strong claim, but it seems to hold up.>The moment the interaction can be described in a classical way the entanglement *will* collapse and the cat *is* going to die. I think I can restate this concept of "the interaction can be described in a classical way" such that it is equivalent to "an observer acquired information" -- more on this soon.
(DIR) Post #AD2aij8gDd9KUIcE8e by laurel@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:40:58.626157Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures >I think I can restate this concept of "the interaction can be described in a classical way" such that it is equivalent to "an observer acquired information" -- more on this soon. Do you think that running the photon experiment multiple times while no one is in the room creates a quantum entanglement that will collapse when one looks at the screen?>"an observer acquired information"Information *does* have a max speed and that is the speed of light, because we have no faster way to transmit information. But light is also the particle causing all electromagnetic phenomena, which are classically explained.Is this limit due to the way humans perceive information or due to electromagnetism causing the entanglement to "collapse"?
(DIR) Post #AD2ailtXyLpL2EYgT2 by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2021-11-04T00:40:58.837604Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @judgedread > it is very difficult for "randomness" to enter into these worlds except through the humans or connected hardware RNG. This may make them *qualitatively* different in ways that could lead to big problems.interesting thought, but it seems like they have a big enough state, and are self-referential in practice enough that chaos ought to provide more than enough randomness
(DIR) Post #AD2al78RyKu9URe8KO by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:41:24.509105Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread >As to the nature of the mind and information, I am convinced by Bostrom, and a few things I have seen, that the universe is an artifact, the product of a meta-dev team. We are running on a computational substrate in a base universe (probably).This makes sense. In this scenario, the computational substrate has some unusual properties that we can discern from applying information theory to the physics. Executive summary: it looks like the meta-dev team can simulate all possible world-lines simultaneously using zero conventional RAM and CPU cycles, but simulating the experience of individual sentiences requires significant amounts of real RAM and computation. Note this is the opposite of how we normally think of the complexity of simulations.
(DIR) Post #AD2b0N4azvuzGR7Peq by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:44:09.950997Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff >interesting thought, but it seems like they have a big enough state, and are self-referential in practice enough that chaos ought to provide more than enough randomnessMy instinct is that quantum "randomness" is the mechanism by which free will is injected into the system -- but I cannot prove this.
(DIR) Post #AD2bE7RPuiPspwLfW4 by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2021-11-04T00:46:38.720159Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@Countermeasures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem i feel like this might be the meat of your mechanism
(DIR) Post #AD2bYnHq2iUqPTj7ZY by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:50:23.218342Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel >Do you think that running the photon experiment multiple times while no one is in the room creates a quantum entanglement that will collapse when one looks at the screen?I think part of the problem is that most of the equipment associated with our measurement process (including our brain) is very "warm" -- there are tons of particles going everywhere, your brain is interacting with all kinds of RF (including ham radio from thousands of kilometers away) -- thus the "wave function collapse" may occur whether or not you directly look at the screen. The information is in your brain from all this side channel interaction, it just didn't come in through the normal analysis pathway so it isn't very accessible.
(DIR) Post #AD2cJe3mAKLdP6UPT6 by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T00:58:51.248207Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@laurel >Information *does* have a max speed and that is the speed of light, because we have no faster way to transmit information. The situation is actually a bit more complicated than this. One way to think about it, Feynman's sum over histories approach, is that the photon takes all possible paths, including all possible *speeds*, to get to the detector, but most of the paths that don't go at the normal "c" interfere destructively and so contribute negligibly to the detection probabilities and times.Note the strange nature of information when it comes to the photon pair experiment: you can be light-years away from the other scientist, but when you make the measurement this *instantly* determines the result the other scientist will observe. More strangely, which scientist makes the measurement first can change depending on one's frame of reference.I think the big problem with moving information at FTL speeds is that this would cause causality violations in SR, but the instantaneous interactions described in the photon pair thought experiment do not do this.
(DIR) Post #AD2dZdN6algLrBicMa by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T01:12:56.927497Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread >Scientists sell their integrity very cheaply, contrary to the ridiculous liberal myths.This is both true and very depressing, I've directly observed a staggering amount of this. The "scientific" response to the COVID situation has been particularly disgusting.Perhaps you are right and corruption by decades of bad selection pressure is a necessary and sufficient explanation for this sorry state of affairs, with any metaphysical errors just being incidental to the overall low quality of thinking going on.
