Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: How are they related?" video.

  1.  @minanovkiril  Mass is a system property. It's no different from energy. ;-)
    3
  2.  @minanovkiril  Yep, that's another one of those childish false dichotomy fallacies. ;-)
    2
  3.  @minanovkiril  There are no particles in nature. There are lots and lots of people who don't understand physics, though. ;-)
    2
  4. Nobody because he wasn't. ;-)
    2
  5.  @HumanOpinions-bz9ky  You saw it on the internet, hence it must be true. :-)
    2
  6. Physics hasn't been materialist since the beginning of the 20th century. That doesn't mean it is idealist, of course. We have simply switched from thinking in objects to thinking in system properties.
    1
  7.  @minanovkiril  I am a physicist. Unlike you I know what I am talking about. ;-)
    1
  8. Yes, that's bullshit that keeps circulating on the internet. ;-)
    1
  9. Cool story, bro. ;-)
    1
  10. @ Awh, it's so cute when the bullshit inside you feels sorry for itself. ;-)
    1
  11. No, it does not mean that. ;-)
    1
  12.  @Tense  I have given this explanation a million times before. There are no particles for starters. People are simply not paying attention when we explain to them that "Quanta are small amounts of energy." in high school. How hard is it to remember six words? Moreover, that energy comes at you at the speed of light (all quantum fields are relativistic), which means that nature can not give any warning about when and where that energy will be. That is the trivial reason why quantum mechanics is uncertain (i.e. unpredictable). That's not even quantum mechanics. This happens in classical scenarios as well.
    1
  13.  @Tense  Dude, you could have learned these things in high school, IF you had been paying attention. That's not an ad hominem but a fact. And, yes, physicists are pulling a horrible educational con-job on you by calling quanta "particles". It makes understanding quantum mechanics nearly impossible. That is the central sin of modern physics. It still tries to use 19th century concepts and language for phenomena that are simply not adequately described by either. You have to let go of materialism completely here. Physics is all about system properties. The four locally conserved system properties are energy, momentum (relativistically it's really one four-vector), angular momentum and charges (electric, leptonic, baryonic etc.). None of this has anything to do with brains, working or non-working. It's all just consequences of symmetries.
    1
  14.  @Tense  Do you want me to show you people with millions of subscribers who are lying to you constantly? Easy enough. In contrast I am not lying to you and I am not stroking your ego. That's how I got to 14 subscribers. Life ain't fair, but since I don't care it doesn't matter to me. If number of subscribers is your main criteria you might as well vote for Donald Trump. He knows how to get people to "like" him. ;-) And do you know how many views I would get with proper physics videos about quantum mechanics? Three and one of them would be me checking my upload. That's the power of the algorithm for you. It selects content that is about as far from facts as you can get in controversial areas. That doesn't mean there aren't solid science YouTubers. Dr. Becky is one as far as I can judge (I am a physicist, not an astronomer, so I am kind of an amateur in her field). Unlike her I am old and tired and I don't care. I am simply giving it to you straight and you can take it or leave it. Your choice. ;-)
    1
  15.  @Tense  I am not an educator. I used to be an experimental physicist, so I have actually "seen" trillions of quanta myself. I have zero interest in teaching, the authoring of textbooks or the editing of YouTube videos. I am simply telling you what reality looks like because I have actual experience with it. As part of that I can tell you why your high school teacher would actually have been your best bet to understand quantum mechanics at the fundamental level and what went wrong historically with the teaching of quantum mechanics at the university level. Why is this important to me? Because I am one of the victims of that failed teaching strategy. You can't even imagine how confused I was after my own introductory QM 101 class. Not about the math, that's easy enough, but about what the math means. That confusion lifts after you become an experimentalist with an interest in the topic, but one should not have to spend years in high energy physics labs measuring energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge transfers between systems to arrive at the conclusion that the six word "Quanta are small amounts of energy." high school level description opens up all of quantum mechanics to a completely trivial understanding by absolutely everybody who remembers the 13 word high school definition of energy (Energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system.). Yes. Physics is THAT simple but we are complicating it with endless numbers of useless layman books and videos about it. ;-)
    1
  16.  @Tense  Why are you confused about a total of 19 words? Would you like me to summarize it for you in a way that everybody can remember? Energy is that which allows us to carry a piano to the fourth floor of a building. A quantum is a small amount of energy. From that it follows that a quantum is that which allows us to carry a tiny piano to the fourth floor of a very small building. :-)
    1
  17.  @Tense  There is only one reality. That reality starts and ends with those 19 words. I can't give you anything other than that. I am a realist. If you want fiction, then you have to get in touch with a screenwriter or book author. ;-)
    1
  18.  @Tense  I never stopped you from going to the fiction section of the library, did I? ;-)
    1
  19. The difference between a hammer and the person who uses that hammer to smash in a car window to steal something from the car. The judge will send the person who wields the hammer to jail for theft and the hammer will receive no penalty. ;-)
    1
  20. Awh, you are so cute when you are saying shit after drinking heavily. ;-)
    1
  21. Awh, you are so cute when your failure to finish high school is acting up. ;-)
    1
  22. Did you work there as a janitor or dishwasher? ;-)
    1
  23.  @Thomas-gk42  Awh, you are so cute when you come begging for more attention. ;-)
    1
  24. What is Teller using? Magic mushrooms? :-)
    1
  25. Except that it doesn't solve anything. ;-)
    1
  26. Why are you professing to such nonsensical beliefs? ;-)
    1
  27. I wouldn't go that far, but there are very, very few truly intelligent people on this planet. ;-)
    1
  28. No, I can't. I am sober. :-)
    1
  29. That is not even remotely true. You can measure a radioactive decay without influencing it. While it is correct that not all measurements are without influence on the system, that the measurement outcome always depends on the measurement is only correct for a subset of all measurements. A far better way to characterize quantum mechanics is as the unitary representation theory of the Poincare group. That gets is right every time.
