Okay fine personal one’s first:

• I once overheard someone saying it was hard to go left on a round about because the entrance slopes right…. As in they were not using a round about like a round about. (Tbf the round about in question was originally an intersection that was poorly modified into a roundabout)
• I had a psychopathic roommate who, when I called him on it, flat out admitted that given a choice between killing himself or thousands of others he’d choose the mass murder option. I also once asked him if he thought slavery was morally acceptable and his response was “if it would benefit me then yeah.”

Porqué no los dos?

First, I would like to note that I’m not here to assert any “quantum woo” about measurement and the soul or anything. I don’t think conscious observation has anything to do with the collapse; more likely it’s our method of measurement that affects the outcome. In fact I’d assume these phenomena would exist even in a universe without sentient beings. I’m not advocating for solipsism.

My intuition would be that certain kinds of common interactions (which we also end up using to take our measurements) “cause the collapse” and then: more particles -> more interaction -> more collapse, which would explain the fact we don’t see macro scale indeterminacy but do notice it at a quantum level.

Second, I’ll admit this really isn’t my field. You sound like you know what you’re talking about and have pointed me towards interesting theories and people to look into, so thanks for that, and I’ll defer to your judgement until I have a better grasp on this topic

The reason I commented was mostly to clarify that Schrödinger’s cat is not like the meme implies. It’s meant to illustrate how weird it is that the cat would be neither alive nor dead until you open the box, not “the cat is in fact both at the same time.”

But that is exactly the point Schrödinger was criticizing, not supporting.

I was under the impression this was more a question than a criticism. He’s asking where the line is between this indeterminacy and determinacy. At what scale to things move from quantum to “real” and why?

Also Bell experiments have proven the indeterminacy which you say is absurd. No theory of local hidden variables can describe quantum mechanics. The state is not a local property of the particle/system until it is “measured.” I’ll admit it’s an uncomfortable truth that sounds absurd, but it’s a truth nonetheless.

Anyway, thank you for the more in depth explanations of both the thought experiment and quantum computing. You definitely seem more knowledgeable about the topic than me

Not to be the 🤓 but just so we’re clear, the point of Schrödinger’s cat was to illustrate that you can’t know a quantum state until you measure it. Basically just saying “probability exists.”

The reason it’s a big deal is that this probability is a real property. One that is supposed to be only one of two states. But instead it isn’t really in a state at all until you measure it, and that’s weird.

The point is that instead of assuming it is in one state or the other, you can and often should think of both possibilities at once. This is what makes quantum computing useful. Specifically the fact that, instead of working with values, you can work with probabilities, and until you measure the outcome, you can manipulate the probabilities all you want.

So you simply apply operations that increase or decrease the chances of certain outcomes and repeat until the answer you want has an incredibly high probability and the rest are nearly zero. Then you measure your qubit, collapsing the wave function, with a high probability that collapse will give you the answer you wanted.

If you had measured the particle before hand and run it through the system, it wouldn’t work because its state was already decided.

It’s less like “the cat is both alive and dead” and more that “the terms ‘alive’ and ‘dead’ do not apply to the cat till you open the box”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_against_Palestinians_during_the_Gaza_war

There’s a wiki page for the documented systemic sexual abuse committed and encouraged by the Israeli government with citations from the UN and even Israeli court and govt references.

As for the talk, considering that the first 20min were nothing but straw man and other fallacious rhetoric; and that he does not have a research or educational background in the topics he claims are wrong without evidence; and the fact he’s giving this talk mostly to promote himself and his merchandise; I decided it wasn’t worth my time because there would likely be no actual reasoning or evidence, only “sales tactics” so to speak.

Talking with you makes me think i was exactly right since you’ve yet to give any evidence to back up any argument, except, oddly, mine by proving you fell for the feminism straw man and the queers for Palestine one as well.

If there is any actual valid argument in the entirety of the talk, please write it here. Clearly you feel like he made a persuasive case so why don’t you list what the main arguments and rationale for your opinion are? Surely you aren’t just asserting your beliefs are true without evidence? Especially since you seem to care about being “contrarian” which is exactly the definition of disregarding well established consensus

I think you misunderstood my example. Also you seem to have mistaken that quote you posted as well. Wishing for a society in which genital differences are not used as a basis for cultural stereotypes is not equivalent to saying “biology/physiology doesn’t matter at all” which was Saad’s straw man.

As for “queers for Palestine” I’m not going to watch the full video, but my guess is he says something along the lines of “you support people who kill queer people!” which again is a straw man since advocacy groups against the genocide of innocent individuals are very much not advocating for the slaughter of queer individuals, in fact I’d imagine most are against it.

Imagine there was a prison on fire. And people are saying “oh my god we need to evacuate those people!” Then imagine someone else says “oh so you support thieves and murderers and rapists? I’m an empath but not a ‘suicidal empath.’”

Obviously the latter person doesn’t actually feel empathy at all and is making a straw man argument against saving people from horrible deaths.

That’s roughly equivalent to this scenario. Except instead of prisoners it’s just a country of civilians including children, and they’re not just burning but also starving and getting hunted/raped for sport etc.

