It's another 'person with no education in physics using quantum mechanics to justify his religious/spiritual beliefs'...

>It's another 'person with no education in physics using quantum mechanics to justify his religious/spiritual beliefs' episode

I wish brainlets would stop doing this

Other urls found in this thread:

hyperianism.com/#learnmore
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

scientists who have studied quantum mechanics still don't have a good explanation for it...until they do it will be a perpetual source of bullshit explanations.

You're right in that open questions in the physical sciences should not be used to justify spiritualist nonsense, but you're not well-read if you don't think there's anything philosophically interesting about quantum mechanics.

Yeah, it's a bunch of shit. But I think the problem is not so much that people lack mathematical skills, more that people mash up different contexts all together and don't know the first thing about scientific models, how experiments and theories work and so on. If you have a good background in that and watch a bunch of Feynman lectures and actually read about it from scientists you can get a whole different idea of it without dwelling in the mathematics of it.

A lot of people just think it's a mind over matter thing. I think it's so ridiculous that there is a dual quality to these kind of approaches, at the same time you are shitting on actual scientific work, you use it to justify certain things as if hard science had an authority on it even though it is not what it is concerning itself about to begin with. The things people are trying to justify with quantum mechanics don't need any of that whatsoever and come from a different place entirely. They miss the opportunity to actually engage in stuff like linguistics or psychoanalysis or other things which would really explain why your "mind alters the world", which is totally not in the physics sense that pseudo-scientists want others to believe.

It's as if I said "wow, our vacation trip is already over, time flies". "oh yeah, that's because time expands and contracts in relation to space as Einstein said". No, not at all because of that, even though our impression of time does expand and contract in relation to our enjoyment of time, a whole other thing.

Shame that pseud quantum mysticism distracts from the interesting potential implications and problems of quantum mechanics. Anway stop posting xkcd or i will torment you sexually.......

The best questions are philosophically interesting, technologically pioneering, and scientifically defining.

Just look at The Sand Reckoner by Archimedes for an early example of this

if you have studied the mathematics of quantum mechanics you would understand that some observable properties (such as tunneling) are by definition "super-natural" aka beyond conventional physics.

While not a reason to justify mysticism it effectively opens up mysticism to be freely interpreted without being challenged.

XKCD is great though.

Please torment me sexually I'm so lonely

Quantum Physics and Relativity revived Metaphysics, my man.

>using quantum mechanics to justify his religious/spiritual beliefs
You mean like Heisenberg, von Neumann, Wigner, Bohm, Zeilinger, etc basically 50% of all physicists that work extensively in QM and related fields?

lol its happening in this very thread. also "basic physics" actually requires a good understanding of vector calculus, maybe not the babied down undergrad version but actual "basic physics", while special relativity requires a little algebra and geometry only

Somebody who spends their entire life studying how something works will have to reconcile their worldview with what they've learned.
That's entirely different from some idiot that thinks the double slit experiment proves he has free will with no proper understanding of what it means.

That's really shit, user, I feel you.

In the humanities we have a similar but different problem.

If I look at a page of math calculations, I can't decypher what it means at all, it's nonsense to me without the proper study. That makes it easier for me to accept that I don't know about it and accept that a scientist opinion of it might be worth listening to if I don't intend to understand it through math as of now.

But when you pick up a book on philosophy, politics or psychoanalysis or something of that kind you'll see the words are hard but they are still words and so it is much easier for people to think they understand what they mean at first glance, when in fact it takes a lot more reading to grasp where their logic is coming from. You might have heard the words before, or deduce their meaning yourself, but that's not necessarily what they mean in that context.

James? Is that you?

Does James enjoy the Sand-Reckoner? Really? That's awesome, Archimedes is fun to read.

I'd say both are symptoms of Americans' current mistrust of "experts." I don't know when it started or how but it seems that a huge portion of the populace shifted to see education as a bad thing that turns people into elitists, and everyone wants to think they're somehow just as knowledgeable on any subject as somebody that gets a fucking doctorate in it.
You can see that on the internet all day, parts of Veeky Forums especially. Start a thread about climate change on /pol/ and watch as dozens of people rabidly attack every scientist in the field with "common sense" quips.