(DIR) Post #AD2drmcawLWll0cNCC by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T01:16:13.732359Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Countermeasures It's an interesting theorem (which is new to me), but free will aside, QM is what saves us from the sort of horrible predestinated mechanical universe the materialists (and perhaps those horrid Calvinists) imagine.
(DIR) Post #AD2eZzSQZr36JDwSOW by laurel@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T01:24:13.093475Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures > The information is in your brain from all this side channel interaction, it just didn't come in through the normal analysis pathway so it isn't very accessible. I agree completely. Although does the entanglement collapse when the information reaches your brain or when it *becomes information by the collapse of the unknowable phenomenon* due to hitting that detector?>Feynman's sum over histories approachThat's not a bad approach, but from what I understand it is a, until for the moment, theory as to why that happens. Haven't read it btw.>More strangely, which scientist makes the measurement first can change depending on one's frame of reference.I don't understand, how could that happen if the effect is instantaneous(infinite speed)?
(DIR) Post #AD2f79jBPi5hiZarxI by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T01:30:12.722731Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Countermeasures The Classical-mechanical worldview leads logically to industrial abominations like Marxism, which apparently worshiped giant steel mills, and oligarchical totalitarian capitalism. Possibly the implications of QM, if more widely understood, might help undermine both of them.Returning to any variation of the offshoots of savage, malign Jewish barbarism is going from bad to worse.If one needs something like a religion that isn't based on savage stupidity, Buddhism is the obvious choice.If Christianity could be purged of it's Judeo, it might be sort of OK. But Buddhism has no track record of horrors like Christianity, and no need to consider the Sunni branch of Islam either.
(DIR) Post #AD2fObJO6uMYBtqXy4 by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2021-11-04T01:33:21.605445Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel @Countermeasures you two might be interested in https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec10.html and this course, more generally btw
(DIR) Post #AD2fcUeleQ3VbXTHKS by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T01:35:52.537068Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel >Although does the entanglement collapse when the information reaches your brain or when it *becomes information by the collapse of the unknowable phenomenon* due to hitting that detector?Every rigorous effort to separate the wave function collapse from the acquisition of information by the observer seems to fail. Here are a couple of examples:1. Shoving a bunch of macroscopic mirrors into the photon path, including between the filter and the detector, doesn't affect the superposition. However, if we connect a sensor to the mirror to measure forces (from photon pressure) this does.2. In the double slit experiment, it is my understanding that putting detectors by the slits but leaving them disconnected from measurement systems does not break the interference pattern, but connecting them to a counter does. (I should double check this.)>I don't understand, how could that happen if the effect is instantaneous(infinite speed)?Case I: observer is moving left at a significant percentage of c:scientist 1 <----(e-/e+)------------> scientist 2Here the observer sees scientist 1 measure the photon first, because from the observer's perspective the right photon has to "chase down" scientist 2 who is moving away. Scientist 1's measurement collapses the wave function for scientist 2's photon, which takes longer to arrive at scientist 2's detector.Case II: observer is moving right real fast:scientist 1 <------------(e-/e+)----> scientist 2Here the observer sees scientist 2 measure the photon first, the mirror image of the Case I. Now scientist 2 makes the measurement, thus instantaneously setting the polarization of scientist 1's photon.Strange, yes?
(DIR) Post #AD2gtwyFjSaKISTObI by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T01:50:14.132723Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures It is very difficult to absorb long arguments in the weird narrow format of a multi-column Pleroma reader, so I have copied over the entire series of posts and will read them in luxurious word processor mode later.
(DIR) Post #AD2h5vrBhRPYJhskF6 by laurel@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T01:52:24.061573Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Countermeasures >Alright, so now we've got this beautiful theory of quantum mechanics, and the possibly-even-more-beautiful theory of computational complexity. That looks very nice.Really enjoyable discussion btw, haven't discussed physics properly in many years.
