i mean, i might be sucked into something, but it's not quite the same thing. change can be good. needed, even.
Maybe you don't fucking understand a goddamn thing you're talking about. Answer iaafr's question: what's your knowledge of QM? Physics at large? Formal logic? Mathematics at large?
Eh we cycle between flame mafia news flame and ewiz game is about to start
im not sure if you really changed my attitude on this
no sorry i have to take a hardline position on this i think ewiz's understanding of science is wrong.
how can anybody agree with this?
how much philosophy of science have you read or secondarysource'd?
this is crazy! is anyone else seeing this? its like hes saying quantum mechanics is indistinguishable from classical mechanics by experiment even in principle.
do you think anybody would ever be capable of using the equations of QM to find any sort of insight on sensory experience?
Damn they’re going full bore into Phil of science I never got into this shit
what exactly is the relevance of QM to the sensory experience
that it is true and therefore must be involved because everything is physical?
your mind keeps following this logic and its so shallow and questionable in itself
there are people who think maybe cognition is subject to quantum effects. but i dont believe that.
QM affects my sensory experience because you can hook up a experiment to test QM and you can look at the results. but you cant hook up an experiment to test QM interpretations and look at the results.
That isn't fucking sensory experience you fucking dumbass
hmmmm
i can relate to having questions and being relatively uneducated - particularly on a formal level. i can also understand the frustrations of someone formally educated trying to discuss topics that are necessarily nuanced. the issue is, i think if you are educated, it behooves you to stay mindful of less educated people. disconnect from any need to correct someone to a large degree, unless you are willing to be patient. because it won't serve the uneducated well, and it definitely won't serve you.
ok then i am just using idiosyncratic definitions again. no matter. back to the original point: why should i care about QM interpretations if the specific interpretation used never changes what i expect to observe?
why should i ever care what you believe and what implications do you even think there even are to not believing that
are you saying that being able to perceive anything that QM has ever been involved with qualifies as QM affecting sensory experience? because thats definitely not the kind of connection i thought you were asserting, and it doesn't really seem like an interesting thing to assert
@hbotz what's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
on what?
It isn't and it's completely vacuous
on my approach to hbotz and whether i should take a breather and what taking a breather might entail in terms of mindset change
idk. its just a simple common sense stance.
the questions worth worrying about are the ones that change what we will expect to observe.
QM being correct or not changes what we will expect to observe.
QM interpretation used does not change what we will expect to observe.
should we care about things that do not change what we will expect to observe? thats the only thing im asking. i thought it was empiricist or whatever, but maybe i am wrong.