Why do we humans have such a surplus of intelligence...

>there are still remnants of the /b/ group that tried to steal our 7777777 post

Take your numberposting back to /b/.

Humanity's intelligence is entirely overrated. Consider for a moment that half of humanity has a sub-100 IQ and are basically morons. Also consider that humanity hasn't been able to appreciably advance Quantum theory or reconcile the broken theory of General Relativity for decades, despite breakthroughs in computing power. So even the top of the range appears to be hitting the limits of human capacity.

lol moron

fucking kek. people really are this stupid still yet pretend to be informed.

faggot = same

Do we really have a surplus of intelligence? Maybe - out in the universe, we are below average.

I mean - in strict terms, humans are still in a type 0 civilization. Just as dogs, bats and bacteria.

Maybe quantum mechanics isn't all that great as we think it is...

>humans have such a surplus of intelligence
L0Lwut
>we able to to quantum mechanics
>and astrophysics
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>humans are still in a type 0 civilization. Just as dogs, bats and bacteria.

We also defined what a type 0 civilization is in the first place.

Wow, please kill yourself

so?

dubs say you

Society does it.

Scientist do ants work, but the "miracle" happens in social system of science.

We all stands on shoulders of giants. Giant is Society. Geniality is effective illusion or product of social conditions.

Scientist are people who are especially socially adapted to this system.

They are still hunters, but the environment is different.

>sub-100 IQ detected

>able to quantum mechanics
NO. We're able to General Relativity. QM is a sham and nobody understands it. They only pretend to. QM is in serious need of being merged with predeterminism. Problem is, pop scientists Krauss and DeGrasse and the like are perpetuating ignorance.

QM is the only worthwhile model in physics, the rest is broken garbage.

>we're able to do gr
wtf is gravity

QM is the description of things that happen, but not the answer. That is the flaw.

At least it describes observation flawlessly, even the most bizarre predictions can be proven experimentally. Enjoy your dark faggotry.

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. JESUS CHRIST THIS BOARD.

This

Could you imagine coming up with this?
youtube.com/watch?v=VVV4xeWBIxE

>QM is the description of things that happen, but not the answer. That is the flaw.
What the fuck are you even on about? Asnwer to what? Do you realise that all scientific theories are basically just "desriptions of things that happen"?

Haha are you angry? I think you're a brainlet why don't you get mad about your parents giving birth to you? xDDDDD

not an argument

QM states things appear randomly. Therefore the future is random. This is a false assumption. You will find that for all untestable predictions made by QM, predeterminism provides equally satisfying results. It actually provides better results. Spacetime has always existed. Time perception by organics is the result of law of entropy where energy is collected from available states to survive the future. Double slit experiment is simply the future knowing which pathway it has to take to reach the emitter. Dark energy, entanglement, magic particles, feynman diagrams can all eb described better other than 'randomness'. Were Einstein alive today he would have set academia right. Academia is a festering pool if ignorance currently and this board is a shining example of it young undergrads being spoonfed stuff they only pretend to understand to get ahead in life.

You are pretty much arguing against things nobody is claiming. If you can come up with a working theory for certain quantum effects, then do it. But I dont see, how blindly bitching about the current model (that works and can maked predictions) has any value. Nobody ever said it has all the answers and it isnt mutually exclusive with a deterministic universe

Einstein was butthurt over QM too. Regardless, experimental observation continues to prove him wrong.

It is as much a theory as QM is, since all testable results are compatible.

I can bitch about academia and pop sci all I want. People need to be told they are most likely wrong. That's how progress is made.

Einstein was born to early to combat QM correctly. The brain becomes less flexible as you age. Were young Einstein around today, I'm sure he would have reached the same conclusions that I have and even procured an experiment to convince others like he did with the eclipse experiment.

wew lad

>It is as much a theory as QM is,
what do you mean? which theory?