I don't think that's exclusive of America. I think this is a movement from far back that has no clear start, but that has intensified itself immensively in the last decades. After the internet, this shit is collapsing in fake news, post-truth, several layers of irony, etc.

I think it is due to the abundance of information and how easy it is for each other to talk about anything.

If you think about it, it's good to question authority and truly no scientist or philosopher has the final word on anything. But that doesn't mean we know better than them and that's it. I think the problem is in this necessity of shutting that door, is in our desire to know a thing for sure in the midst of an ocean of contradictory information. What kind of filter can we use? We don't accept neither age or diplomas to have any value in making a certain logic legitimate. And we are not so wrong about that.

I think people can only accept something that is coherent to their narrative. The problem is that very complex narratives unfold in before their eyes, in newsfeed bubbles, blog posts as source of news and so on. If you hang out on /pol/ too much, you'll hate the jews just like them. If you stay with the SJW, you'd see what they say make so much sense. It all "makes sense", not because it is correct, but because when you put one information next to the other and the other, etc, it will make sense regardless.

In anything concerning politics or humanities much more so than hard sciences because of what I said in the other post and because people are emotionally involved with it so much. On the other hand, those who disregard philosophy altogether and stick to hard sciences I think are also too desperate for certainty and do it because they cannot withstand the fluid-like, context-dependent, necessary uncertainties of complex philosophical debates. In other words, since it's hard to tell bullshit from something sound, you end up with the impression that all is bullshit and of no value.

PS: I think flat earth discussion is the funniest of them all, because it's obviously a joke, but then again some idiots *seem* to buy it and it's the best illustration of a mash up of trolling, honest stupidity and simply joking about something that involves both common sense and basic knowledge

god i hate it when people do that
please study qft for 10 years then tell me how significant it is for your bullshit oc ideology

same with maths, check out this pseud hyperianism.com/#learnmore

>fluid dynamics
>not philosophically exciting
What kind of fucking soulless retard wrote this? I'll shove my chem e diploma up his fucking downs syndrome ass

Faggot comic doesn't even realize ferromagnetism is basically an occult phenomenon until you bring in exchange interactions from quantum mechanics. g8 b8 m8

You niggers are overthinking this. It's just social circles and fraud. Regarding fraud people use quantum shits to sell their stuff or to make products to sell. Regarding social circle we are in the age where intelligence is held high, but isn't it easier to pretend to know stuff and resort to authorities if somebody confronts me on bullshit idk about?
>Bazunngas

There are "experts" on both sides of a debate and /pol/ just takes talking points from whatever group of experts are contrary to popular opinion. Just because you're an expert on a subjects doesn't mean you're right, since the expert might ultimately have biases affecting their opinion or how they present data.

Alot of Americans got fucked over by student loans which is why there's a huge mistrust with Academia. There's a lot of horror stories surrounding university and it no longer has this friendly face of wanting the best for society. Take memerson for example, he constantly says there's no point in going to school for the arts, it's nothing but indoctrination, university is filled with liberal nuts, etc.

I'm not sure. I think a lot more of it, at least in the south where I live, can be directly attributed to media.
Most of the American right is not /pol/. They're aging boomers who get all their news from Fox and conservative talk radio, and I don't know if the kind of person who posts on Veeky Forums is exposed to much of this, but that shit is absolutely toxic. I hate all television news outlets but right media has turned members of my own family into people that I can't hold a conversation with. Statistics, scientists, and education are all liberal plots to sway you from the truth.
That's not an exaggeration. My mother thinks that all statistics, for anything, can never be trusted again because they're "made by the same liberals who said Hillary would win." If I didn't see people stuck in this bubble I wouldn't believe it, but on the right and in an equally delusional zone of the left, this is the "base" that will unwaveringly support a party no matter who is in it, what they do, or what they say.

but

To me that's just one arm of what is going on. It's easier to print books and to advertise them, everyone has their share of success and then is forgotten quickly. Therefore, a bunch of frauds and books about any shit, including shit on quantum stuff.

