Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Darkneos]

Seems to me as: physics was dead deterministic before QM, and that didn't bother you. But now that under some interpretations of QM, looking at it from the everyday human perspective, maybe we do have some influence over our fate, you see this as life being pointless, and anyone could see this?

There is determinism and everything having happened already, you’re avoiding what you said.

Again: show the scientific EVIDENCE for these inhibiting factors. Heh-heh

If it's anything more than circular handwaving about macroscopic objects and complexity and environments and degrees of freedom and whatever, the Nobel is yours.

Considering every quantum physicist I’ve talked to knows about it and you don’t and you don’t have anything to show there isn’t one I don’t really owe you anything. You’re the one with circular handwaving here and it’s obvious you haven’t actually talked to those who do this for their work. Try saying this on a forum like arstechnica, you’re not gonna get far.

That's just, like, your interpretation

It’s not, you’re just misunderstanding QM as usual

[Darkneos]

Yeah there is this whole new field of quantum biology now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

I once tried to understand how quantum photosynthesis might work, and what that could mean. I concluded that I would need to spend way too much time on that one topic. Maybe if I'll have enough time someday, I'll revisit it.

Enzymes, DNA mutation, smell etc. Microtubules? Humanity is just starting to understand quantum mechanics, while the biosphere already seems to be at least partially quantum-based. I think it's quite likely that what quamtum biology knows now is just the tip of the iceberg.

Birds keeping quantum entangled particles in their bodies, and using them for navigation. Such things are happening at room temperature, in "fuzzy" environments, not so long ago this was thought to be impossible.

You’re jumping too far ahead there.

A lot of the applications are couched in unknowns and maybes. We can’t say anything about the biosphere. They also don’t keep quantum entangled particles in their bodies, you misread that section of the link…again.

But again this is what happens when you have someone without a degree talking about this stuff.

Now science isn't allowed to study the biosphere either because it finds facts that disagree with your BS?

And why is "entangled radical pair mechanism", "entangled electron pair" not related to entanglement? I mean this is indeed not certain knowledge but it's literally written there and you say it isn't. The theory of European robins using spin-entanglement has been around for a while.

Again you didn’t read your own link, they THINK QM will explain these things we don’t understand but it’s not sure yet.

Nothing disagrees with my “bs” if anything it’s just demonstrating how shallow your comprehension of this stuff is. Which is expected from someone who doesn’t have a degree or spoken to experts.

YES OF COURSE IT DOES.
Wow it really went 100 miles over his head..

It didn’t, it’s literally the multiverse as people commonly understand it. Like I said you don’t even read the theories you quote.

No, google doesn't prove me wrong.
And at this point I doubt that the people you talked to actually knew what they were talking about, or you just misunderstood them.

It proved you wrong about nonlocality, macro/micro, entanglement, quantum eraser, pilot wave theory, even asking people who perform the experiments and calculations what you’ve said so far shows me you know nothing and just blindly spout quantum terms.

Even your claim about there being some debate between realism and anti realism in QM was wrong.

Like, at this point it’s just easier to call you stupid when it comes to this. I’m not doubting you know your stuff with philosophy but this is outside your wheelhouse.

Go to a science forum, physics forum, or just email some researchers (I have done this). Because this is just embarrassing at this point.

[Atla]

There is determinism and everything having happened already, you’re avoiding what you said.

I said no such thing here and you couldn't quote it, little liar.

Considering every quantum physicist I’ve talked to knows about it and you don’t and you don’t have anything to show there isn’t one I don’t really owe you anything. You’re the one with circular handwaving here and it’s obvious you haven’t actually talked to those who do this for their work. Try saying this on a forum like arstechnica, you’re not gonna get far.

If all these experts really told you what these inhibiting factors are, then you could just give a link, little liar. After all it's well-known, well-established.

[Atla]

You’re jumping too far ahead there.

A lot of the applications are couched in unknowns and maybes. We can’t say anything about the biosphere. They also don’t keep quantum entangled particles in their bodies, you misread that section of the link…again.

But again this is what happens when you have someone without a degree talking about this stuff.

Now science isn't allowed to study the biosphere either because it finds facts that disagree with your BS?

And why is "entangled radical pair mechanism", "entangled electron pair" not related to entanglement? I mean this is indeed not certain knowledge but it's literally written there and you say it isn't. The theory of European robins using spin-entanglement has been around for a while.

Again you didn’t read your own link, they THINK QM will explain these things we don’t understand but it’s not sure yet.

