bunchberry @ bunchberry @lemmy.world

帖子

0

评论

167

加入于

1 yr. ago

They are NOT looking to see if you are responsible with money. They are looking to see if they can make money off of you, so they want you to be a heavy credit user. Before I bought my house I made sure to take out two credit cards and just buy random shit on them for a few months because that boosts my credit score drastically which then made it easy to get the loan. Banks HATE people with limited debt because it means you are not a loyal customer that they could make money off of. Yes, it makes no sense but that's just how the economy works. Even if you don't have any reason to buy things on credit, you still should. Even if you are very financially responsible, you should always have "stupid debt," by that I mean debt for the sake of debt, because banks love that shit and it'll help you out if you ever actually do need a loan for something.

I would still hate the USA if Blue MAGA was doing a genocide and immigration crackdowns and jingoistic hypermilitarism.

the founding fathers would probably have a heart attack seeing that women and black people have some rights

you live in a fourth world country and are so mass deluded by your state media you think people are jealous of it xD

I would do my work in OpenOffice at home, save it to doc/docx, then when it is entirely completed, I will bring it to the library to load it in Word on a library computer and correct any formatting issues and resave it.

it's hard for us male gays, always being made fun of 😔

Economics isn't supposed to make sense, it's just meant to justify the prevailing system for the time. It is like theology back when we used to live under religious monarchies. It treats itself as "academic," has universities and degrees, very serious "scholarly" debate, entire textbooks written on it, all its adherents will insist that it is a genuine scholarly enterprise and anyone who disagrees just "doesn't understand it," but it is ultimately not a genuine scientific program but merely exists to justify the prevailing order at the time.

cute

I think there needs to be more research with twin studies looking to see if it's an actual biological defect. As an analogy, we are all aware of the kind of guy who always "thinks with their dick and not their brain." We all have some biological instincts, some biological imperatives, and some people those imperatives seem to be stronger than others, some have them so strong it is a detriment to themselves because they cannot act rationally. Strangely, it does indeed appear some people have a biological imperative to see others suffer, like they derive some sort of emotional response out of it and seek it out.

In some cases, it even becomes self-destructive, because they want to see others suffer so much that they don't even care about their own preservation. They will happily see everyone's living standards plummet, including their own, if it means they can see their neighbors suffer. Take a look at this video. It's an example of an extreme case of this. The person in the video hardly even comes across as human but just an animal completely acting unconsciously on an instinct, and of course they are later thrown into prison because it is self-destructive.

My parents are very "bigoted and hateful," I would not think it is an exaggeration to say they are fascists. I used to hate them for it but then stopped as much when it became clear to me that they are entirely even in control of it, but it is like an animal part of them, they are not fully conscious and in control of that part of them. I no longer hate them, when they spew their rhetoric I realize it is something they cannot control and so I no longer fight with them. I more so just feel bad for them, and wish we could study this more seriously so it could have a cure. Recognizing this helped me improve my relationship with my family a lot since I realize fighting is pointless. When they begin to spout off their hatred, I recognize it is just one of their "episodes" and I ignore, do not acknowledge, and wait for it to pass, then change the subject to something else.

But sadly a lot of these people with these biological defects form political parties and hold high offices, and so it makes it "taboo" to treat it as a serious medical issue that needs research and so we can find a cure, to find what is causing this defect and to fix it. I think most people have a slight biological imperative to inflict destruction and suffering, which is why so many people enjoy hunting even though it's not necessary. Maybe it evolved as a way to make people feel less bad about hunting since used to we needed to do it for survival. For some people there is just something broken in their brain that turns this biological imperative to overdrive and they are just consumed with thoughts of wanting to kill, dominate, destroy, etc.

For real. I was raised in an evangelical household and it didn't stick with me beyond 14, even with all the indoctrination and sheltering. I genuinely don't get how a person grows into adulthood still thinking that way.

Superdeterminism is literally just the idea that humans should be understood as quantum mechanical systems as well and thus should also be subjected to quantum mechanical laws. If those laws guarantee that the evolution of physical systems is such that certain correlations are always maintained, it then follows that a human should not be able to make the choice to break those correlations as they, too, are bound by physical laws, whereas the "free will" axiom states that we should assume humans are capable of making decisions that are statistically independent of any physical laws.

There is no good argument against the idea that human decisions should be considered to be dependent upon physical laws other than vague metaphysical arguments about how it is somehow the "end of science" and trying to perform huge mental gymnastics to equate it to a religious belief. None of these arguments are even relevant. Even if I were to concede entirely that somehow including the human experimenter within the physical description of the system would be an inconvenience for science... so? Do we just believe things that are convenient for us? That is not an argument.

