Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:41 pm Right, because if you didn't give a lot of consideration to the decoherence issue, then it must clearly follow that I didn't either.

I don't care how much you've considered it. I'm not in this thread trying to convince anybody any interpretation is correct or any other interpretation is incorrect, and it's quite frankly weird to see non experts doing that when not even the experts have anything close to a consensus about what the correct interpretation is. It's weird. It's some real dunning Krueger shit

Ffs decoherence is not an interpretation.

Ok buddy. You're obviously reading what you want to read.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:46 pm Ok buddy. You're obviously reading what you want to read.

WHAT are you talking about you DK. "not even the experts have anything close to a consensus" dude the consensus is that decoherence doesn't fully solve it, with some "experts" believing otherwise and they are wrong. Because it's already in the definition of decoherence that it can't even solve it in principle.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:26 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:43 pm

And if some random on a philosoph forum mentions that, then so it must be! Huzzah.

But in the end you're just a random who after years still hasn't looked up the debate on decoherence and why the emerging consensus is that it doesn't solve the measurement problem. Imo you can't even possibly understand the measurement problem if you think decoherence can fully solve it.

In the end, I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution, nor am I, a non expert, telling other non experts what is and isn't the truth at the frontier of physics. I haven't said any of the popular interpretations among experts are clearly ridiculous.

So as a random on the internet, it makes total sense for me not to be over confident about what's right and wrong on the frontier of physics. I'm behaving like a random on the internet who knows he is one. It would be cool if other randoms had the self awareness to do the same.

Appreciating the cartoon isn't the same as saying it's the ultimate scientific truth on the nature of reality

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:15 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:46 pm Ok buddy. You're obviously reading what you want to read.

WHAT are you talking about you DK. "not even the experts have anything close to a consensus" dude the consensus is that decoherence doesn't fully solve it, with some "experts" believing otherwise and they are wrong. Because it's already in the definition of decoherence that it can't even solve it in principle.

Why are you still ranting about this? Did you not read when I said "I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution"

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:22 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:26 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:02 pm
But in the end you're just a random who after years still hasn't looked up the debate on decoherence and why the emerging consensus is that it doesn't solve the measurement problem. Imo you can't even possibly understand the measurement problem if you think decoherence can fully solve it.

In the end, I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution, nor am I, a non expert, telling other non experts what is and isn't the truth at the frontier of physics. I haven't said any of the popular interpretations among experts are clearly ridiculous.

So as a random on the internet, it makes total sense for me not to be over confident about what's right and wrong on the frontier of physics. I'm behaving like a random on the internet who knows he is one. It would be cool if other randoms had the self awareness to do the same.

Appreciating the cartoon isn't the same as saying it's the ultimate scientific truth on the nature of reality

I truly have no idea how this response of yours is a response to my post. What in my post makes you think I'm talking about the cartoon at all?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:15 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:46 pm Ok buddy. You're obviously reading what you want to read.

WHAT are you talking about you DK. "not even the experts have anything close to a consensus" dude the consensus is that decoherence doesn't fully solve it, with some "experts" believing otherwise and they are wrong. Because it's already in the definition of decoherence that it can't even solve it in principle.

Why are you still ranting about this? Did you not read when I said "I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution"

Okay but then why are you into the MWI interpretation when you know that it's "treatment" of the measurement problem is wrong, and why are you so fucking outraged when I point out that it's wrong?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:26 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:15 pm
WHAT are you talking about you DK. "not even the experts have anything close to a consensus" dude the consensus is that decoherence doesn't fully solve it, with some "experts" believing otherwise and they are wrong. Because it's already in the definition of decoherence that it can't even solve it in principle.

Why are you still ranting about this? Did you not read when I said "I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution"

Okay but then why are you into the MWI interpretation when you know that it's "treatment" of the measurement problem is wrong, and why are you so fucking outraged when I point out that it's wrong?

