Post: #21

For anyone interested, newtonian, classical physics is fundamentally incorrect, meaning much of science is fundamentally incorrect insofar as its based on newtonian physics. Now newtonian physics is still incredibly accurate for our everyday consideration, large (macroscopic) objects moving at sub-relativistic speeds, so we still use it for everything from cars to refrigerator production to IV diffusion rates.

Quantum mechanics is fundamentally sound, and a very strong field as it is (it did undermine newtonian mechanics), but it has a lot of very weird features, features that do not make intuitive sense. This actually shouldnt come as a surprise though. Human beings evolved in a particular domain of movement, the large scale/subrelative domain. In our domain the time and space bending properties of relativistic space travel, the macroscopic/relativistic domain (speeds approaching the speed of light), have never been an evolutionary concern. Neither has the problem of quantum non-locality, which operates in the microscopic/non-relativistic domain. And so an intuitive understanding of these features is not a part of us, while the basic trajectory of a frisbee is something most of us are relatively capable of predicting without any abstract thought whatsoever.

The phenomena discovered in other domains still directly effects us, however. Our intuitions tell us our experience is like an intricate clock, or like something with physical cause and effect. Newton's theoretical work seemed to confirm this until the more recent discoveries of the 20th century gave us a radically new perspective, one that asserts the "origin" of phenomena exists in back of a curtain, behind which we cannot see using any scientific means known.

This gives way to lots of theories. Many worlds, copenhagen, QBism, etc. I happen to like QBism the most because it directly involves the observer. The other interpretations suggest other universes are static and exist somehwere "out there" but that interaction is unnaccounted for (cant be through science). Doesnt make a lot of sense to me if faith and intent have effects in our experience. QBism seems to account for the faith based experiences side of things.

Post: #22

(10-29-2018 8:39 AM)Macro Wrote:  OK. But Marxism and postmodernism have nothing in common. It's like saying because you believe in free markets you must believe in God or something. Two beliefs in very different fields.

I disagree.Much of the postmodernism is implemented according to a plan.Marxism failed to spread because it focused on the economic aspect of it, expecting a revolution that never happened.They've switched focus, it's their words, they've said it decades ago.Search for critical theory if you aren't familiar with it.

Also this video is very informative, worths the time spent:

(10-29-2018 8:39 AM)Macro Wrote:  It maybe possible. But it's possible that unicorns are purposefully fucking with our memories to mess with us. We dont take this view seriously because it lacks evidence. Similarly the idea that our screwed up memories are a result of many worlds is similarly far fetched, and similarly not worth taking seriously until some hard evidence comes our way.


Virtually all many world interpretations believe there is no interaction between this "world" and any others because any such interaction would be observable and therefore scientifically testable.

Don't go there.Some scientists believe otherwise, while no scientist is investigating the unicorn conspiracy.I know that many scientists are investigating many useless things, or things with almost no evidence, and doing so proves nothing, but the possibility remains open and it's not comparable with the unicorns.

(10-29-2018 8:39 AM)Macro Wrote:  People like using QM to justify weird beliefs because QM is mysterious and poorly understood by the general public, much like their weird beliefs. I saw an Alien - QM, I believe in the soul - QM, there are dimensions with supernatural beings - QM, these candles make me horny - QM, etc.

Totally agree here.Have you seen this?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fanea5kcfg

(10-29-2018 11:52 AM)arrhenius Wrote:  This gives way to lots of theories. Many worlds, copenhagen, QBism, etc. I happen to like QBism the most because it directly involves the observer. The other interpretations suggest other universes are static and exist somehwere "out there" but that interaction is unnaccounted for (cant be through science). Doesnt make a lot of sense to me if faith and intent have effects in our experience. QBism seems to account for the faith based experiences side of things.

I liked QBism for the same reason but some things I didn't get.When you make an observation and the wave function collapses, in QBism that means that the observer updated his beliefs.I'm not sure what that might mean.

Post: #23

(10-29-2018 2:30 PM)stefdude Wrote:  I liked QBism for the same reason but some things I didn't get. When you make an observation and the wave function collapses, in QBism that means that the observer updated his beliefs.I'm not sure what that might mean.

