No arguments from me, but nobody so far has suggested Christianity would help the situation, so I fail to see the relevance.
- 帖子
- 8
- 评论
- 813
- 加入于
- 2 yr. ago
- 帖子
- 8
- 评论
- 813
- 加入于
- 2 yr. ago
edit: Fell for the oldest trick in the book - quoted Christianity labeled as Islam. Guess what? Christianity isn't the solution here either, it's equally repulsive.
You read the Qur'an and tell me what you disagree with!
I don't typically waste my time with fairy stories, but sure, I'll give you a few: I disagree with the paedophilia and child marriage, first and foremost, and I think it's weird as fuck that you'll just skate over that as though it's not relevant in a story about children aspiring to sex work. I also disagree with the idea of cutting off someone's hands for theft, as another example.
Most people would probably list honour killings, but those aren't actually part of Islam, it's a leftover from the prior culture, so I won't list it here and am instead explicitly calling it out as not being part of the religion for anyone who might not know. I not only don't want to spread misinformation, I want to combat it.
So yeah, I stand by that maybe it's time to retire that catchphrase, bud. There's plenty to disagree with in any religious text, the Qur'an is no different.
Mohammed married a 9 year-old child; whatever other benefits you envision, I don't think that religion is a model of the solution here.
Naming and shaming is something the UK does much better than the US. Put the vile creatures recording and threatening children on blast, let the public see them for what they are.
May you live in interesting times
Not actually a curse from China, it was made up by some British politician in the early 1900s. I'm sure I could find something wryly amusing to say about colonialism, if I weren't so frakking tired of the results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times
Going for a walk, playing a card game together, just talking about life experiences...? I could go on, but why would I give you that charity? Go find your own examples, you shiftless bum.
Free speech just means the government isn't allowed to punish you for only saying things (and even that had a whole constellation of big fuckin asterisks on it). Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
I thought Sean Bean would be up for the role, myself.
I provided you with literal peer reviewed physics papers. What the fuck is wrong with you?
I want a paper that analyses information observed from other worlds, which yours DID NOT. Try taking your own advice to that other person in this topic, and read what I wrote.
Because reality is not objective, duh.
Actually, it is. That's kind of foundational for science. If you're going to straight up reject physical realism then you can't really talk about science at all.
Okay, apparently I need to take you to school before I go to work. I didn't realise it was my turn with you this week. Just to catch you up: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/advanced-information/
Because the theories of Bohm and Everett did not make any experimentally testable predictions that differed from standard quantum mechanics, most physicists regarded these kinds of proposals as rather esoteric and preferably only discussed during coffee breaks or in philosophy and history of science departments
(That bit, by the way, is why I'm right and you're wrong. Not experimentally testable? Not falsifiable. Period.) And
Bell pointed out that von Neuman’s proof was not correct (he gave the proof of this statement in a later publication [8]), and he also formulated the first Bell inequality, which was a spectacular theoretical discovery. Using a special version of the Bohmian-EPR thought experiment, he showed mathematically that no theory based on local hidden variables would be able to reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics.
With this mathematical illustration, Bell provided a proof of the assertions made by Bohr and Schrödinger, and thus showed that all attempts to construct a local realist model of quantum phenomena are doomed to fail. Bell used the words local and realist here in a technical sense: the former indicates the impossibility of instantaneous signalling, limited by the finite speed of light, and the latter means that the outcome of any experiment is fully determined by properties of the system, often referred to as hidden, that exist independently of any actual or potential measurement.
Now I'll be blocking you. Happy reading.
Ok, well now you've basically argued that falsification in general is impossible, for anything
English comprehension fail, no I didn't. I said you can't prove other worlds exist or not if you can't access anything other than this universe's information, which is true. Because if you can't access anything other than this universe's information there's no experiment to run on information about other worlds. This stems from not being able to observe those worlds by which to gather information about them, which is quite important to the scientific method.
The parameters of the emitted radiation - particle or wave type, energy level, charge, spin, colour, direction of travel, everything - would be different for every collapse
No they wouldn't, the laws of physics still apply
You think "the laws of physics" state there's only one outcome for every trait of a radio wave or excited particle? Because that's what your statement here means, since you're disagreeing with me. We're talking about how everything is a cloud of possibilities and you want to tell me now that every trait and path is predestined? That's just wrong.
“objective” in “objective collapse” at face value
And why shouldn't I?
Because reality is not objective, duh. Quite literally what we've been talking about this whole time.
No experiment has been performed that has detected this radiation being emitted, but if it had, it still wouldn’t have falsified MWI.