Nothing disagrees with my “bs” if anything it’s just demonstrating how shallow your comprehension of this stuff is. Which is expected from someone who doesn’t have a degree or spoken to experts.

YES OF COURSE IT DOES.
Wow it really went 100 miles over his head..

It didn’t, it’s literally the multiverse as people commonly understand it. Like I said you don’t even read the theories you quote.

No, google doesn't prove me wrong.
And at this point I doubt that the people you talked to actually knew what they were talking about, or you just misunderstood them.

It proved you wrong about nonlocality, macro/micro, entanglement, quantum eraser, pilot wave theory, even asking people who perform the experiments and calculations what you’ve said so far shows me you know nothing and just blindly spout quantum terms.

Even your claim about there being some debate between realism and anti realism in QM was wrong.

Like, at this point it’s just easier to call you stupid when it comes to this. I’m not doubting you know your stuff with philosophy but this is outside your wheelhouse.

Go to a science forum, physics forum, or just email some researchers (I have done this). Because this is just embarrassing at this point.

Nah, you're just a profoundly miserable piece of shit who was destroyed in a "debate".

[Darkneos]

There is determinism and everything having happened already, you’re avoiding what you said.

I said no such thing here and you couldn't quote it, little liar.

Considering every quantum physicist I’ve talked to knows about it and you don’t and you don’t have anything to show there isn’t one I don’t really owe you anything. You’re the one with circular handwaving here and it’s obvious you haven’t actually talked to those who do this for their work. Try saying this on a forum like arstechnica, you’re not gonna get far.

If all these experts really told you what these inhibiting factors are, then you could just give a link, little liar. After all it's well-known, well-established.

I literally just quote the segment where you said it, you can’t wiggle out of this one.

As to your second part they said they couldn’t explain it with having to teach me the field of QM. Because that’s how advanced this stuff is, so it’s a little funny watching you make the mistakes lay people do.

[Atla]

There is determinism and everything having happened already, you’re avoiding what you said.

I said no such thing here and you couldn't quote it, little liar.

Considering every quantum physicist I’ve talked to knows about it and you don’t and you don’t have anything to show there isn’t one I don’t really owe you anything. You’re the one with circular handwaving here and it’s obvious you haven’t actually talked to those who do this for their work. Try saying this on a forum like arstechnica, you’re not gonna get far.

If all these experts really told you what these inhibiting factors are, then you could just give a link, little liar. After all it's well-known, well-established.

I literally just quote the segment where you said it, you can’t wiggle out of this one.

As to your second part they said they couldn’t explain it with having to teach me the field of QM. Because that’s how advanced this stuff is, so it’s a little funny watching you make the mistakes lay people do.

I didn't say it in that segment, little liar.

And of course they couldn't explain it to you even if it existed, that's why I asked just for a link.

[Darkneos]

Now science isn't allowed to study the biosphere either because it finds facts that disagree with your BS?

And why is "entangled radical pair mechanism", "entangled electron pair" not related to entanglement? I mean this is indeed not certain knowledge but it's literally written there and you say it isn't. The theory of European robins using spin-entanglement has been around for a while.

Again you didn’t read your own link, they THINK QM will explain these things we don’t understand but it’s not sure yet.

Nothing disagrees with my “bs” if anything it’s just demonstrating how shallow your comprehension of this stuff is. Which is expected from someone who doesn’t have a degree or spoken to experts.

YES OF COURSE IT DOES.
Wow it really went 100 miles over his head..

It didn’t, it’s literally the multiverse as people commonly understand it. Like I said you don’t even read the theories you quote.

No, google doesn't prove me wrong.
And at this point I doubt that the people you talked to actually knew what they were talking about, or you just misunderstood them.

It proved you wrong about nonlocality, macro/micro, entanglement, quantum eraser, pilot wave theory, even asking people who perform the experiments and calculations what you’ve said so far shows me you know nothing and just blindly spout quantum terms.

Even your claim about there being some debate between realism and anti realism in QM was wrong.

Like, at this point it’s just easier to call you stupid when it comes to this. I’m not doubting you know your stuff with philosophy but this is outside your wheelhouse.

Go to a science forum, physics forum, or just email some researchers (I have done this). Because this is just embarrassing at this point.

Nah, you're just a profoundly miserable piece of shit who was destroyed in a "debate".

That’s cute. This is more like trying to explain to a child how out of their depth they are.

Considering you don’t have any real evidence to back your claims, misunderstandings about the subjects you quote, and that a google search shows you’re mistaken this just sounds like cope.

