So yeah I got schizophrenia tonight I just thought I would make a post:
Science is wrong about information. Kinda.
It CAN be destroyed in their idea of what it means for information to be "destroyed," but their fundamental assumptions about what that means are wrong.
The only information that needs to exist is that which directly creates the current moment. Everything else is up for grabs until it becomes relevant again. When it goes out of "scope", information goes back into an uncertain state. Think about a pebble ten feet below the surface of the moon-- That pebble doesn't actually exist in our current frame of reference because it's unobservable, and any informational proof of its existence is "cloudy." The only thing that makes it exist is the possibility that somewhere under the surface of the moon, there is a pebble. But it doesn't matter to any larger process exactly where. All systems are likely like this-- things become true or false depending both on observation, AND pre-existing information about their state that is left to the outside world.
Think of it this way... A very crude, slightly wrong narrative... Every time you remember what your mom's face looks like, it's different. But reality warps to make your memory right, because whichever bit of information is "canonical" in your current frame of reference takes precedence. The problem is that this is completely unfalsifiable, because science as it stands now relies on verification.
It solves a lot of absurdities with the "many worlds" interpretation. It makes the entire universe much more simple, isolates it to a single state but with an infinite pool of possibility outside of it. It also meshes nicely with the idea of relativity, because all that CAN exist is the immediate (in the sense of local) frame of reference.
I think this is what lots of mainstream scientists are referring to when they hypothesize about the entire universe and all the matter in it being only made up of one single photon/whatever particle wrapping back on itself, bumping into itself, over and over through time, but they had to dumb it down to unrecognizability in order to blow potheads' minds and get more juicy grants.
I don't think it's quite like that... I don't think for example that this means "everything is one thing" or whatever. It's just that the underlying rules of the universe defy intuition. I think when people say things like that they're bringing their assumptions from other fields somewhere it doesn't really apply. (I think that we can isolate consciousness, individuality etc... to epiphenomena arising as a result of this more fundamental underlying mechanism)
Science is wrong about information. Kinda.
It CAN be destroyed in their idea of what it means for information to be "destroyed," but their fundamental assumptions about what that means are wrong.
The only information that needs to exist is that which directly creates the current moment. Everything else is up for grabs until it becomes relevant again. When it goes out of "scope", information goes back into an uncertain state. Think about a pebble ten feet below the surface of the moon-- That pebble doesn't actually exist in our current frame of reference because it's unobservable, and any informational proof of its existence is "cloudy." The only thing that makes it exist is the possibility that somewhere under the surface of the moon, there is a pebble. But it doesn't matter to any larger process exactly where. All systems are likely like this-- things become true or false depending both on observation, AND pre-existing information about their state that is left to the outside world.
Think of it this way... A very crude, slightly wrong narrative... Every time you remember what your mom's face looks like, it's different. But reality warps to make your memory right, because whichever bit of information is "canonical" in your current frame of reference takes precedence. The problem is that this is completely unfalsifiable, because science as it stands now relies on verification.
It solves a lot of absurdities with the "many worlds" interpretation. It makes the entire universe much more simple, isolates it to a single state but with an infinite pool of possibility outside of it. It also meshes nicely with the idea of relativity, because all that CAN exist is the immediate (in the sense of local) frame of reference.
I think this is what lots of mainstream scientists are referring to when they hypothesize about the entire universe and all the matter in it being only made up of one single photon/whatever particle wrapping back on itself, bumping into itself, over and over through time, but they had to dumb it down to unrecognizability in order to blow potheads' minds and get more juicy grants.
I don't think it's quite like that... I don't think for example that this means "everything is one thing" or whatever. It's just that the underlying rules of the universe defy intuition. I think when people say things like that they're bringing their assumptions from other fields somewhere it doesn't really apply. (I think that we can isolate consciousness, individuality etc... to epiphenomena arising as a result of this more fundamental underlying mechanism)
@bajax
> Think about a pebble ten feet below the surface of the moon-- That pebble doesn't actually exist in our current frame of reference because it's unobservable, and any informational proof of its existence is "cloudy."
Still exists tho.
>The only thing that makes it exist is the possibility that somewhere under the surface of the moon, there is a pebble.
What makes it exist is that it exists.
I see materialists/atheits/science nerds make this weird error a lot. There is no conceptual distinction between truth and provability in your mental lexicon.
> things become true or false depending both on observation, AND pre-existing information about their state that is left to the outside world.
A thing's truth or falsehood actually has zero relationship whatsoever to your ability to know its truth or falsehood.