Yes, but by your standard, nothing can ever be falsified.
Still as wrong when you said it here as at the start.
I’m quite sure there’s no experiment
You asserting it doesn't make it true.
I was being polite. Show me the experiment, and this time don't just link any old shit in the hope I won't read or understand it. Despite my words, I know what I know, and you don't get to condescend to me without proving me wrong. Which you haven't done yet, due to the aforementioned failures in your English comprehension.
From within each world: Observers see exactly what CSL predicts - apparent spontaneous wave function collapse accompanied by radiation emission (or not, in this case). The collapse looks completely real and objective to the observers, and there is no experimental way to show otherwise.
Except there is no radiation emission unless the wave-function objectively collapses. That's the point.
There's no radiation emission at all that we've observed, but even if there were, you can't just demonstrate something happening around the same time and call it causality. You have to the show the radiation didn't come from another source, and anyone who disagrees with your conclusions has to show it did, and then we all get together and pick it all apart in peer review until we've decided whose argument is the best-supported.
Which is like now, but you're not showing any evidence of these "objective experiments" we've been running that supposedly prove anything about or have access to information from outside our universe.
Both frameworks ultimately make identical (observable) predictions from within each world
No, they don't. One predicts spontaneous radiation release, and one doesn't.
Explain how you plan to show that the spontaneous radiation release was not a result of being entangled with the thing you're observing. Your whole argument rests on information from this world, I'm blown away you don't see the fault in it.
you had a way to definitively show from within this world that MWI’s other worlds don’t actually exist, then it’d be falsifiable.
literally asking to prove a negative.
Yeah you're right, let me rephrase: if you had a way to definitively show from within this world that MWI’s other worlds DO actually exist, then it’d be falsifiable.
There. Now go ahead and prove that other worlds exist.
You spent a lot of words to say you don't understand that we don't live in an objective universe, or what falsifiability really is. I'm just willing to allow that I might be wrong even when I'm not, and you aren't because you're so certain you're right you can't see what you're actually saying.
I'm done with this conversation now; I hope you go do some reading on the scientific method to address these shortcomings, because I am positive you're not going to do the one thing you need to (which, again, is just to show the objective experiments you're talking about, rather than condescending to and insulting me).
Funnily enough, I found that article while reading up on MWI and was keeping it in my back pocket to compare with whatever you ended up linking.
So here's where I think we're getting tripped up. You're talking as though detecting this radiation would have falsified Many Worlds; I still think it would not. It would have created an explanatory burden on proponents of MWI, to explain where this radiation is coming from if not wave function collapse. These experiments wouldn't have been able to prove that the collapse was causing any kind of radiation emission; only that radiation emission was concurrent with it. We could conclude the collapse was the source only if all other sources were ruled out as possibilities.
Here's why: Each "world" would observe its own collapse of the wave function. The parameters of the emitted radiation - particle or wave type, energy level, charge, spin, colour, direction of travel, everything - would be different for every collapse, because every collapse is a branch point for a new world that can observe that specific collapse.
The trouble here is that you're taking the "objective" in "objective collapse" at face value. No experiment has been performed that has detected this radiation being emitted, but if it had, it still wouldn't have falsified MWI. I'm quite sure there's no experiment that can be performed that can't also be explained away with branching paths. Certainly not an experiment possible with current technology or theories.
The problem is, as I said, one of perspective:
- From the "God's eye view": If it were possible to see all branches then you'd see there's no collapse - just branching into multiple worlds, each with their own version of each possible collapse.
- From within each world: Observers see exactly what CSL predicts - apparent spontaneous wave function collapse accompanied by radiation emission (or not, in this case). The collapse looks completely real and objective to the observers, and there is no experimental way to show otherwise.
Both frameworks ultimately make identical (observable) predictions from within each world, which is what makes MWI unfalsifiable. If you had a way to definitively show from within this world that MWI's other worlds don't actually exist, then it'd be falsifiable. The ontological claims of a theory are not what make it unfalsifiable.
If we have to have an authoritarian state, why can't we use it to round up the monsters that do this? Put them in the fucking camps.
It's to help make sure you don't die if you have to fight. If you're in danger it's always better to be armed (and competent), even if you're running.
Assuming a binary choice, I wish they were the fun kind of drugs. Feel better soon ♥️
She's a cat, so
statisticsMagic 8-Ball says yes she is 😅
Misinformed. Someone probably thought they were making a point by labeling Biblical verses as from the Qur'an; unfortunately, violence and misogyny and paedophilia is not limited to the Abrahamic religions. I'll update my original post so it doesn't contain that misinformation.