Paradigmattic Responsibility

[Ambassador KAOS]

A little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever (see Multiverse, Consistant/Multiple histories, Many Worlds, and Schr??dinger's cat, among other cosmology). 

As such it can be inferred that although an instance may occur that it will be recieved differently by every consciousness including de-coherance.

Speaking strictly from a rational veiwpoint, the universe cannot exist strictly in a state of equilibrium or antithesis as both terms are mutually exclusive of subjectivity (hence the forces of chaos).

Reason then allows us to deduce that although we, as human beings, do not have the power to control the origin of information, we do indeed have 100% responsibility to how we percieve/measure and react to it.

Cabbages are often noted for measuring their own subjective human conditions in terms of suffering.  How will you measure yours?

[Adios]

Still trying to teach us poor unaware Discordians?

Fuck off.

Where is that long cat?

[Ambassador KAOS]

Longcat behind the toolbox, but which toolbox will have the special honor of posting it in this thread first is the real question.

Thanks for your post, it kinda serves as a giant exclamation point to my essay.

[LMNO]

A little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever

Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.




While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Longcat behind the toolbox, but which toolbox will have the special honor of posting it in this thread first is the real question.

Thanks for your post, it kinda serves as a giant exclamation point to my essay.

I didn't read your "essay".

Because you're a fucking troll.  You have nothing to say.

[Ambassador KAOS]

A little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever

Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.




While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?

1) I'll see what I can dig up.  I read on that whoel thing over a year ago it was mixed in with the reading on einstein and philosophy, I think it had something to do with how the perception of the speed f light occurs.  There's bound to be several documents on it somewhere.

2) Decoherance theories are never "proven" because it is their nature to be mutually exclusive of the ability to be proven.  It's like talking about the aether, you can't find it because it's ever present, further, if moving to another world, one wouldn't necessarilly detect the difference.  you may be slipping through different points in extradimensional space already. 

Everett does however hold up to shroedenger's cat which is pretty much the deffault test for barstool subjectivity.

Seems reasonable enough, you already do it with time and space as it is.

Decoherance simply states that although you weren't there to hear it, the tree that fell in the woods did indeed make a sound and this is apparent with butterfly effect, sooner or later it will relate back to you, just not necessarilly how you might imagine.

If you don't subscribe to decoherance and think that if you don't percieve something that it didn't actually happen, well, i can't help you on that.

Yes reality is subjective, but I still have faith that certain principles most always ring true: IE gravity, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc. 

And even still, under special circumstances these things are faulty, and that would be why i tend to agree with many worlds myself.

If a given system can self sustain in isolation (certain ones can, though it's not worth speaking of really) then it also seems plausible that there may be more to the system than what we originally thought.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A little known fact is that the collapse of the state vector (or wave function) in any given circumstance occurs in the consciousness of the perciever

Please cite a direct, peer-reviewed source that says the collapse of the state vector occurs in in the conciousness of the perciever.




While we're at it, when did the Wheeler-Everett model get proved, anyway?

1) I'll see what I can dig up.  I read on that whoel thing over a year ago it was mixed in with the reading on einstein and philosophy, I think it had something to do with how the perception of the speed f light occurs.  There's bound to be several documents on it somewhere.

2) Decoherance theories are never "proven" because it is their nature to be mutually exclusive of the ability to be proven.  It's like talking about the aether, you can't find it because it's ever present, further, if moving to another world, one wouldn't necessarilly detect the difference.  you may be slipping through different points in extradimensional space already. 

Everett does however hold up to shroedenger's cat which is pretty much the deffault test for barstool subjectivity.

Seems reasonable enough, you already do it with time and space as it is.

Decoherance simply states that although you weren't there to hear it, the tree that fell in the woods did indeed make a sound and this is apparent with butterfly effect, sooner or later it will relate back to you, just not necessarilly how you might imagine.

If you don't subscribe to decoherance and think that if you don't percieve something that it didn't actually happen, well, i can't help you on that.

Yes reality is subjective, but I still have faith that certain principles most always ring true: IE gravity, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc. 

And even still, under special circumstances these things are faulty, and that would be why i tend to agree with many worlds myself.

If a given system can self sustain in isolation (certain ones can, though it's not worth speaking of really) then it also seems plausible that there may be more to the system than what we originally thought.

Oh, now he's a physicist, too!   

[Adios]

He's a fucking idiot that thinks he's got it all figured out and wants to teach us poor unenlightened Discordians the Real Path.

[Triple Zero]

just one few remarks:

a "consciousness" cannot pick up non-laboratory condition quantum effects, because they are too tiny to pick up with our senses. when quantum effects somehow manifest themselves in the perceivable world, by then there have been so many of then (trillion zillion billion gazschmillions) that the "uncertainty" principles and weird quantum math and quantum logic all have averaged out into thermic noise, and this average is what we call newtonian physics and is the only one we can perceive outside of laboratory conditions.

ok i might have cut a few corners in that explanation, but the gist of it is:

- you cannot observe quantum effects with your eyes
- you cannot apply quantum effects to human-perceivable scale. hell we can hardly connect the chain from chemical molecules to living single celled organisms.

[Cain]

He's trying to teach LMNO physics.    Those of you who know LMNO well, know this is like trying to teach Roger how to hate, or aini how to be a psychotic attention whore (no offence, cuz you do it so well).

[Triple Zero]

he should stick to teaching himself to be an idiot.

[Ambassador KAOS]

thread degeneration...

wasn't trying to teach anyone anything.

i think that perception comes in when people take this rant that wan't directed at anyone in paticular and start applying it to themselves personally as if i had written it just for them, which, if I had, I'd PM it.

This instead was designed to attack a standpoint my market research has indicated needed addressing; that somehow I'm responsible for someone taking a shitty attitude with me, rather than making their own shitty attitude their problem and letting me worry about my attitude, which, I don't seem to be having a problem with.

Other people on the other hand seem to be having attitudinal problems and I won't be taking responsibility for that, sorry, but I don't even do taht for my closest friends.  Rather, I provide what physical support I can, but it's my firm belief that you are responsible for your attitude and life, duh.

I suppose it is bit presumptuous to assume that what I percieve as in needing of  adjustment (ie people losing their cool and flipping shit) is something that they would percieve as such as many are slaves to their own emotions and are actually addicted to the chemical high they get when they flip out or cuss me out or whatever, and for them that may not be a problem,

however, I'm well within my rights to tell them they suck just as they are within theirs to longcat spam all day.

More importantly, this wasn't written to anyone specifically, but if you think that it was meant to apply to you, then it probably does.

.............


on a different note, I don't pretend to teach people shite, as a matter of fact I've already come to realize that LMNO is far better read on physics than myself which is one of th reasons i enjoy discussing it with him (and no, I am not a physicist, but i do enjoy the topic).  That doesn't however, automattically discredit anything that I might think or know on the subject and at any time that I am shown to be wrong I learn something new and integrate it, thus bettering myself.

Further, everyone knows something you don't and the pupil does indeed teach the master something at one point or another.

To me this point seems elementary, but since your not me I can't expect that you'd know it, or alternatley, expect you to have faith in that I know it and expect you to bypass questioning it .

Flaming nude space midgets.

[Triple Zero]

LOL THREAD DEGENERATED

[Ambassador KAOS]

but not roont!  no such thing as a roont fread!

[P3nT4gR4m]

AKK - your argument is bullshit and here's why.

Say I kick your parents door in and shoot your mom inna face - you honestly telling me I'm not responsible for your reaction?