(DIR) Post #AD2hbGoXpYnGIAaZNY by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2021-11-04T01:58:03.593767Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel @Countermeasures i guess the argument i'm trying to get at here is that, if aaronson is right - it isn't using zero ram and cpu - but it's uncomputing as it goesso the residue that's left might require state relative to an individual (or conversely: subjectively higher amounts of relative randomness per observer)
(DIR) Post #AD2kBvgTYRzVNgQHEe by laurel@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T02:27:05.992239Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures > In the double slit experiment, it is my understanding that putting detectors by the slits but leaving them disconnected from measurement systems does not break the interference pattern, but connecting them to a counter does. That was gonna be my next argument, if you find such a source please link it.What is "disconnected" in this case. If they are powered down, as in they don't interact with the photon passing, the interference pattern will form. Doesn't matter if they have a memory storage for the counter, doesn't matter if it is connected to a screen, doesn't matter if someone is looking at said screen, interference will break if the detector is able to interact in the way that it needs to in order to make measurement.>observer at cOk, I understand the context now.But I still don't see a problem with it. I mean you have this construct/black-box called the entanglement. At some point when it interacts with something it collapses. The observer can only be affected by it with classical phenomena.Now If we are not talking about an observer but put one of the scientists on a rocket and fly him close to c opposite the other, then of course things are gonna get funny because we are using a model of thinking created on the axiom that c is the fastest speed while also assuming that there is instantaneous speed.
(DIR) Post #AD2kcdDKKmdnupWNiC by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T02:31:55.539640Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel >But I still don't see a problem with itThe problem is that there isn't a well defined answer to the question of *which* scientist is doing the measurement and collapsing the superposition -- it depends on the reference frame. This is especially a problem if we define the scientist as the brain interacting with the detector.If we define the scientist crudely as "a container of information about observations" then the problem of localizing where (and when!) the measurement takes place changes.
(DIR) Post #AD2lAfK10HiSIasW4u by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T02:38:04.590648Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel >What is "disconnected" in this case.I think the important thing is that the detector needs to be QM isolated from the scientist to a degree. The Wigner's Friend thought experiment postulates that you can have a *second sentient observer* in an isolated lab measure the photon, have a subjective experience of detection or non-detection, and then encode this information by generating another photon with the appropriate polarization and sending it to you. The claim is that with enough isolation this second photon will appear to the first scientist to be in a superposition, thus implying that the *second sentient observer* is in a superposition of two states as well!Recently there was apparently some kind of experimental confirmation of this, but I have not had a chance to look into it further.
(DIR) Post #AD2lYScnrWADs00qe0 by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2021-11-04T02:42:22.347227Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @laurel > thus implying that the *second sentient observer* is in a superposition of two states as well!i think at this point it's important to have a caveat 'relative to observer frame 1'ie relative to observer frame 2, everything's collapsed already
(DIR) Post #AD2lkOdmV8dozKA4uG by laurel@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T02:44:32.042426Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures > In the double slit experiment, it is my understanding that putting detectors by the slits but leaving them disconnected from measurement systems does not break the interference pattern, but connecting them to a counter does. Well yeah, as I said, if you assume that an object that can go FTL exists in a model whose mere existence relies on the the *axiom* that there is no FTL, of course things are gonna break down.I'm saying you can't use relativity *and* QM at the same time because their axioms are not compatible. You are trying to unify them, but it is not necessary for scientific models to be unified. Also the above stands only when the detector apparatus travels at c relative to the other, where the two theories directly collide. For an independent observer traveling at c, towards the left or right, it doesn't matter what he sees because the behavior he will observe will have a very exact sequence of events. He is not part of the entanglement.
(DIR) Post #AD2mA1wrUd3m8eJFku by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T02:49:10.006983Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@laurel GR and QM are not unified, but SR and QM are: QFT!> He is not part of the entanglement.More precisely, he can't use his observation about which scientist makes the measurement first to change the result or get either of the scientists information about the measurement early.
(DIR) Post #AD2nAblgPrXvBYv70i by laurel@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T03:00:28.572311Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Nut @Countermeasures What is the window though?