One of the observations they made was that the function would collapse in a manner accounting for the previous experiences of the observer. So the first observer had experiences that the function collapsed on numbers around say 50. The second had experiences that the function collapsed around say 20. Each time the function collapses, the observer updates their understanding, such that in the future, they get more of the number they just got, or tend towards the numbers they generally get.

What they dont get is an even distribution across a continuum. They get clustering, and the clustering is particular to every individual, and reaffirms itself over time.

Post: #24

(10-29-2018 8:17 PM)arrhenius Wrote:  One of the observations they made was that the function would collapse in a manner accounting for the previous experiences of the observer. So the first observer had experiences that the function collapsed on numbers around say 50. The second had experiences that the function collapsed around say 20. Each time the function collapses, the observer updates their understanding, such that in the future, they get more of the number they just got, or tend towards the numbers they generally get.

What they dont get is an even distribution across a continuum. They get clustering, and the clustering is particular to every individual, and reaffirms itself over time.

What???That's crazy!Any source?

Post: #25

Postmodernism is the view that truth is ultimately subjective or at the very least objective truth is unobtainable and reason is useless in getting you truth. It's about epistemology.
Marxism is a historical methodology that looks at power struggles over scarce resources and then the communist conclusions/prescriptions Marx makes. Marxism is definitively non-post-modern, the marxist approach in no way looks at truth as subjective or relative.
The two are unrelated. But people like the quasi-intellectual Jordan Peterson (who btw, is a post-modernist) mixes the two, simply because in the 60s-80s universities were full of post-modernists who happen to be marxists. They fortunately been largely stamped out (out debated).

Wanted to clarify.

Post: #26

(10-30-2018 10:29 AM)Macro Wrote:  The two are unrelated. But people like the quasi-intellectual Jordan Peterson (who btw, is a post-modernist) mixes the two, simply because in the 60s-80s universities were full of post-modernists who happen to be marxists. They fortunately been largely stamped out (out debated).

Wanted to clarify.

Why do you say that? I read his book, but I came away with the feeling he was an objectivist.


@stefdude

Unfortunately not, this was stuff i was looking at a few years ago now. Its a major part of his work though, so you'd find it if you went looking.

Post: #27

Listen to any of his lectures. He says truth is what is useful, this is not objective. What I consider useful, isn't what you consider useful. This makes truth subjective.
He believes if for example believing in the myth of Hercules helps us survive, the myth of Hercules is true - absolute insanity. He calls this "metaphorical truth", utter nonsense, it just means useful, nothing to do with truth. We all know false beliefs can be useful, doesnt make them true. This is the moronic hoops he goes through to justify his Christianity.

Post: #28

(10-30-2018 11:33 AM)Macro Wrote:  Listen to any of his lectures. He says truth is what is useful, this is not objective. What I consider useful, isn't what you consider useful. This makes truth subjective.
He believes if for example believing in the myth of Hercules helps us survive, the myth of Hercules is true - absolute insanity. He calls this "metaphorical truth", utter nonsense, it just means useful, nothing to do with truth. We all know false beliefs can be useful, doesnt make them true. This is the moronic hoops he goes through to justify his Christianity.

I think he would say that the myth is useful when it helps us survive, not that it's literaly true.Can you find where he said what you say?I've seen similar talks about myths and this isn't what I concluded.

About post-modernism and marxism, I didn't say they are the same.But they are very well connected in many ways.They have some things in common, eg they are both against western civilization's principles and achievements and some of their principles have the same source, eg envy, inferior complex etc.

Post: #29

(10-30-2018 11:33 AM)Macro Wrote:  Listen to any of his lectures. He says truth is what is useful, this is not objective. What I consider useful, isn't what you consider useful. This makes truth subjective.
He believes if for example believing in the myth of Hercules helps us survive, the myth of Hercules is true - absolute insanity. He calls this "metaphorical truth", utter nonsense, it just means useful, nothing to do with truth. We all know false beliefs can be useful, doesnt make them true. This is the moronic hoops he goes through to justify his Christianity.

Could you link a video where he says something like this? I've seen plenty of his videos and, as i said, read his book in full. This is not what i came away with.

This guy did a good write up on Peterson's "faith."

Post: #30