>People need to be told they are most likely wrong
How is it wrong? Dont tell me how it feels wrong to you.

>That's how progress is made
It is made by constantly evaluating our current models and expanding them or discover new theories, not by throwing away things that work just fine because people fall victim to the dunning-kruger effect

You clearly haven't understood what I said.
I am all for adapting QM to make more sense. People refuse to listen.

>combat QM

Einstein's antiquated realist viewpoint was so BTFO by QM that he actually significantly contributed to the model trying to break it.

Out of touch realists and their anachronistic opinions continue to get BTFO on a daily basis by new irrefutable science, to the point where the true nature of QM is becoming popsci.

>I am all for adapting QM to make more sense

It is you who needs to adapt.

and one day a paper will be published stating 'The future already exists' blah blah and you will be completely and utterly BTFO m8
I'm still waiting for you to refute my ideas other than 'everyone else thinks it's ghey I can't think for myself' attitude you have

Hahahahahaha eat shit you realist faggot.

>QM states things appear randomly

What the fuck? I take it you're one more pop-sci faggot pretending to know what you're talking about. QM says that before a measurement is made a quantum system exists in superposition of all possible states, the outcome of any measurement follows a probability distribution and from that we can make predictions. Take the ground state of a hydrogen atom, we know that if we take a large number of atoms and measure the position of the electron the average of all those measurements will be the Bohr radius. In a certain sense it's like statistical mechanics, why stat mech can't tell you the velocity of particle number 12532, it can tell you what the average velocity of the ensemble is given some observable quantities. Getting butthurt over nondeterministic models is hella retarded.

>Sage, because this thread had gone to shit.

>we're evolved to do is basically hunt and fuck?

Because hunting, fucking and not dying is easier if you are really smart. No other animal on earth can compete with the living standards of a human. There is no "surplus" of intelligence, every little improvement will increase your survival ability.

>I mean why the hell are we able to to quantum mechanics and astrophysics
Most of our intelligence comes from tools that extend our own intellect. Information storage tools like books, computers and internet search algorithms. A human is incapable of doing higher science or engineering without tools.

So we kinda aren't able to do these things if you want to be strict about it. We just invented tolls that expanded our skills beyond biological restrictions.

>You clearly haven't understood what I said.
Thats why asked you:
>what do you mean? which theory?
>How is it wrong? Dont tell me how it feels wrong to you.

Explain your hypothesis and why it beats QM

That was a great vid user. Thanks!

hello michio cuckold

That dude is brilliant compared to the pop-sci shitposter you replied to.

Not sure. It seems unlikely that we'd be capable of such intellect. Who knows how much smarter we will get in the future?

We are intelligent (most of us anyways) because it is needed to escape predators due to us being weak mortals.

hurr durr he doesn't make me feel good therefore he is wrong
kill yourself pleb

The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of QM states that a particle plays out all possible realities simultaneously. Only when it is measured, does the 'waveform' collapse.

It doesn't explain why the particles properties solidify at the moment of measurement. For that, we need to look to the nature of spacetime. From our perspective, a particle could do many things. From the universe's perspective, it only does one thing.

>From the universe's perspective, it only does one thing.
Why the fuck would you think that

This is an evolutionary question which I believe is still heavily debated by academics today. My personal favourite theory is given in Matt Ridley's book The Red Queen, that basically intelligence is just a social arms race. To massively over-simplify it, smarter humans were more likeable and more likely to have kids. Essentially humanity's massively above-average intelligence is just a freak example of runaway sexual selection.

feynman diagrams illustrate the point quite well

you don't need to seriously answer the question
that should be obvious to everyone

I can't remember who's theory it is, maybe of The White Science Man, but it's for sure my favorite one. It states that there is some kind of self-reinforcing loop between our hardware and software.

Let's say we discover fire, and start using it. Our hardware in the past is clearly capable of using the tool(as witnessed how other primates use tools), though our software is lacking. We over time develop the software for the using of the tool. But with better software our hardware needs to improve as well. As we continue using the said software, our hardware develops to match it.