(DIR) Post #AD2oEqff382KWCgnJo by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T03:12:26.850606Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Part V: Information and TimeOne of the interesting properties of coherent QM theories is that they obey CPT symmetry: if you flip the charges, spins, and direction of time on all the particles you can run the movie backwards. Put another way, quantum interactions are fully reversible. However, your subjective experience as an observer is clearly *not* reversible: you only experience time going forward, which is also the direction of increasing total entropy. My claim is that this is not a coincidence, that the subjective and thermodynamic arrows of time point in the same direction for a reason.Consider our photon detection system: prior to the moment of measurement of photon polarization, the photon (and all associated experimental equipment) is in a superposition of two states. Equivalently, the relevant matter exists on two parallel world-lines (Everett branches):photon(0 degrees) -> detector(photon not detected) -> brain(photon not detected)+photon(90 degrees) -> detector(photon detected) -> brain(not detected)Prior to measurement, the scientist is on both world lines and has 0 bits of information about the polarization state. However once the measurement is made, the scientist acquires 1 bit of information: his uncertainty about which world line(s) he is on has been reduced by half. Simultaneously, the number of possible outcomes he can experience has gone from 1 (sitting around waiting for the measurement) to 2 (the photon was either detected or not). This means that from the scientist's perspective the *entropy* of the Universe has increased by 1 bit, because entropy is the number of possibly accessible states of the system (we usually use the log of this number for convenience). Both Shannon information and thermodynamic entropy fundamentally have units of bits, this is not a coincidence.This is why subjectively going "backwards in time" doesn't happen: we would have to "lose" information and "rejoin" now distinct world lines, representing separate subjective experiences, back into a superposition. Note that quantum particles go backwards in time just fine: in fact a positron is just an electron moving backwards in time. The fact that we can observe particles moving forwards and backwards in time yet we ourselves only move forwards is another clue that strictly identifying ourselves with a collection of particles is a mistake.For me the logical metaphysical proposal is that "you" are a container of information rather than a set of particles. You steadily acquire more information about the configuration of particles in the Universe from Outside Physics (via mechanisms unknown and scientifically unknowable), thereby moving onto a smaller and smaller subset of world lines. Equivalently, you are increasing experienced entropy and ratcheting irreversibly forward in time.This also suggests that our traditional flow of information flow and causality is not right. Classically, physical particles form a particular pattern which contains information which scientists later measure. What I (and von Neumann) are proposing is that information enters the system at the time of subjective observation by the scientist and then *propagates backwards* to select a subset of possible histories / worldlines consistent with the observation.This may sound strange, but consider that in QM one way to compute the probability of a particular result is to add up the probabilities associated with *all the possible past histories* consistent with that result. This is compatible with the notion that the observer is on all of the relevant worldlines -- the observer's measurement has constrained the past.
(DIR) Post #AD2pDffiYfkC4OiaS8 by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2021-11-04T03:23:26.126345Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures i guess i'm not seeing much of a difference between the choice to observe and the observation at all. ie you can push the point where information enters right back to the big bangand then back to the current observations of the CMB
(DIR) Post #AD2pT54CQHltAsW7hQ by Prodigal@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T03:26:13.478560Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister @Countermeasures QM is interesting, I took two courses in it.I have a degree in Engineering Science and I minored in Control System Electrical Engineering.Up here in Canada that still makes you an engineer and you get the engineering and stuff.Young’s double slit experiment is a weird thing.Everyone focuses on the fringe pattern that develops which is, admittedly, unexpected and non-intuitive (much like QM is, especially if you didn’t learn Hamiltonian mechanics prior).But, and I never tested this in lab, but many people seem to be of the opinion that all the photons coalesce into different regions that form these slits.If that is truly the case, you can confine the experiment and such that you should be able to detect the intensity of light in the pattern and it should “be similar” to the source.The implication being: you should be able to refine the YDS experiment such that the central bands of the pattern are brighter than the light source (seeing that, instead of letting the light diffuse naturally you squeezed it into tiny bands and since Intensity is proportional to number of photons and varies with the inverse square of cross-sectional area, those bands should be brighter).However, whether using a simple light bulb to two lasers in phase, I don’t recall this happening (mind you, I did this nearly two decades ago).This then implies that, some how, YDS is destroying the photons that would ordinarily fall where the “shadow bands” form.But that leaves another conundrum.Usually when photons cease, heat energy rises.I would REALLY love to see an experiment variant of YDS that detects a rise in temperature.Because, if these is no rise in temperature….Then that energy must have ended up…elsewhere…
(DIR) Post #AD2pgazv12GvyGxXN2 by Prodigal@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T03:28:40.034592Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister @Countermeasures control systems engineering *Engineering RING and stuff*I’m sure other typoes are there 😖
(DIR) Post #AD2prapC00vOcVBbKy by Countermeasures@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T03:30:39.279835Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@s8n @TradeMinisterI think you are conflating the necessary disruption of the particles future (post-measurement) state with acquisition of information about the particle's past (pre-measurement) state. It is true that getting more information about the past state disturbs the future state more. It is also true that there is an upper limit to how much total information about a particle's state you can get (and the uncertainty principle certainly applies here).However, it is possible to construct a measurement system that strongly disturbs the measured particle, extracts the relevant information, and then re-encodes the information into another particle which passes onto a second (human operated) measurement system. If done correctly this will preserve the superposition for the human observer. The Wigner's Friend thought experiment is an example of this.
