User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2017-03-02 at 7:03 PM UTC in teh retraded thred herppppp slober fuk glum editshinCross check his reddit account, see if he has been active elsewhere.
-
2017-03-01 at 10:33 PM UTC in Ashton Doucher is a pedophile
-
2017-02-27 at 7:16 PM UTC in Would you go to church for a girl?
Originally posted by reject No.
If church was after 6pm and the communion wine was a bottle of communion wine, then sure.
But at that point I'd be doing it more the alcohol than the chick.
So I guess I'd go to church for wine but not for a girl?
What if she just sucked your dick every time you went? Instead of wine? -
2017-02-27 at 7:10 PM UTC in Would you go to church for a girl?What happened to this girl?
-
2017-02-27 at 12:36 AM UTC in ATTN: Sophie
-
2017-02-26 at 4:50 PM UTC in Story time.Shit I thought you would've enjoyed it.
-
2017-02-26 at 4:45 PM UTC in Story time.Did you ever finish reading the metamorphosis of prime intellect?
-
2017-02-26 at 4:22 PM UTC in teh retraded thred herppppp slober fuk glum editshin
-
2017-02-26 at 4:02 PM UTC in The Lore of the Loom.
-
2017-02-23 at 8:48 PM UTC in The mind is a meat radio.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon As I said, there is a reason why the Copenhagen interpretation is simply how we do QM in the modern day; it works.
I looked up a list of other interpretations. One of these, sometimes referred to as the "Many Worlds" interpretation, appears to be compatible with determinism. While I have been looking for layman explanations of this stuff, I have not found any information that argues that the Copenhagen interpretation is better or makes more sense than the Many Worlds interpretation. Interestingly, I have found information suggesting the opposite.
I was wondering if you had any information regarding that you could share with me. Or better yet, if you could explain why you think the Copenhagen interpretation should be preferable over the Many Worlds interpretation. -
2017-02-22 at 10:25 PM UTC in Lets Play: Organ Trail.Name: Obbe
Supply: Fuel -
2017-02-22 at 11:45 AM UTC in teh retraded thred herppppp slober fuk glum editshin
Originally posted by reject And yes, if you rob a bank and they don't notice, it isn't theft. It only becomes theft when the Law catches up with you. If you never get caught, then what you're doing isn't illegal. It's only when they slap the cuffs on or issue a warrant that it becomes theft
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound? Vibrations in the air only become sounds once they vibrate an eardrum.
-
2017-02-20 at 4:26 PM UTC in Bounty: Kill SpectraL-SpectraL is like an antique. He is a reminder of the good ol days.
-
2017-02-11 at 11:34 PM UTC in Ricky and morty vs south parkI enjoy them both.
-
2017-02-11 at 4:17 PM UTC in How do you normally dress?Normally I wear pants like this:
And a sweater like this (without the Polo shirt):
Depending on how much snow is on the ground I either wear steel toe boots or my sneakers:
-
2017-02-08 at 11:21 PM UTC in HaircutMy barbershop is run by a Lebanese family. Costs 20 dollars. I would like to get my hair cut every 2 weeks but that usually doesn't happen.
-
2017-02-07 at 10:01 PM UTC in The mind is a meat radio.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon No, you completely missed the mark on what actual physical probabilism is. In the present day, the position that most scientists agree upon is that quantum mechanics are truly random. There are debates to this day about whether or not Bell's theorem actually establishes that (for example superdeterminism), but for the most part, to the best of our knowledge, it simply is. Accept that.
Some people try to argue that the fact that QM is random, doesn't mean that our universe at large is not deterministic, or has random elements. Which is honestly retarded. There are a lot of physics related discussion beyond your level of knowledge right now to explain it but let me give you a simple scenario to illustrate that that argument is facile:
Imagine you are a quantum physicist. You conduct an experiment where a detector observes a truly random quantum event and tells you the outcome. This information, which has been randomly generated, informs your decision to pick A or B on a test. Bam, determinism broken.
I honestly don't understand your reasoning; in fact, from where I am it looks like you're just saying the world isn't deterministic because "quantum mechanics", without giving me the line of reasoning between your proposition and your conclusion. The example you provided doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't looks like you broke determinism, it just looks like you forgot to include or are unaware of all the variables. Please feel free to attempt to explain this further.
If determinism is an illusion as was claimed earlier, why does the world appear to be deterministic? -
2017-02-07 at 7:20 PM UTC in Life Update: February 2017Hey RisiR, what is life?
-
2017-02-07 at 7:02 PM UTC in The mind is a meat radio.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon You have retardedly mangled the Monty Hall problem into an unrecognisable mess, and your setup does not lead to your conclusion. The probabilities completely exist, but they are a concept meant to quantify your chances of getting the right answer in the absence of information regarding what is behind a given door.
The point is that probabilism doesn’t imply indeterminism. -
2017-02-07 at 4:07 PM UTC in The mind is a meat radio.The important thing to understand is that probabilism is about "knowledge" or lack there-of (epistemic) and determinism is about causes "existing" (ontic)...and it's important not to confuse the epistemic as being ontic.
Imagine, if you will, three doors (doors A, B, and C). You know for 100% fact that a gold bar is behind one of the doors and donkeys are behind the other two, you just have no idea which door the gold or donkeys are behind. You have a 1/3 chance of opening the gold bar door if you could only pick one. Sarah, another person, however, knows that door C has a donkey, but she doesn’t know if the gold is behind A or B. Unlike you, she has a 50% chance of picking the gold bar door. Another person, Billy, however, knows that door A and door C have the donkey, so he knows 100% that B has the gold bar (as he knows a gold bar is behind one of the doors that doesn’t have a donkey).
The probabilities differ based not on the probabilities being “actual” but rather the knowledge the person possesses. The assessment of a 1/3rd probability or 50% probability are simply in the heads of the individuals (you and Sarah) who do not have the full knowledge that Billy has.
The probabilities aren’t something that actually “exist” in reality, other than existing as a thought in a brain. The gold bar doesn’t really have a 1/3rd chance of being behind any door, in reality it is 100% behind door B, as Billy happens to know.