You read a little bit about it and thing you know enough to play with the big boys and yet you haven’t actually spoke to any of them. Because the real understanding to all this is hard and intensive but QM is shiny so you want to have the veneer of knowing it because it makes you seem intelligent.

But considering when I fact check this it’s often wrong and when I share these to physics forums they start with how you’re mistaken and that I have spoken to people who do the work in the field there is no reason anyone should believe you.

Like I said, you have a shallow understanding of the field, which is forgivable since it’s exceedingly complex and requires advanced degrees to even start with it.

Which is why I usually don’t say much about it and leave it to the experts. But this…I can’t really let misinformation propagate.

[Darkneos]

I said no such thing here and you couldn't quote it, little liar.


If all these experts really told you what these inhibiting factors are, then you could just give a link, little liar. After all it's well-known, well-established.

I literally just quote the segment where you said it, you can’t wiggle out of this one.

As to your second part they said they couldn’t explain it with having to teach me the field of QM. Because that’s how advanced this stuff is, so it’s a little funny watching you make the mistakes lay people do.

I didn't say it in that segment, little liar.

And of course they couldn't explain it to you even if it existed, that's why I asked just for a link.

At this point you’re either blind or stupid:

I think this issue was firmly resolved by nonlocality. You "bring it into existence" or how I would rather view it, its "eigenstate-ness correlates with your/our eigenstate-ness" 10 years ago. So it happens "retroactively" or how I would rather view it, spacetime may be a weakly emergent property, time is an illusion on this level.

If the light was emitted 10 billion years ago, this still works all the same. It can appear from our everyday perspective that we can choose from a limited set of possibilites, what happened 10 billion years ago.

Which is absolutely mindblowing of course, if more people understood this new picture of reality, philosophy forums would be on fire.

They can’t explain it to me because it would require teaching me the field to do so. Not everything can me broken down for lay understanding, that’s what makes QM difficult to talk about. Because the interpretations are just guess about the math and experiments which are all solid and proven. I know that’s a new concept for you, perhaps humility will serve you well.

[Atla]

Again you didn’t read your own link, they THINK QM will explain these things we don’t understand but it’s not sure yet.

Nothing disagrees with my “bs” if anything it’s just demonstrating how shallow your comprehension of this stuff is. Which is expected from someone who doesn’t have a degree or spoken to experts.



It didn’t, it’s literally the multiverse as people commonly understand it. Like I said you don’t even read the theories you quote.


It proved you wrong about nonlocality, macro/micro, entanglement, quantum eraser, pilot wave theory, even asking people who perform the experiments and calculations what you’ve said so far shows me you know nothing and just blindly spout quantum terms.

Even your claim about there being some debate between realism and anti realism in QM was wrong.

Like, at this point it’s just easier to call you stupid when it comes to this. I’m not doubting you know your stuff with philosophy but this is outside your wheelhouse.

Go to a science forum, physics forum, or just email some researchers (I have done this). Because this is just embarrassing at this point.

Nah, you're just a profoundly miserable piece of shit who was destroyed in a "debate".

That’s cute. This is more like trying to explain to a child how out of their depth they are.

Considering you don’t have any real evidence to back your claims, misunderstandings about the subjects you quote, and that a google search shows you’re mistaken this just sounds like cope.

You read a little bit about it and thing you know enough to play with the big boys and yet you haven’t actually spoke to any of them. Because the real understanding to all this is hard and intensive but QM is shiny so you want to have the veneer of knowing it because it makes you seem intelligent.

But considering when I fact check this it’s often wrong and when I share these to physics forums they start with how you’re mistaken and that I have spoken to people who do the work in the field there is no reason anyone should believe you.

Like I said, you have a shallow understanding of the field, which is forgivable since it’s exceedingly complex and requires advanced degrees to even start with it.

Which is why I usually don’t say much about it and leave it to the experts. But this…I can’t really let misinformation propagate.

More crying. How many of these imaginary friends do you even have at this point?

[Darkneos]

But again, when verified you were still wrong about the quoted part.

[Darkneos]

Nah, you're just a profoundly miserable piece of shit who was destroyed in a "debate".

That’s cute. This is more like trying to explain to a child how out of their depth they are.

Considering you don’t have any real evidence to back your claims, misunderstandings about the subjects you quote, and that a google search shows you’re mistaken this just sounds like cope.

You read a little bit about it and thing you know enough to play with the big boys and yet you haven’t actually spoke to any of them. Because the real understanding to all this is hard and intensive but QM is shiny so you want to have the veneer of knowing it because it makes you seem intelligent.