> Think about a pebble ten feet below the surface of the moon-- That pebble doesn't actually exist in our current frame of reference because it's unobservable, and any informational proof of its existence is "cloudy."
Still exists tho.
>The only thing that makes it exist is the possibility that somewhere under the surface of the moon, there is a pebble.
What makes it exist is that it exists.
I see materialists/atheits/science nerds make this weird error a lot. There is no conceptual distinction between truth and provability in your mental lexicon.
> things become true or false depending both on observation, AND pre-existing information about their state that is left to the outside world.
A thing's truth or falsehood actually has zero relationship whatsoever to your ability to know its truth or falsehood.
@Eris >Still exists tho.
Only sort of. It exists within YOU before it exists for sure in the outside world.
>I see materialists/atheits/science nerds make this weird error a lot. There is no conceptual distinction between truth and provability in your mental lexicon.
This is basically anti-materialist stance. On a very rough level, what I'm saying is that "the world is a dream" To make it a little weirder and muddy the waters a bit, "the world is a play of truths and falsehoods that goes deeper than mere physical reality." Even deeper it starts implying the existence of morality etc... But at that point you get to where normal science can't say anything because of the restrictions it puts on itself to keep itself useful.
>A thing's truth or falsehood actually has zero relationship whatsoever to your ability to know its truth or falsehood.
It's not about your ability to "know," it's about how it relates to your local frame of reference. The most important thing to take away from what I'm saying is that we are INSIDE of this system, and truth and falsehood for us is as absolute as you say.
The implication I'm making isn't what you seem to think it is... IMO, we could be doing things such as playing a game, being tested (the same way one tests hypothetical propositions in their head), or just generating meaning as such from the experience of existence. (Basically this thread is me trying to read the mind of God, which seems intentionally walled of from us at this point. Maybe because knowing it would make our existence impossible for some reason.)
Only sort of. It exists within YOU before it exists for sure in the outside world.
>I see materialists/atheits/science nerds make this weird error a lot. There is no conceptual distinction between truth and provability in your mental lexicon.
This is basically anti-materialist stance. On a very rough level, what I'm saying is that "the world is a dream" To make it a little weirder and muddy the waters a bit, "the world is a play of truths and falsehoods that goes deeper than mere physical reality." Even deeper it starts implying the existence of morality etc... But at that point you get to where normal science can't say anything because of the restrictions it puts on itself to keep itself useful.
>A thing's truth or falsehood actually has zero relationship whatsoever to your ability to know its truth or falsehood.
It's not about your ability to "know," it's about how it relates to your local frame of reference. The most important thing to take away from what I'm saying is that we are INSIDE of this system, and truth and falsehood for us is as absolute as you say.
The implication I'm making isn't what you seem to think it is... IMO, we could be doing things such as playing a game, being tested (the same way one tests hypothetical propositions in their head), or just generating meaning as such from the experience of existence. (Basically this thread is me trying to read the mind of God, which seems intentionally walled of from us at this point. Maybe because knowing it would make our existence impossible for some reason.)
@bajax
>Only sort of. It exists within YOU before it exists for sure in the outside world.
Other way around? I have no knowledge of it, it doesn't exist "to me," but in the perspective of the objective world i.e. God, it exists.
>On a very rough level, what I'm saying is that "the world is a dream"
Yeah that's the paradoxical conclusion of abject empiricist materialism: There is no reality other than my experiences and measurements. A tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it not only makes no sound, but didn't even fall and doesn't even exist.
>It's not about your ability to "know," it's about how it relates to your local frame of reference.
It's not about X it's about X but rephrased.
>and truth and falsehood for us is as absolute as you say.
I find all juxtaposition of the word "truth" and phrases like "for us" or "to me" to be physically repulsive and metaphysically disgusting.
>Only sort of. It exists within YOU before it exists for sure in the outside world.
Other way around? I have no knowledge of it, it doesn't exist "to me," but in the perspective of the objective world i.e. God, it exists.
>On a very rough level, what I'm saying is that "the world is a dream"
Yeah that's the paradoxical conclusion of abject empiricist materialism: There is no reality other than my experiences and measurements. A tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it not only makes no sound, but didn't even fall and doesn't even exist.
>It's not about your ability to "know," it's about how it relates to your local frame of reference.
It's not about X it's about X but rephrased.
>and truth and falsehood for us is as absolute as you say.
I find all juxtaposition of the word "truth" and phrases like "for us" or "to me" to be physically repulsive and metaphysically disgusting.
@Eris >but in the perspective of the objective world i.e. God, it exists.
