• MurrayL@lemmy.worldEnglish
    18·
    14 days ago

    I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

    If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

    Both quotes attributed to Richard Feynman.

    • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      2·
      13 days ago

      The “weirdness” of QM all stems from a belief in “value indefiniteness,” which is the idea that particles have no real properties when you are not looking at them, but suddenly acquire real properties when you look. If you believe that, then the question naturally arises, at what point do they acquire real properties precisely? What does “look” even rigorously mean? This issue was first brought up by John Bell in his article “Against ‘Measurement’”. The “answers” to this always fall into one of three categories:

      1. “Look” just means you become aware of it. This devolves into solipsism, because other people are also made up of particles, so they would have no real properties either until you become aware of them.
      2. “Look” is more of a specific physical process that measuring devices do. But this is vague without rigorously and mathematically defining what this physical process is, and if you do define it, then it’s provable that no definition can be consistent with the mathematics of quantum mechanics. If we agree with the premise that “quantum mechanics is correct,” then such an approach is trivially ruled out.
      3. There is no “look,” systems never acquire real, observable properties at all. But then you run into Wittgenstein’s rule-following problem. If the mathematical model never predicts that a system acquires real properties, then you can never tie it back to any real-world observation.

      The “weirdness” stems from starting with an assumption that is not logically possible to make consistent in the first place and then developing dozens of “interpretations” trying to make it consistent, but none of the major interpretations are ultimately logically consistent if we agree that (1) objective reality exists and (2) quantum mechanics is correct.

      Feynman’s belief in “value indefiniteness” stems from an argument he made here regarding the double-slit argument and how probabilities should add together. I made a video here explaining why his argument does not work, but you can also read John Bell’s paper here because von Neumann made a similar flawed argument and Bell gave a similar rebuttal to it.

      If you just drop off “value indefiniteness” as an assumption, which has no justification for it in the academic literature, then all the quantum woo around quantum mechanics disappears, and the arguments over interpretations like Copenhagen or Many Worlds or QBism simply become superfluous.

      • ranzispa@mander.xyzEnglish
        02·
        13 days ago

        I can tell a piece of software to do the maths for ms. Sometimes the results appear to work with reality.

        People complain about LLMs hallucinating, but they have no idea of how many assumptions and just plain “everybody does it this way, I guess it works” are there in scientific research.

        • ptu@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          0·
          13 days ago

          It’s called the heuristic method and those doing it know the limitations. Whereas LLMs will just confidently put out garbage claiming it true.

          • ranzispa@mander.xyzEnglish
            0·
            13 days ago

            Scientific calculations - and other approaches as well - put out garbage all the time, that is the main point of what I said above.

            Some limitations are known, just like it is known that LLMs have the limitation of hallucinating.

            • ptu@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              0·
              13 days ago

              I didn’t notice your critique on the outcome of results, but how they were achieved. LLM’s hallucinating are making computers make ”human errors”, which makes them less deterministic, the key reason I prefer doing some things on a computer.

  • tinfoilhat@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    13 days ago

    Every time my wife walks in on me peeing she just stares at my pecker and asks me “so how does it come out?”

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      1·
      12 days ago

      Idk i keep asking myself, how would it feel like to have 6 fingers, and are you able to move them all? Idk it just seems weird, but then i remember that i have 5 fingers too and i can move them just fine. So i guess it’s intuitive somehow?

  • blitzen@lemmy.caEnglish
    1·
    13 days ago

    My grandfather didn’t die in Korea so that people could fight online like this.

  • slappyfuck@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    13 days ago

    I’ve read this like ten times and I think the joke might be that quantum mechanics are difficult to explain to everyone, of which women are obviously a subset. But maybe I’m doling out too much credit lol

    • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      12 days ago

      The joke is that quantum mechanics are difficult to understand, so the commenter doubts their ability to properly explain it (to women). The replier assumed it was a dig at women’s intelligence, not a reflection of the original commenter’s intelligence and ability to explain.

      I.e. a stupid person would have difficulty explaining anything to women.

    • abysmalpoptart@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      13 days ago

      To be fair, the original question did not clearly state it needed to be easy to explain to men. The only requirement was to be difficult to explain to women. So, technically, this answers the question as written.

  • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    12 days ago

    Anyone else bored as fuck, and wish someone would post another Misoginyst/Misandrist post, so we can read people getting upset?

    I’m actually kind of addicted to watching the hate now. I’m not even Misoginyst/Misandrist myself.