But considering when I fact check this it’s often wrong and when I share these to physics forums they start with how you’re mistaken and that I have spoken to people who do the work in the field there is no reason anyone should believe you.

Like I said, you have a shallow understanding of the field, which is forgivable since it’s exceedingly complex and requires advanced degrees to even start with it.

Which is why I usually don’t say much about it and leave it to the experts. But this…I can’t really let misinformation propagate.

More crying. How many of these imaginary friends do you even have at this point?

You could just go out and do the work instead of embarrassing yourself. A lot of these people are pretty accessible.

[Atla]

I literally just quote the segment where you said it, you can’t wiggle out of this one.

As to your second part they said they couldn’t explain it with having to teach me the field of QM. Because that’s how advanced this stuff is, so it’s a little funny watching you make the mistakes lay people do.

I didn't say it in that segment, little liar.

And of course they couldn't explain it to you even if it existed, that's why I asked just for a link.

At this point you’re either blind or stupid:

I think this issue was firmly resolved by nonlocality. You "bring it into existence" or how I would rather view it, its "eigenstate-ness correlates with your/our eigenstate-ness" 10 years ago. So it happens "retroactively" or how I would rather view it, spacetime may be a weakly emergent property, time is an illusion on this level.

If the light was emitted 10 billion years ago, this still works all the same. It can appear from our everyday perspective that we can choose from a limited set of possibilites, what happened 10 billion years ago.

Which is absolutely mindblowing of course, if more people understood this new picture of reality, philosophy forums would be on fire.

They can’t explain it to me because it would require teaching me the field to do so. Not everything can me broken down for lay understanding, that’s what makes QM difficult to talk about. Because the interpretations are just guess about the math and experiments which are all solid and proven. I know that’s a new concept for you, perhaps humility will serve you well.

Still lying you little shit, I didn't say it there.

And still unable to provide even a link.

[Atla]

That’s cute. This is more like trying to explain to a child how out of their depth they are.

Considering you don’t have any real evidence to back your claims, misunderstandings about the subjects you quote, and that a google search shows you’re mistaken this just sounds like cope.

You read a little bit about it and thing you know enough to play with the big boys and yet you haven’t actually spoke to any of them. Because the real understanding to all this is hard and intensive but QM is shiny so you want to have the veneer of knowing it because it makes you seem intelligent.

But considering when I fact check this it’s often wrong and when I share these to physics forums they start with how you’re mistaken and that I have spoken to people who do the work in the field there is no reason anyone should believe you.

Like I said, you have a shallow understanding of the field, which is forgivable since it’s exceedingly complex and requires advanced degrees to even start with it.

Which is why I usually don’t say much about it and leave it to the experts. But this…I can’t really let misinformation propagate.

More crying. How many of these imaginary friends do you even have at this point?

You could just go out and do the work instead of embarrassing yourself. A lot of these people are pretty accessible.

Well maybe you should talk to them one day, instead of consulting the voices in your head?

[Darkneos]

I didn't say it in that segment, little liar.

And of course they couldn't explain it to you even if it existed, that's why I asked just for a link.

At this point you’re either blind or stupid:

I think this issue was firmly resolved by nonlocality. You "bring it into existence" or how I would rather view it, its "eigenstate-ness correlates with your/our eigenstate-ness" 10 years ago. So it happens "retroactively" or how I would rather view it, spacetime may be a weakly emergent property, time is an illusion on this level.

If the light was emitted 10 billion years ago, this still works all the same. It can appear from our everyday perspective that we can choose from a limited set of possibilites, what happened 10 billion years ago.

Which is absolutely mindblowing of course, if more people understood this new picture of reality, philosophy forums would be on fire.

They can’t explain it to me because it would require teaching me the field to do so. Not everything can me broken down for lay understanding, that’s what makes QM difficult to talk about. Because the interpretations are just guess about the math and experiments which are all solid and proven. I know that’s a new concept for you, perhaps humility will serve you well.

Still lying you little shit, I didn't say it there.

And still unable to provide even a link.

You literally did. There is no help for you if you can’t even see that.

[Darkneos]

More crying. How many of these imaginary friends do you even have at this point?

You could just go out and do the work instead of embarrassing yourself. A lot of these people are pretty accessible.

Well maybe you should talk to them one day, instead of consulting the voices in your head?

You’re the one who needs it, not me.

I know you’re used to feeling smart because this forum is full of nutbars but outside of here you have to actually know what you’re talking about.

Perhaps you’re sloppy from the lack of a challenge.