God is not just the objective world. It is also all possibilities that could ever exist at the same time. Towards the end of the middle ages, the Christian obsession with capital Truth led western civilization down a path of valuing verification and consistency. Which has been extremely great for us all, but also has led to many of the current problems r.e. nihilism, constant societal projection in lieu of integration of psychological forces etc.
But that's not all there is.
>It's not about X it's about X but rephrased.
No. They're very different. The double-slit experiment, and further down from that bell's inequalities leads me to that conclusion.
>Yeah that's the paradoxical conclusion of abject empiricist materialism: There is no reality other than my experiences and measurements. A tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it not only makes no sound, but didn't even fall and doesn't even exist.
But it MORE than existed. It was more real than real, in the sense that it was everything that that tree could possibly be.
>I find all juxtaposition of the word "truth" and phrases like "for us" or "to me" to be physically repulsive and metaphysically disgusting.
Postmodernism is the deepest poison. It's not that it's wrong, it's that the way it's presented leads humanity to the wrong conclusions. We ate the fruit of the tree of Knowledge before we were ready. It lead us to most of the problems with the modern world-- nihilism etcetcetc all that shit Nietzsche wrote about. Postmodernism is the result of valuing raw, irrelevant, deracinated knowledge before we had truly learned the value of experience, life, and sensation, the meaning of existing at all.
Why was that tree in the garden in the first place if we weren't meant to EVENTUALLY partake of its fruits? (symbolically speaking, obv.)
I think you are slightly infected by this very poison, because you are stuck in a very limited view of what reality is, mistaking what I'm talking about for a nihilistic negation of meaning.
I am not trying to invalidate the real world, but to elevate every single atom of it.
God is not just the objective world. It is also all possibilities that could ever exist at the same time. Towards the end of the middle ages, the Christian obsession with capital Truth led western civilization down a path of valuing verification and consistency. Which has been extremely great for us all, but also has led to many of the current problems r.e. nihilism, constant societal projection in lieu of integration of psychological forces etc.
But that's not all there is.
>It's not about X it's about X but rephrased.
No. They're very different. The double-slit experiment, and further down from that bell's inequalities leads me to that conclusion.
>Yeah that's the paradoxical conclusion of abject empiricist materialism: There is no reality other than my experiences and measurements. A tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it not only makes no sound, but didn't even fall and doesn't even exist.
But it MORE than existed. It was more real than real, in the sense that it was everything that that tree could possibly be.
>I find all juxtaposition of the word "truth" and phrases like "for us" or "to me" to be physically repulsive and metaphysically disgusting.
Postmodernism is the deepest poison. It's not that it's wrong, it's that the way it's presented leads humanity to the wrong conclusions. We ate the fruit of the tree of Knowledge before we were ready. It lead us to most of the problems with the modern world-- nihilism etcetcetc all that shit Nietzsche wrote about. Postmodernism is the result of valuing raw, irrelevant, deracinated knowledge before we had truly learned the value of experience, life, and sensation, the meaning of existing at all.
Why was that tree in the garden in the first place if we weren't meant to EVENTUALLY partake of its fruits? (symbolically speaking, obv.)
I think you are slightly infected by this very poison, because you are stuck in a very limited view of what reality is, mistaking what I'm talking about for a nihilistic negation of meaning.
I am not trying to invalidate the real world, but to elevate every single atom of it.
@bajax
> It is also all possibilities that could ever exist at the same time
I don't believe there are any possibilities. Time is a flat circle. There is exactly one universe, one timeline, and all of its features are fixed. There is only one set of events that will have ever happened on january 6th 2020. There is no Rick and Morty-esque multiverse alternative.
> The double-slit experiment
Literally just an ineffective measurement tool that popscience pseudonerds misinterpret.
Literally all quantum physics is just having tools that are insufficient to measure what you are measuring for, refusing to accept that that is even possible, and trying to interpret the nonsense data they give you anyway.
"If you observe a photon it changes! Consciousness effects reality!!!"
No retard, you're just obfuscating that to "observe" a photon you have to shoot it with an electron. News flash: When you hit a ball with another ball its trajectory changes.
>But it MORE than existed. It was more real than real, in the sense that it was everything that that tree could possibly be.
I am unable to parse any meaning from this sequence of words.
>Why was that tree in the garden in the first place if we weren't meant to EVENTUALLY partake of its fruits?
Just because I put an ape and a lion in the same zoo doesn't mean I want the lion to eat the ape.
Remember: We never ate from the second tree.