>Feynman
> Learning something from a 125 IQ STEM Brainlet

I feel bad for you, user.

kek

>IQ

I'm waiting so long for this meme to die but it never does. Power ranking is too attractive I guess.

Where do you live user?

the puzzling thing is that youth and its intellectual culture (usually in universities) has historically been territory of left-wing thinking the world over (i'm not even american). Nowadays it just seems like it's easier for a 20-something to become a hard-right ideologue than anything else which is just disappointing

If something's behavior is unbound by measurement then it's an argument for my own free will. Not very hard you seething, tedious faggot.

it's not unbound

>Magnets
HOW DO THEY WORK?

Except both statements you just made are wrong. You don't know what you're talking about but are still convinced it's "not very hard" because it makes sense in your thick fucking head.
A particle in the double slit experiment has an uncertainty in its position and when it interacts with something the uncertainty collapses, with its final position based on a distribution of probability. The probability distribution is determined by the physical characteristics of where it is, not your fucking will. QM does not leave this up for debate as "maybe particles change when I think about them!" and you would know this if you made any attempt to learn about it.

>it's another "philosofags misunderstand what "observed" means in the context of quantum mechanics" episode
always a good laff

What does observed mean?

A wavefunction collapses when a particle interacts with something, usually some kind of detector or measurement device in the case of experiments like the ones you've heard of.
It has nothing to do with a conscious being paying attention to it, which is what many laymen interpret it as.

It's fitting you use the word "laymen," you people really are conceited as clergy

He's completely right though, laymen keep making shit up about QM because they don't understand shit but think they do.

actual QM theorists have brought up problems with that idea of "observation" though, albeit they aren't the dominant position

If gender studies and the like weren't an issue I think the general populace wouldn't have a grudge with it. But when it becomes obvious having an unpopular opinion can be destructive in academia it's only logical people will mistrust it. While some of the anti expert thing indeed is anti intellectualism, let's not pretend there isn't a major issue with modern education.

So you think universities should continue to be mostly left wing? Don't you think it would be better for them to encourage balance? Of course there isn't such a thing as a perfect balance, but they should promote that within their means. By saying universities should remain left wing you're endorsing what /pol/ and others call indoctrination centers. Unpopular opinions are supposed to be debated in academia, but that doesn't occur anymore. Some dude is far right? Give him a turn to speak, just the same as a communist would have. But we both know that doesn't happen. What I get from your reply is that you're disappointed that the academic status quo no longer goes unchallenged(leftist ideas have been the standard in universities for decades). It's pointless to complain about the bubble of a fox news audience if all you care about is preserving the bubble of modern academia. You're not standing for exchange of ideas, you're standing to preserve your favorite bubble.

Not that user, but I think the main issue is that one is so afraid of the other (left-right, right-left) that they up their own game.

They think that all the time the other speaks, it's indoctrination. So to fight this, they are more assertive of their opinion and more closed to what the other have to say. Then, both become what the other has projected onto them. Neither listen, both indoctrinate.

But I don't believe in balance though, it was never balanced to begin with. It was always one-sided, and in ways that we can't even put in terms of left and right, but that are just as biased. It's just that today we have access, even if superficial, to an enormous range of ways of thinking and lifestyles. So we just clash.

I believe it's the very idea of "university", in the essential sense of the word of "let's talk different ideas aiming to reach the one" is outdated. Both left and right, and all other dimensions of thinking are now coming to realize that these institutions are not, in themselves, guarantees of good ideas. What we have today are "multiversities", alternatives to universities with as much adepts and variety of texts that you can't tell if their right in their rebellion against the university or if they "just don't get it". And you'll never know, because it's one voice against the other and you'll interpret it as you please. People have given up these institutions and there is no coming back.

all of this is wrong

Fake

>implying the mathematics of fluid mechanics is as advanced as that employed in general relativity