It is sort of like Christians who try to use philosophy to "prove" God exists. That's just not how it works. Metaphysics never gets you to physics. You cannot demonstrate something is true about physical reality with a strong enough metaphysical argument. You need empirical evidence. If we are to rule out possibilities regarding the natural world, that would be because we have mathematical models which are empirically verified that disallow that possibility, not because of some vague metaphysical argument about how it wouldn't be convenient for us if it were true.

Any attempt to use metaphysics to make definite claims about what is or is not physically real is just entirely mistaken from the get-go.

Einstein also made the same exact argument but not against superdeterminism but against "spooky action." If two particles at a distance have no "awareness" of each other, then by mathematical necessity their behavior would have to be statistically independent of one another, and so entanglement would be impossible, but we know it's possible, the random values they take on are statistically dependent upon one another. If this is not due to a local signal, then it necessarily has to be nonlocal. Throwing out hidden variables doesn't get you out of this; the two particles at a distance have to be "aware" of each other nonlocally.

Einstein had also stated that nonlocality would be the end of science because the scientific method is driven by the ability to isolate phenomena, yet nonlocal phenomena is by necessity not isolatable. He also saw as essential to the scientific method that two statistically independent things do not become dependent upon one another unless it is through local interactions.

Anyone can make the argument that "X point of view destroys all of science." I mean, take the multiverse belief. If a medication has a 75% chance of curing people and 25% of failing, and nobody knows why, do you consider it "scientific" to just assert that maybe the universe splits into a vast multiverse where 75% of the branches the person is cured and 25% of the branches they are not whenever someone takes the medication? "But it's the simplest explanation: the branching is right there in the mathematics!"

That obviously is quite diametrically opposed to how we typically conceive of the scientific method, and we can give such an "answer" to any mystery. Yet, supposedly I am supposed to take that kind of "answer" more seriously than just suggesting that humans are quantum mechanical systems too?

None of these kinds of arguments are particularly convincing, but we can make one from all sides. Anyone who supports any interpretation can argue that the assumptions being abandoned in the other interpretations are a detriment to the scientific method.

You didn't read the essay.

Indeed, read the last clause rather carefully. Again, the behavior of measurement devices themselves should be reducible to more fundamental physics, and so fundamental physics should not make reference to macroscopic objects like measurement devices in its model of the physical world. He wasn't after a word to replace measurement, this was not a semantic point. He was after a physical theory and a rigorous mathematical accounting of what is going on. Bell was pretty much a fan of any speculative model which made some attempt at replacing measurement with some well-defined physical process.

For example, he spoke positively of Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory, which was a spontaneous collapse theory, because the fact you measure classical particles is predicted mathematically by the model itself as it describes particles as evolving according to the quantum state but stochastically "collapsing" back into classical particles after a brief amount of time. The model did not make reference to measurement as a fundamental concept, but could instead explain using its fundamental concepts why you measure what you do, and so Bell gave talks promoting it and praising it.

Compare that to the comic where the professor just says "it's about measurement, not about consciousness." GRW theory said, "it's about spontaneous collapse, not about consciousness." The "answer" is explicitly a physical process that is well-defined mathematically in the model. Bell spoke positively of the model not necessarily because he believed it was correct, but that the authors clearly understood that there was a "measurement problem" and were trying at potential solutions to it.

Another example was pilot wave theory. Pilot wave theory got rid of the transition between the quantum world and the classical world entirely by just presupposing that both exist side-by-side and that the quantum state merely plays a role in influencing the trajectories of classical particles. Bell also liked this because it again no longer had to reference measurement devices as a fundamental concept (as there was no transition from quantum to classical at measurement) and could instead explain why you measure particles where you do with the specific statistics you measure. He had promoted this theory as well and wrote papers on it, one where he even criticizes other physicists for ignoring it when he saw it as groundbreaking.

Bell was pretty much in favor of literally anything that wasn't of the form (1) there's a quantum state → (2) you measure it → (3) a miracle happens → (4) you get classical results. He hated this form because #3 is left entirely ambiguous and so you have to treat measurement as a fundamental concept as the thing which transforms #2 to #4, but there is no explanation provided as to how this actually occurs in physical reality. He wanted a physical model where the behavior of the measurement device itself could be captured by the theory. This was a point about physics, physical models and physical explanations of the world, not a point about semantics.

