peto (he/him)

Can push California to 5 syllables if you really want to.

Unironically? Maybe not. But using something ironically is still using it.

You knew it was cursed knowledge when you clicked on it. Caveat Lemmor

I’d be surprised if I’m the first person to say it. If you find your source though, let me know, would be interested in reading it.

It is (I hope) an original. Though the form “my grandfather would tell stories” might be bordering on cliché.

My grandfather would tell stories of how the planet used to be covered in plants and you could breathe the air outside. Back when the sky was blue.

Just don’t read The Mirror. Generally not worth the effort of moving your eyes from one word to the next.

Because you seem to have a problem with me saying that all observations are interactions.

Futher, if it is true that if observations are interactions, then RQM must be true, surely it goes from a fringe interpretation to just simple fact unless you can find a counterexample?

At this point, I’m not even sure I quite see what your point is supposed to be.

I’m neutral on the subject of if there are non-observational interactions. Though I ask again, are you aware of any observations that do not involve interactions?

Edit: I should also point out, that I don’t believe an observation necessarily requires a human, mind, or intelligence.

AHH, I think I see what you have misunderstood. I am not saying all interactions are observations, rather that observations are a subset of interactions, hence uncertainty.

Furthermore I think it would be more useful to say that the wave function only collapses when it is actually necessary to the interaction rather than when it interacts with ‘us’. Unless you can provide a counterexample. Privileging observations made by humans reeks of mysticism in my opinion and is the cause of a lot of the misunderstandings about quantum physics among laypeople.

Do expand, please. It has been a while since I have studied this seriously. Do you have any examples of observations that don’t involve interacting with the system?

The universe is under no obligation to be understandable to the bits of it that can think. In many ways it’s a wonder we’ve got as far as we have.

We have such devices, unfortunately they tend to use electrons instead (electron microscopes). We also have devices that just work by measuring the electromagnetic field (atomic force microscopes). Again though, to measure the field you have to interact with it, so you can’t do it immaculately.

Electrons are especially hard because they are so incredibly light yet intensely charged compared to everything that can actually interact with them.

When talking about particles, the interaction very rarely involves actual contact, as that tends result in some manner of combination. Two electrons for instance don’t really bounce off each other, they just get close, interact and then diverge. If a photon ‘hits’ an electron it gets absorbed and a new one is emitted. Look up Feynman Diagrams if you want to see some detail to this. I don’t think you need any deep knowledge to benefit from looking at them, they are really quite an elegant way to visually show the mathematics.

" - How far is your house? - Oh, it’s just 120"

FTFY

It’s because to observe something you have to interact with it. Dealing with particles is like playing pool in the dark and the only way you can tell where the balls are is by rolling other balls into them and listening for the sound it makes. Thing is, you now only know where the ball was, not what happened next.

In the quantum world, even a single photon can influence what another particle is doing. This is fundamentally why observation changes things.

Or at least use classical conditioning to associate the I’m wrong feeling with the impending new cool facts feeling.

More accurately a superposition of both.

I’m talking about natures rather than labels though. Or does God only have the definitions humans ascribe to him?

So does that mean Jesus wasn’t human?

But is God the Incarnate wholly God-nature, or is he partly God-nature and partly man-nature?