You're confused about a lot of things here, including your competency to judge if MWI is wrong or not.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:23 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:22 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 6:26 pm

In the end, I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution, nor am I, a non expert, telling other non experts what is and isn't the truth at the frontier of physics. I haven't said any of the popular interpretations among experts are clearly ridiculous.

So as a random on the internet, it makes total sense for me not to be over confident about what's right and wrong on the frontier of physics. I'm behaving like a random on the internet who knows he is one. It would be cool if other randoms had the self awareness to do the same.

Appreciating the cartoon isn't the same as saying it's the ultimate scientific truth on the nature of reality

I truly have no idea how this response of yours is a response to my post. What in my post makes you think I'm talking about the cartoon at all?

You weren't clear about what you were responding to so it was a natural assumption I suppose.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:28 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:26 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:23 pm

Why are you still ranting about this? Did you not read when I said "I'm not saying decoherence alone is a full solution"

Okay but then why are you into the MWI interpretation when you know that it's "treatment" of the measurement problem is wrong, and why are you so fucking outraged when I point out that it's wrong?

You're confused about a lot of things here, including your competency to judge if MWI is wrong or not.

Fine, you're just a DK after all who can't even be consistent for 2 minutes.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:30 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:23 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:22 pm

Appreciating the cartoon isn't the same as saying it's the ultimate scientific truth on the nature of reality

I truly have no idea how this response of yours is a response to my post. What in my post makes you think I'm talking about the cartoon at all?

You weren't clear about what you were responding to so it was a natural assumption I suppose.

I was responding to Atla, who opened his conversation with me, responding to a joke I made about how what they're saying is similar to MWI, with immediately basically saying MWI is ridiculous.

Nothing to do with the cartoon. The cartoon is amusing.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:32 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:30 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 7:23 pm

I truly have no idea how this response of yours is a response to my post. What in my post makes you think I'm talking about the cartoon at all?

You weren't clear about what you were responding to so it was a natural assumption I suppose.

I was responding to Atla, who opened his conversation with me, responding to a joke I made about how what they're saying is similar to MWI, with immediately basically saying MWI is ridiculous.

Nothing to do with the cartoon. The cartoon is amusing.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to bring the intelligence that operates throughout ALL matter into the 'equation'..aka God.

If it wasn't for some certain things I've learned about this entity, I'd be of the opinion that we are indeed within a simulation - and everything we perceive is at the ultimate behest of some super advanced A.I. (rather than a Divine being - using something akin to...a super advance A.I.)

The reason I feel this needs to be considered is that it appears everything is 'done' to maintain maximum efficiency. Take a computer game that simulates reality for example. The processor(s) isn't overly concerned with things that arn't being viewed by the observer. So as the view within your monitor or VR headset swings around, all the massive amounts of data pertaining to what will eventually be rendered as pixel hue\colour\position is only 'bothered' with when required to be projected for the human to observe it. Of course, the environmental area data is loaded into GPU memory for quick access for processing, but this isn't the key point I am attempting to make.

So my theory is that this God (or simulation if you still want to be atheist) appears to insist our reality per human perception is also of extreme efficiency. It makes sense that this would be the case, who wants entropy to increase at a greater rate if that can be avoided.

Thus, the wave-function collapse is akin to the processor (God) providing the observer with the observation required - where all around the information is in a wave fuzzy wuzzy form.

Just thought I'd bounce that around in your craniums for thought..

Why would you call it a 'god' and how are you defining 'god'? Why would a fundamental consciousness need to be supernatural? It doesn't even make sense. Oh never mind. There's no point in trying to reason with the insane

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 12:36 am Why would you call it a 'god' and how are you defining 'god'? Why would a fundamental consciousness need to be supernatural? It doesn't even make sense. Oh never mind. There's no point in trying to reason with the insane

I'm certain my reasoning skills far surpass yours. Personally I don't like the term 'supernatural' and nor did I state that.

I'll define God as an intelligence (not necessarily sentient) that permeates ALL matter and constructs our perceivable reality in realtime, operating below the scale we can ever detect - the Planck scale.