Since our hardware is more developed, we are capable of doing more stuff. We find another tool, say language. We lack the software, though our hardware supports it. We then develop software to us it, and in turn our hardware develops, etc.

This basically happens by principles of natural selection, of course.

no they don't

that's only because you're being a defensive fucktard
not totally unexpected

>The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of QM states that a particle plays out all possible realities simultaneously.

You do realise that QM is independent of it's interpretations, right? All the results from the different interpretations will be the same, otherwise it would be trivial to pick between them and it wouldn't be a controversial topic. QM itself doesn't say "the wave-function collapses", the interpretation says "these equations from QM can be given the meaning that...."

>It doesn't explain why the particles properties solidify at the moment of measurement.

It's not meant to, it's an interpretation that's telling us that, but see above, QM is independent of it's interpretations, all results from all interpretations must coincide or we could easily pick between them. Some interpretations predict extra bits and have additional hypothesises, but everything that's predicted in QM under the Copenhagen interpretation will also be predicted in some other interpretation.

There is no reason to dislike QM because "hurr durr randumnuss", any other interpretation would still produce same probability distributions.

tldr:
>Pick and interpretation you like, it'll still make same predictions as any other interpretation
>Read a motherfucking book on QM
>Disliking the Copenhagen interpretation is purely a philosophical choice
>Stop posting
>Kill yourself (optional)

How do they? Feynman diagrams are just a neat pictorial representation of the terms in a perturbation series, they aid in the calculation of probability amplitudes which, as the name might tell you, doesn't really lend weight to your argument that "from the universe's perspective, [a particle] only does one thing".

Feynman diagrams are just terms in a perturbative series

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.

Well okay user, you sure showed me.

>this guy.

Wow, good point again! Please come back when you learned about the problems of QM

We know many-worlds is true because it is the simplest explanation for the observations.

No magic "wave-function collapse" needed. No magic "observers" needed.

You just assume reality of the wave-function and decoherence explains the appearence of "collapse". It makes people uncomfortable that they are in superposition with alternative versions who saw a different measurement, but so what? It also makes people uncomfortable that they are made of ordinary atoms who don't have a magic soul, but only extreme retards deny that.

>We know many-worlds is true because it is the simplest explanation for the observations.
We know God exists because it is the simplest explanation for the observations.

Thats the genetic outliers user the average brainlet finds the concept of trigonometry mind numbing.

>this is what many-world fags actually believe

No it isn't. Retard.

Because it's true. Wave-function collapse is an extra assumption. It adds no explanatory value. Therefore, Occam's Razor leads to many-worlds.

People find this counter-intuitive because they think Occam's Razor means we should minimize the number of things in our world model.

But that's not what it really means. It means we should minimize the number of complex assumptions when we can. And wave-function collapse is a complex assumption we don't need to explain the observations.

>it's an "autismal QM hater" episode
wow you see something new every day on Veeky Forums

>Wave-function collapse is an extra assumption.

So wave-function collapse is extraneous, but there being an infinite number of other universes isn't infinitely more extraneous?

See, this is what people don't get. They think Occam's Razor means a small number of things in our world model.

As if, if we had a simple model of the universe that implies infinite space, that can't be true because infinite space means probability zero because Occam's Razor.

You have simply not understood Occam's Razor.

The complexity of the wave-function doesn't go away if you postulate collapse. Copenhagen is strictly less parsimonious than many-worlds.

Most of the interpretations could be true and are based on assumptions. Alternative versions of reality is also an assumption, so I dont know why you think it has to be true

Because Occam's Razor.

I was critising your argument, nothing else. If wave function collapse is an extraneous assumption then the assumption that there's an infinite number of "other worlds" must be much more extraneous.

>They think Occam's Razor means a small number of things in our world model.