(DIR) Post #AD2qFvlpm5rMX4Dj6W by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
2021-11-04T03:34:44Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @judgedread @TradeMinister Your interpretation assumes the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory handles this just fine, we are entangled and each of us bifurcates along with the rest of the universe and experiences both states, the one copy in the one new universe experiences the one state, and the other in the other universe the other. There is an even more interesting theory called the Many Interacting Worlds theory which I personally favor because it also provides an explanation for the Mandela effect which I've personally experienced on several occasions.
(DIR) Post #AD2ygGzOJ2IvVGdKts by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T05:09:27.247131Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Prodigal @Countermeasures Oh, sorry man, no offense: I remember you saying biology wasn't your thing, must have generalized that.Now I'm even more interested in your take. These ideas are for me the Great Game: all this political stuff is mere ephemeral chitchat in comparison.
(DIR) Post #AD2zFq61lqmkWNhGsK by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T05:15:52.905172Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Prodigal @Countermeasures I was completely wrong about your not being a hard science guy but right about wanting you in the thread: this is fascinating. And it sounds like you have the math I wish I had (might have seriously tried to end up at the Perimeter Institute if I did, but childhood phobia and block...).If photons are just disappearing and not being absorbed, where indeed did they go? Pop into a little rolled-up dimension for a spot of tea? Translate into information, transform into Dark Matter...
(DIR) Post #AD2zbvj1WUPkLlTFDs by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T05:19:52.454187Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@Prodigal @Countermeasures PS and @countermeasures just reminded me of another possibility for photons gone missing: skipped across to another many-worlds timeline?
(DIR) Post #AD31tVCx3IUfEFyZvM by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T05:45:27.602030Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nanook @judgedread @Countermeasures Many Interacting Worlds is interesting, but doesn't seem to have attracted much attention. I came up with the notion as an explanation for Dark Matter: that 'adjoining' (as defined by proximity in configuration-space) worlds might have a gravitational crosstalk, leading to Dark Matter cloud hanging around galaxies and such. I think Russians published a paper about this.I have no intuitive sense of how any variant of MW is going to explain some of the most charming QM whimsies, like causes apparently acting backwards thru time.
(DIR) Post #AD32f80IcxzhA9lfgO by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
2021-11-04T05:53:17Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister @judgedread @Countermeasures I think that is a good possibility though loop quantum gravity seems to make accurate predictions without the need of dark matter.
(DIR) Post #AD33wdszRZT0v8GRkG by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T06:08:26.254086Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nanook @Countermeasures @judgedread Loop Quantum Gravity is one of my favorites (I don't have the math so don't really understand any of this, but can cheer and hold flowers). If I had the math, I'd want to be in Smolin's group at the Prerimiter Institute.The back of my hand to String Theory: nice math, but I don't think it is fundamental.
(DIR) Post #AD34tpOOJ3dlh0ApZg by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
2021-11-04T06:18:06Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister @judgedread @Countermeasures I have appreciated Feynman's comment about string theory, "Not even wrong", by which he meant that it did not make significant testable predictions that could be tested experimentally to prove it right or wrong.
(DIR) Post #AD34yhMjZpl4FJilv6 by Prodigal@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T06:20:00.850964Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister @Countermeasures that’s what I was alluding to 😌
(DIR) Post #AD357DmsuwP97K16zA by Coke@gleasonator.com
2021-11-04T06:21:32.193611Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nanook @TradeMinister @Countermeasures @judgedread
(DIR) Post #AD3DZtVcBtLaFu7eMa by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T07:56:22.597339Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Prodigal @Countermeasures Do you also like the crosstalk-between-worlds notion? I really don't have the math (I envy you), have to use intuition, inference, pattern-recognition and imagination. I can get my mind around some concepts (I really like *-spaces, feel that viewing the universe as a 3+T worldline tracing a path thru a configuration-space, or the wavefunction of the universe evolving its way thru a state- or phase- space (I'm imprecise here) has a certain beauty, and these spaces may have physical reality at a fundamental everything-is-information level) but am sort of a cripple, understand basic calculus notions but never studied it, or really anything past highschool algebra. (Sad!)