That's the thing, though. Einstein's interpretation did not require a "miracle" because his interpretation was merely to believe quantum mechanics is incomplete because we don't currently fully understand "what happens down there." It was more of a statement of "I don't know" and "we don't have the full picture" rather than trying to put forward a full picture. Most people agree that GR is merely an approximation for a more fundamental theory and there is a lot of work on speculative models to potentially replace it one day, like String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity. But it has become rather taboo to suggest that maybe quantum mechanics is not the most fundamental "final" theory either and that maybe potential speculative replacements for it should be studied as well.

Those were the kinds of things that interested Einstein in his later years. He had published a paper "Does Schrodinger’s Wave Mechanics Completely Determine the Motion of a System, or Only Statistically?" where he proposed an underlying model similar to pilot wave theory, although later retracted it because it was later showed to him to be nonlocal and he hoped to get rid of then nonlocal aspect of it. He had published a paper earlier titled "Does Field Theory Offer Possibilities for the Solution of the Quantum Problem?" in which he had hoped to figure out if you could use an overdetermined system of differential equations to restrict the possible initial configurations of the system such that it would not be physically possible for the experimenter to choose the initial conditions of the experiment freely. If he was still alive today, he would probably take interest in the works of people like Gerard 't Hooft.

Most interpertations say "we know what happens down there," meanwhile Einstein's interpretation was a more humble one of saying we do not know yet.

No it isn't...

The "good" part in the comic simply says we should replace "observation" with "measurement," but Bell is unambiguously clear in black-and-white in that article that "measurement" is a poor replacement because what constitutes a "measurement" is not rigorously well-defined.

It would seem that the theory is exclusively concerned about 'results of measurement', and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of 'measurer'? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system . . . with a PhD?

"Measurements" are complex high-level abstract things. Bell believed a physical theory should just directly describe physical reality, and this would naturally translate into what you measure, rather than including "measurement" as a fundamental part of the theory itself, which he saw as backwards to how a physical theory should be formulated. It does not tell you how the physical system is actually behaving if no humans are around to measure it.

If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealised laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less 'measurement-like' processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere? Do we not have jumping then all the time?

This was also one of Einstein's main gripes about how some people talk about quantum mechanics in a way that uses observation or measurement as a fundamental postulate to the theory. He gave an example of atomic decay, where quantum mechanics does not give you any definite time when a decay product will appear, but merely a wave function that spreads out in space over time, which from that you can compute a probability distribution that you will find a decay product there if you were to measure it, but then it doesn't tell you at all what the atom is actually doing if you don't measure it. That's why he once asked Abraham Pais if really believed that the moon exists only if he looks at it.

Bell wanted a formulation of QM that did not at all make reference to measurement devices as a fundamental concept. Einstein as well stressed that he thought physics should be about physical reality, not observations/measurements of physical reality. The physical theory should explain what you observe, but you should not have to invoke measurement devices as a foundational concept to a physical theory.

The measurement device itself should be reducible within a physical theory. You should be able to use physics to explain the behavior of my photon detector. My complicated macroscopic photon detector built by humans should not be treated as a fundamental irreducible component to a physical theory. Bell even says outright in that article he thinks it would be a good idea to ban the word "measurement" in papers to require people to frame things in terms of the microscopic physical systems that are being measured themselves rather than to macroscopic measurement devices.

My issue with the orthodox interpretations is not that they are random but that they contain miracles. This was John Bell's original criticism that people seem to have forgotten. The Copenhagen interpretation says that there is a quantum world until you measure it, then a miracle happens, and you have a classical result, but it does not tell you at all how this process actually works. The Many Worlds Interpretation, which is the second most popular, just denies that the classical world made up of observable particles in 3D space where experiments actually have outcomes actually even exist and posits it's a grand illusion created by the conscious mind, but also cannot explain how this illusion can possibly come about and just vaguely gestures to it having something to do with consciousness. They just punt the miracle over to neuroscience and ultimately do not answer anything either. A lot of people think Einstein wasn't the biggest of quantum mechanics due to the randomness, but if you actually read his works, he was clear the issue was that it does not give you a coherent complete picture of reality, so he just thought it was incomplete, an approximation of a more fundamental theory that we have yet to discover.

John Bell demonstrated why the "good" response is in fact a bad response as well in his article "Against Measurement".

Well if there was public daycare to take the stress off of parents who couldn't deal with it then it wouldn't be as big of an issue.

yeah yeah I'm sure quantum mechanics makes us all immortal if that makes you feel better 🤣