I always thought it meant that you should have the smallest number of assumptions in a model, so I looked it up just to be sure, and that seems to right. In that case MWI should fall to the razor, since the assumption of a multitude of other universes must contribute an extra assumption.

But this argument is pointless, you shouldn't use Occam's razor to pick between competing hypotheses.

...should also cut away the many worlds interpretation.

Also OR isnt prove for or against anything. when it comes to complex and mysterious things like interpretations of QM it isnt really helpful at all

>If wave function collapse is an extraneous assumption then the assumption that there's an infinite number of "other worlds" must be much more extraneous.
>In that case MWI should fall to the razor, since the assumption of a multitude of other universes must contribute an extra assumption.

No, because the complexity of the wave-function exists in both the Copenhagen interpretation and many-worlds. You can't get rid of that by postulating collapse in addition.

The interference pattern in the double slit experiment with single photons exists in Copenhagen as well, you don't get around that complexity by pretending all the positions you didn't observe don't exist.

It is the collapse that is the extra assumption, not the "other worlds" which are implied in the wave-function. We know the photon goes through both slits and then interferes with itself before becoming entangled with the wall and thus the experimenter.

>Also OR isnt prove for or against anything. when it comes to complex and mysterious things like interpretations of QM it isnt really helpful at all
OR is an indispensible epistemic tool, without it you can believe literally anything. That's called madness.

Even those people with sub 100 iq are profoundly more intelligent than any other animal

well, good that I didnt say it is shit or that we should get rid of it in general, right?

Did you even read his argument? From an outsider perspective, you're the one who looks like an idiot at this point.

see
and
yawn

bump

In S. America archaeologists dug up several pic related. Wooden replicas fly pretty well.
My theory is that the metal ones are just nostalgia for adults and the wooden ones kids played with all rotted away.
No need for ancient aliens here; just one clever guy obsessed with flight who intuitively came up with the design but because his culture lacked the math for him to communicate what he had learned it died with him.

fake

insects.jpg
fixed that for you

>Why do we humans have such a surplus of intelligence? I mean why the hell are we able to to quantum mechanics and astrophysics when all we're evolved to do is basically hunt and fuck?

Cooperate for more food and more fucking for everyone.

That's debateable.

>Why do we humans have such a surplus of intelligence? I mean why the hell are we able to to quantum mechanics and astrophysics when all we're evolved to do is ba
>Why do we humans have such a surplus of intelligence? I mean why the hell are we able to to quantum mechanics and astrophysics when all we're evolved to do is basically hunt and fuck?
My own opinion is that humans don't have a vast intelligence, but by being able to record the work and thoughts of select individuals on special topics over 2-3000 years we've built up quite a large knowledge base, which gives the illusion of intelligence.

It should be noted that I don't think we're dumb by any means, simply that by building on the work of a few smart people over a great period of time we collectively managed to figure a bunch of shit out. It's quite conceivable by inferring from the gap between humans and other animals that a greater intellect than ours could figure out most of our knowledge of, say, physics, in one lifetime instead of hundreds.

That's cherrypicking. But whatever, suit yourself.

Thanks for this.

The answer is sedentarism.
The answer is always sedentarism.

Most important fields have gotten to the point where one can attain deep understanding of one specialization, but nobody can claim deep understanding of the entire field. I believe this has led us to a point of minor incremental discoveries but the big picture seems to be jammed up.

No, we are dumb. We are absolutely stupid and arrogant. The main problem with a finding a general theory of intelligence is that everyone is centered on "human" intelligence. People ignored the fact that human beings are biological, that the human brain is a product of evolution. Intelligence must be expanded to include all living organisms including viruses and the human immune system. What fundamental principles are used to adapt and find solutions in all these systems? We know that a set of principles guide all these system since they all exists in the same physical universe and are subjected to the same physical laws. After we find this set of principles we can then apply it to human beings and behavior.

d