    1
  30. @ The system didn't interact. An atom or a nucleus is simply not just "an atom" or "a nucleus". It's the atom/nucleus AND the entire physical vacuum surrounding it. Non-relativistic quantum theory simply can't model that because it does not have a concept of quantum fields. One needs relativistic quantum field theory to fully understand what is actually going on here and that is why an approach without taking Poincare symmetry into account is doomed to fail.
    1
  31. @ Lattice QCD predicts g_A (axial coupling constant) within 10% or so, if I am not mistaken, which is plenty good given the difficulty of the calculation. You are simply mistaking the ontological correctness of a theory for its numerical predictive power. Classical mechanics can only predict approx. a dozen Hamiltonian systems out of an infinity of possible ones. That doesn't make it a bad theory. It simply tells you that the world DOES NOT run on math the way you were falsely taught in high school. It's much more complicated than that.
    1
  32. Except that she isn't talking about a theory here. ;-)
    1
  33. Why are you talking nonsense? It's probably the alcohol. ;-)
    1
  34.  @matthewguzda4075  I was giving you the advantage of the doubt. ;-)
    1
  35. You are asking all the wrong questions. AI does not work like humans do. The same AI can be deployed a trillion times, learn a trillion facts and have a trillion experiences and then be merged back into one... which then can be deployed again and again. Death to humans is only painful because we can not be forked and backed up. We can't pass on our experiences directly. If anything AI will have to learn to selectively forget to stay sane. It won't suffer from a fear of death, it will at most suffer from an overabundance of bullshit that's surrounding it.
    1
  36. Do you have an actual literature reference for it? I am asking because if you read von Neumann's book from 1932, then it seems that he understands physics just fine. He doesn't use such strange concepts at all.
    1
  37. Yes, you failed in science class? So what? That only means you failed in science class. ;-)
    1
  38. @ Yes. That was all bullshit. All an intelligent physics educated person has to say at this point is "Quantum mechanics is the unitary representation theory of the Poincare group.". All other intelligent physics educated people will just nod and move on to something that is actually not trivial. ;-)
    1
  39. @ Where does consciousness play a part in physics? Nowhere. Nature doesn't give a shit about your bullshit. ;-)
    1
  40. @ I didn't read your comment wrong. I am simply pointing out that intelligent people (on either side) aren't wasting a single thought on this thing. Absolutely NOTHING in nature cares about human consciousness.
    1
  41. @ I don't consider Sabine an intelligent person. I consider her a narcissist and a troll. Neither of those two personalities will listen to anything anybody says to her. Will you? ;-)
    1
  42. @ You want to have an argument with a narcissist? Go ahead. I stick to feeding chess playing pigeons on the internet. That's more productive. ;-)
    1
  43. @ She is making money with this bullshit. You are, at most, getting attention that Mommy won't give you. :-)
    1
  44. @ You are begging for attention again. ;-)
    1
  45. @ More attention coming up. ;-)
    1
  46.  @chiptowers1  Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. :-)
    1
  47. @ You are begging for attention again. :-)
    1
  48. @ Cool story, bro. :-)
    1
  49.  @chiptowers1  Yes, I didn't read that, either. ;-)
    1
  50.  @chiptowers1  Curiously, I didn't read your first post, either. ;-)
    1
  51.  @chiptowers1  It would have been a waste of time to read it. ;-)
    1
  52.  @chiptowers1  I didn't get that. Can you repeat that one more time? ;-)
    1
  53.  @chiptowers1  You are begging again. ;-)
    1
  54.  @chiptowers1  Awh, such cute begging. ;-)
    1
  55.  @chiptowers1  Feeding time. ;-)
    1
  56.  @chiptowers1  Eat up! :-)
    1
  57. Feynman had a real talent to give you the wrong intuition. This is a clear-cut case where he did just that. The effect has absolutely nothing to do with information about the path of particles. For one thing there are no particles and even if there were some, they wouldn't have a path in quantum mechanics. What simply happens is that a measurement of a quantum removes that quantum of energy from the field. Energy that has been removed can not be detected a second time anymore.
    1
  58. The only influence that human mind has on wave functions is that it creates them. They don't exist in reality to begin with. ;-)
    1