>because you are stuck in a very limited view of what reality is
That's good.
>I am not trying to invalidate the real world, but to elevate every single atom of it.
Is it not good enough as it is
> It is also all possibilities that could ever exist at the same time
I don't believe there are any possibilities. Time is a flat circle. There is exactly one universe, one timeline, and all of its features are fixed. There is only one set of events that will have ever happened on january 6th 2020. There is no Rick and Morty-esque multiverse alternative.
> The double-slit experiment
Literally just an ineffective measurement tool that popscience pseudonerds misinterpret.
Literally all quantum physics is just having tools that are insufficient to measure what you are measuring for, refusing to accept that that is even possible, and trying to interpret the nonsense data they give you anyway.
"If you observe a photon it changes! Consciousness effects reality!!!"
No retard, you're just obfuscating that to "observe" a photon you have to shoot it with an electron. News flash: When you hit a ball with another ball its trajectory changes.
>But it MORE than existed. It was more real than real, in the sense that it was everything that that tree could possibly be.
I am unable to parse any meaning from this sequence of words.
>Why was that tree in the garden in the first place if we weren't meant to EVENTUALLY partake of its fruits?
Just because I put an ape and a lion in the same zoo doesn't mean I want the lion to eat the ape.
Remember: We never ate from the second tree.
>because you are stuck in a very limited view of what reality is
That's good.
>I am not trying to invalidate the real world, but to elevate every single atom of it.
Is it not good enough as it is
@Eris >Is it not good enough as it is
Yes. But I don't think you're seeing it for what it is.
>No retard, you're just obfuscating that to "observe" a photon you have to shoot it with an electron. News flash: When you hit a ball with another ball its trajectory changes.
No. This is not at all how it works. This is mechanistic, borderline materialistic.
Read about Bell's inequalities. It shows why this view is wrong. Boehm is deluded, he wants his newtonian simplicity back.
Yes. But I don't think you're seeing it for what it is.
>No retard, you're just obfuscating that to "observe" a photon you have to shoot it with an electron. News flash: When you hit a ball with another ball its trajectory changes.
No. This is not at all how it works. This is mechanistic, borderline materialistic.
Read about Bell's inequalities. It shows why this view is wrong. Boehm is deluded, he wants his newtonian simplicity back.
@maxmustermann @Eris do you really think this is a coherent or compelling argument?
"I LOST MY EYES THEREFORE NOTHING ELSE EXISTS."
"I LOST MY EYES THEREFORE NOTHING ELSE EXISTS."
@bajax @maxmustermann Do you really think "Read a bunch of gobledygook that makes no fucking sense" is a coherent or compelling argument?
@bajax @maxmustermann
I'll start taking quantum physics seriously when a single quantum physicist can tell me what the fuck his theories even are.
I'll start taking quantum physics seriously when a single quantum physicist can tell me what the fuck his theories even are.
@Eris @bajax @maxmustermann
I just did. LOL.. It starts with Schrödinger's duality, what you think you see isn't what is real, it's just perception. The rest, is up to what makes sense. What makes sense, is logic. Logic, is fully explained with math (true, false, probability, proofs. Math proofs are "logic" in ways).
The rest is just dots in a puzzle. String theory is a connect the dots idea, with proof dots, and a lot of hand waiving ideas of why some should connect, as is all lager theory, where we build equipment to test...
The rate of physics understanding reality is like the inverse of Moore's Law right now, we are in a dead spot. That's all...
I just did. LOL.. It starts with Schrödinger's duality, what you think you see isn't what is real, it's just perception. The rest, is up to what makes sense. What makes sense, is logic. Logic, is fully explained with math (true, false, probability, proofs. Math proofs are "logic" in ways).
The rest is just dots in a puzzle. String theory is a connect the dots idea, with proof dots, and a lot of hand waiving ideas of why some should connect, as is all lager theory, where we build equipment to test...
The rate of physics understanding reality is like the inverse of Moore's Law right now, we are in a dead spot. That's all...
@Coyote @bajax @maxmustermann
This is just incoherent rambling that tells me nothing and is a perfect example of why no one respects quantum physics.
This is just incoherent rambling that tells me nothing and is a perfect example of why no one respects quantum physics.
@Eris @bajax @maxmustermann
No no, quantum is explained mathematically, it's parallel to harmonics is interesting. I respect quantum physics, it's the FIRST step into tying the unseen to the seen and observable, I respect it immensely, it's where my "turbulence under the surface and you only see the surface, the waves that form and crash on shore" idea stems from! OMG, I respect it, they don't understand the puzzle dot significance of what it is yet... (they being society, or the physicists themselves).
