Skip Navigation

Posts
4
Comments
684
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • There are no interpretations of quantum physics that require consciousness for observation, so maybe you should look a little closer at what it actually does say? You can pick and choose the science you want to subscribe to of course, but it's been making verifiable predictions for a hundred years now. If you ignore it because it disagrees with your preconceptions... well, that's called religion. ¯\_(ツ)_

  • to say that reality is subjective or something, as if a blood clot in my leg that I'm just not aware of can't REALLY kill me.

    It's not that reality isn't subjective it's that acting as if it is subjective isn't useful for our everyday experience. So we act as if it is objective. But acting as if reality is objective so you can live your life does not mean reality is objective, and personally, I think being absolutely certain that it is objective leads to shit like "Jesus loves you and died for your sins" - not to great science.

    There is a uniform and self-consistent reality

    The great value of science is to give us greater access to that reality

    I'm really not trying to be shitty or anything about this, but science is increasingly showing us something considerably more complicated than that. Science absolutely gives us greater understanding of classical reality which is useful to us because airplanes fly. However, like it or not, science also is telling us that reality is a strange miasma of superpositions and that we actively participate in the creation of reality by simply existing/observing. At the very least, your outlook that it "is... uniform and self-consistent" does not appear to represent what is truly happening, it just represents what you think is happening, which is, ultimately, the point of the OPs meme. Everything you think you know is being filtered through your experience of it and whether this represents some objective reality or not, it represents it enough for you to live your life and feel like it is objective and consistent. But that isn't necessarily so. As wild as it sounds, there may be an infinite number of branching realities and you are walking down only one, and considering it as "objective reality." Nevermind that "reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes - there is no way to determine that what you think you experience as "reality" is anything more than the qualia of a brain in a jar. This is Descartes 101.

    Anyway, for anyone interested in this stuff, there's a great video from Sean Carrol about that outlines the uncomfortable unanswered questions in quantum physics and their implications about reality here.

    Edit to add: on somewhat of a tangent, there's a fascinating book regarding your brain and reality I really love called Free Will

  • And yet, we have to seriously look to be able to be sure. What a world.

  • My experience has been that the more people there are, the more difficult it is to be "seen" in a conversation, the shittier everyone starts behaving. So Lemmy is better off if for no other reason than it is a much smaller userbase. The nice thing about Federation that I could see happening is if the whole gets big enough, a few instances could cordon themselves off into a smaller subset and recreate this small-userbase-experience if it came to that.

  • I am of course not the OP but I would assume they believe that statelessness would somehow equate to classlessness?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • The founding fathers set this shit up and they knew it was going to go sideways from the moment they signed the paperwork. If anything, it likely lasted longer than they imagined it would.

    "A republic, if you can keep it" - Benjamin Franklin, 1787

  • The Matrix really made me understand where Descartes was coming from. When we say something is "real" it's always subjective and cannot be objective. That's an incredibly difficult concept for most humans to truly grasp.

  • No Bustelo or Bones? Word, I'm good.

  • I'm always using the word "infer" when I obviously mean "imply."

  • Except that they most certainly are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - hell, they pay federal taxes. They aren't subject to the jurisdiction of any particular state is all.

  • I know you're joking, but it made me think.

    On platforms like Twitter I never felt seen. I felt like I was talking to myself for the 30 seconds I actually engaged with it (I never could stand the format or the interface really).

    On Lemmy I do feel seen, because it's so much smaller. I know people read what I write and I get way more feedback here than I've ever gotten since (maybe) 2010-era Reddit.

    But important? Anyone who can use the Internet to make themselves feel important must have been a sociopath to begin with because as near as I can tell the Internet is a misery machine designed to make you feel like a dumbshit.

    Come to think of it, that's probably why I hate the entire concept of "influencers" and the human toilets who call themselves that.

  • It's actually quite nice, conversations seem like you can get heard and people are generous with upvotes. It's like Reddit was in 2010, but it's been that way for a couple years (for me) now. I hope it continues.

  • And yet not a single word in that entire article about bots being used to post on Internet forums to engineer public opinion, which is certainly what came to my mind when I read the headline.

    The closest it comes is the section where it admits that because they're all spoofing known Big Tech scrapers, they can't actually say how much of any particular activity is actually going on beyond some broad generalizations.

    I can confirm though - my web server was positively getting hammered until I locked it down with fail2ban.

  • Every day it just becomes more crystal clear that Putin absolutely owns these two fucks.

  • meow

    Jump
  • I've been through pretty much every stage shown here and now I'm firmly in the "I don't know" camp. It feels like I'll be here until I'm dead, tbh. Not that it matters (maybe).

  • It was different, there was more of what at least looked like cause->effect. People were irrational, but not directly belligerent about their irrationality. Round table talk formats didn't seem so useless, there being people who were more learned than you giving useful explanations about what was happening in the world (that made sense). Watching them now seems like the blind leading the blind. The world was more coherent and the incoherent parts of it seemed largely marginalized and sidelined. This marginalization seemed fairly permanent, like you could count on society making progress in science and technology without regard to your stupid uncle's sexist bullshit or your crazy aunt's vitamin therapy and aversion to aluminum cookware. Now all of them are wrapped up in one Super Saiyan called "Secretary of Health and Human Services."

  • TIL you can grow radishes in pulled pork

  • Man that's a weak-ass looking sourdough loaf.