(DIR) Post #AD3Ejyud3Vl1rdCEIy by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T08:09:24.279782Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nanook @Countermeasures String Theory might be a more-valid, much-higher-energy approximation than Relativistic mechanics, but it doesn't feel fundamental to me, fwiw.
(DIR) Post #AD3NHcgX0CFIPF9eO8 by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T09:45:07.483404Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nanook @Countermeasures @judgedread Also, the MWI dufe said something about testable predictions... Back in 2014. I'd expect I would have heard if this had happened, being a huge big deal.
(DIR) Post #AD3gS56o4n0UaO94FM by Prodigal@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-04T13:19:54.612739Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister @Countermeasures Do I like the crosstalk between worlds/universes scenario?While it’s sexy, it has implications that are quite frightening.It is interesting that you mentioned my religious designation before.Yes I am officially a JW, but now in my mind I am JW++.I think the faith and its adherents are fantastic (I am a convert myself) and I was attracted to it because they explained parts of the Bible that preachers wouldn’t touch.But I am now seeing that it has tiny blindspots, and thats not to knock it.Specifically (and we had a similar discussion in the past) JWs in their quest for solid accuracy, refer to Generally Accepted and Approved Sources (GAASs) only.While I understand there are lots of non-GAASs out there that are garbage, I think you and I accept that most of us here have reached a level of truthseeking where we realize that many GAASs were compromised long before we started trusting them.As such, there doesn’t seem to be a mechanism in the research arm of the organization to check for that outside of, say, spurious news reports and obvious historical writing errors.SO!Once you learn for instance about operation High Jump, Hitler’s lesser known goals (crush international banking) and other buried aspects of history, you start to dig deep and question what else may have been altered or mislabeled etc.An example of a JW blindspot - in my opinion - is that there were Many dead sea scrolls found, but they focus on the ones that help verify Bible books.Which is great!But the ones who stored the scrolls on, say, Isaiah clearly viewed that as valuable…likely the other information sets represented by other scrolls were valuable too.Yet there is no commentary on that by JWs or many other Christian churches for that matter.True, those scrolls may not be Biblical BUT they may have historical significance to help us understand Bible history better.———-So why did I say all this?I am now at a point in my life where I am searching for ultimate truth. And the one thing about two absolutely true statements concerning the same topic is that…once you dig deep enough, they are never in contradiction.So now I am seeing a convergence between what I read in the Bible, what I read in historical sources often ignored, what I know of the mystery schools, and what I know of science.Specifically, I believe quantum mechanics is a lens which explains reality in a mathematical fashion, but that the effects it studies were studied in the very ancient world and labelled as mysticism or magic.Sounds crazy, but we now know that Ancient Sumer had indoor plumbing, beer, and other conveniences that are generally accepted as arising within the last 500 years.Sorry for long post.
(DIR) Post #AD5KHNZRHnCXz1wv9E by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-05T08:20:53.293059Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Prodigal @Countermeasures Never apologize for your posts, however long.For me, the most fundamental religious/philosophical question is:Why is there something rather than nothing?The beauty of cosmology is that it gets ever closer to a physical/mathematical understanding of what precisely happened at the origin-point, which may bring us closer to Why and possibly Who.I think eventually a provable quantum/gravity theory will happen, and I think it will tell us that space, time, matter and perhaps energy, our entire universe, are not fundamental, and tell us what is fundamental, at least to spacetime etc.
(DIR) Post #AD5zlvTDuN9Lvhj6Ke by Prodigal@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-05T16:05:48.880516Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@TradeMinister @Countermeasures >Why is there something rather than nothing?Do you mean...1) Why was the universe created in the first place?OR2) Why do humans search for an origin-responsible entity for the universe? It might just be that it was always there and it's all random chance that brought it about.----I just didn't want to assume, please clarify.
(DIR) Post #AD6MdZ8LMzWbHZwVX6 by TradeMinister@freespeechextremist.com
2021-11-05T20:22:01.155028Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Prodigal @Countermeasures I mean exactly what I said. It could perhaps be simplified to "Why is?".I make no reference to a creator or observers.We can go back to the Big Bang, where everything, including spacetime apparently sprang from a quantum fluctuation or somesuch, and ask Why, and What was 'before' or 'outside' that?
(DIR) Post #ADAIApsKQIdJcjKuxc by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2021-11-07T17:50:50.793973Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Countermeasures @laurel this stuff seems to have some implications to the 'is everything a camera' question https://shitposter.club/notice/ADADt7Hx4qshwPSZLk