No no, quantum is explained mathematically, it's parallel to harmonics is interesting. I respect quantum physics, it's the FIRST step into tying the unseen to the seen and observable, I respect it immensely, it's where my "turbulence under the surface and you only see the surface, the waves that form and crash on shore" idea stems from! OMG, I respect it, they don't understand the puzzle dot significance of what it is yet... (they being society, or the physicists themselves).
@Coyote @bajax @maxmustermann
>No no, quantum is explained mathematically
If you can't explain it in clear, coherent sentences that a child can understand, it's gobledygook.
>No no, quantum is explained mathematically
If you can't explain it in clear, coherent sentences that a child can understand, it's gobledygook.
@Eris @Coyote @bajax @maxmustermann quantum physics is less coherent than things stoners say about the universe when super mega baked.
@blackeyes @Eris @Coyote @maxmustermann yes. It's also experimentally verified and equations derived from it are used to make all manner of modern technology work, starting with optical media such as CDs,DVDs,bluray etc (many years after the theory was formulated) and recently, as the processes have become smaller and smaller, the design of every single powerful CPU we use. I'm sorry but you can't hand wave it away. You can say they're wrong, you can discard the copenhagen interpretation (which is THE MOST successful scientific theory ever formulated, it was invented in the early 20th century and all its predictions have been borne out even though the guy who invented it himself hated it), you can challenge their conclusions (which in a way is what I'm doing) but you can't escape the underlying reality. On a deep level, all matter and energy quantizes. It isn't based on the intuitive classical de=r*t shit you think it is, thinking that matter and energy behaves the same from the largest to smallest is more of a stoner ass-pull non-thinking move than inventing these weird theories to explain it.
I'm sorry you guys are just wrong about this. The way the universe is described is dependent on a particular frame of observation (notice I didn't say observer: we are part of the universe ourselves and are subject to its internal rules, even though we get clues from some things outside of it). "For me" and "to me", as revolting as they are to you on an aesthetic level, are undeniably the way things operate.
I'm out here wading into the murk trying to recover the thing of moral value you think you're defending by denying this shit, the thing you think you stand to lose. The thing you actually never had because your views as such are based on unquestionable untruths.
The physicist dudebros you hate are just slipping into an easy acceptance of a nihilistic pomo metaphysics because your ilk refuses to even acknowledge the evidence of our eyes.
I'm sorry you guys are just wrong about this. The way the universe is described is dependent on a particular frame of observation (notice I didn't say observer: we are part of the universe ourselves and are subject to its internal rules, even though we get clues from some things outside of it). "For me" and "to me", as revolting as they are to you on an aesthetic level, are undeniably the way things operate.
I'm out here wading into the murk trying to recover the thing of moral value you think you're defending by denying this shit, the thing you think you stand to lose. The thing you actually never had because your views as such are based on unquestionable untruths.
The physicist dudebros you hate are just slipping into an easy acceptance of a nihilistic pomo metaphysics because your ilk refuses to even acknowledge the evidence of our eyes.
Follow
@bajax @Coyote @Eris @maxmustermann @blackeyes Maths equations working doesn't mean the story they attach to it is accurate
There are 100% valid mathematical models that explain 100% of observed astrology, where the Earth is at the centre, they're just more complex
I know there are classical mechanical explanations for the double-slit experiment for example, and probably a lot of other stuff, but it's way to complex to get the details off unless you're retarded autistic smart
Some of it isn't even valid regardless anyway. Phenomena that change when you try and measure them are called "undisprovable" which means they're inherently not science, they're not disprovable, so the scientific method literally just doesn't apply to them, or something like calling it "random". Why's it random? Because we can't predict it? Where does the randomness come from? How the hell does that work? It's just dumb to make that assumption tbh
@applejack @Coyote @Eris @maxmustermann @blackeyes it's not just that "the equations work"-- though they do, ridiculously well. It's that every experiment devised to try and trick the system into revealing some of its "real" (read: newtonian) underlying operations has validated the possibility that yeah, things "change" (it isn't 100% correct to put it this way) when "observed" (ditto). A good heuristic for a conclusion being right is when it defies all your best efforts to get rid of it.
@bajax @applejack @blackeyes @Coyote @maxmustermann
"observed" in this case meaning "shot with a bullet"
"observed" in this case meaning "shot with a bullet"
@Eris @applejack @blackeyes @Coyote @maxmustermann this post indicates a high understanding of QP
I'm not even joking.
I'm not even joking.