Ah yes, who better to lecture about psychology and sociology than a person with only a CS degree and an MBA who works in marketing. I’m sure he’s definitely right when he says that all the sociology and psychology professors (who actually have done research in their fields) are wrong.

Joking aside, I will say he is good at his job. He’s a marketing professor and he was able to market his ideas and possibly books onto people like you despite having no evidence to support them whatsoever.

In case you do have the capacity for logic, I would like to note that what he does in the first fifteen minutes (and probably the rest of the time) is called “straw man” tactics.

He purposefully misrepresents movements and beliefs and entire fields of science, so he can attack the misrepresentation instead of the belief itself.

To provide an example, he says that radical feminism is the idea that all differences between men and women are purely due to patriarchal social structures and not at all related to biology. This is entirely false. You can look up the term (or just talk to a feminist) and find that idea he described is actually kind of the opposite of radical feminism.

However, he knows his audience (you) don’t actually know what radical feminism is. And he knows that his audience (you) can be easily manipulated into hatred/anger (and possibly just sexism). Thus he knows he can assert this falsehood and his audience (you) will accept it as truth without question or study.

Then he simply has to provide proof that this obviously false thing is obviously false, and his audience (you) will unwittingly believe that radical feminism is obviously false, despite the fact he hasn’t mentioned or disproven any real feminist tenets at all. In fact radical feminism does acknowledge the role genetic, anatomical, and racial differences affect women. So he was kind of agreeing with them. He just needed his audience (you) to not like them and knew his audience (you) would be easily fooled by this tactic.

He’s done his job (manipulating people) well by marketing to his audience (easily enraged people unfamiliar with persuasive rhetoric tactics (you)).

Have you ever experienced empathy?

I have had the exact same dream. I shall note your username in case any of my crazy ideas is ever profitable enough to start a company lol

When I can argue with someone rational who is willing to change their mind or has a reason for disagreeing with my or the foundations of my argument such that they can explain where I’ve made a mistake, I like arguing.

It’s even fun when you argue with rational people about irrational things for the fun of just pushing the limits of understanding. Like trying to debate ontological nihilism purely for the pain of trying to understand it.

However, I do not like arguing with people who are irrational, because there’s no point, and I know it, but I really feel like maybe if I just said something right they’d start believing in evidence.

It is also just very difficult to explain certain things to people who don’t understand the foundations of your reasoning.

There’s a saying that to a mathematician there are only two kinds of problems: impossible and trivial. When you’ve thought a lot about something, many foundational concepts seem trivial to you but not to outsiders. It’s very difficult to branch this gap in knowledge.

For example I had an argument about how the undecidability of the busy beaver numbers seem to disprove solipsism because something had to do the work to find them but it wasn’t me, so something other than me must exist for those few numbers we’ve calculated so far to be at my fingertips.

This argument means nothing to people who don’t know what undecidability means, and it is incredibly difficult (for me at least) to try and defend that proving something is “undecidable” in the first place is even possible to someone who’s never seen/done a formal math proof.

Of course it would, wireless messaging relies on photons which travel at light speed

Where’s the bush meme for “another horny poster has hit c/shitposting”

Is this number 3 or 4?

Well, time to learn a trade I guess

I bet you can when I wrap my lips around you

Unfortunately I’m not bisexual so that would depend on your gender and on wether I’m going through a sex-repulsed phase atm or not

▫️Do you like me ?

☑️ Do you like me ?

Considering the pink one in the middle has no warnings and is just called a “humectant” the main ingredient is probably propylene glycol and the rest would be mostly water, both of which are edible.

Even if there are small amounts of chemicals like isopropyl, you could likely take a very small sip to realize it is not delicious and you wouldn’t die or get horribly injured.

I hooked up an old rotary phone to our landline when I was young and was very sad that dialing 0 did not connect me to an operator

Dm me a picture of the note and I’ll draw the x digitally.

But this kind of thing is why we need to break up. I can’t keep doing this. I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops like this to prove I like you, when I say it, I mean it. I feel it every time I look into your eyes. I feel it every time you walk into the room, when you smile, when you laugh, but I’m running out of ways to tell you I love you, I’m running out of ideas for how to make you believe me. I feel like we’re growing apart and there’s no way to close the gap.

I cant keep this up. I’m sorry, I’m so sorry, but I can’t keep this up anymore. I can’t keep watching you doubt every compliment I try to give you, I can’t watch you disregard praise because you think you’re unworthy of it. You are worthy of it! You are worthy of love and happiness!

But when I tell you that, you don’t believe me. I don’t know how to make you believe, and it’s just pure agony to be unable to make you see how amazing and beautiful and talented you are!

I just cant take it anymore, I’m sorry but I really can’t do it. This can’t go on. We can’t go on

I volunteer to be everyone’s first boyfriend/girlfriend if needed/desired. Comment and I will respond by breaking up with you, thus ensuring proof of our relationship will be on the internet forever

Oh no, if all anarchists must be descriptivists not prescriptivists what will happen to mathematics?!