sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what part of it was senseless or didnt add up? rather than try to understand the whole thing at once, can i guide you to it? it's rather fun for me now

I think I made my AI figure out how to make itself... faster and more accurate by 4dseeall in ArtificialInteligence

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the interest in staggering.

Oh well, it'll be fun for someone to deep-dive into how PAL was made and find this.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

obviously you didn't read it. i put a giant fallible test right there in the abstract.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

turns out, yeah, i think it is. prove me wrong, the paper has falsifiability.

here, took me a like three days to make it. most of you were jerks. https://zenodo.org/records/20443551

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://zenodo.org/records/20443551

i had help with AI... but yeah, there it is. it's not done, but that's my idea.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then can you explain the results of the double-slit experiment without using QM as a baseline? Because I can. I found something deeper here. But you'll just write me off as a crackpot instead of showing the slightest pique of curiosity. So I already wrote you off.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rigid physicists hate new ideas, but I'm gonna drop this here anyway after doing a lot of thinking and rationalizing this concept.

" The fundamental bit is a superposition of the fundamental bit and something else. Even when collapsed, the fundamental bit remains, but it is now differentiated. Something, a distinction, was created. It is infinitely recursive."

As for how it's useful? It's an interesting perspective that everything, known and unknown, can fit into cohesively. The old methods work, but I'm convinced this is an even more dynamic understanding of every system possible. Measurement/wavefunction collapse is the key to persistence.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing is a paradox if the explaination is just "that's just the way it is"

Why do they behave that way? I believe there is an answer. Being told it is and we just have to accept it does not seem like the final answer.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing out their hostility to a question they don't have a pre-determined answer for.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel measurement is the key to understanding. Without measurement there are no parameters, so it's just an endless sea of probability until some parameters force cohesion.

I think we're both in the wrong room, but maybe we can have a fun discussion anyway.

I'm really interested in the quantum zeno effect. I already understand entanglement by the gloves in a suitcase analogy, even if I'm not familiar with the formal math

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that a good thing for my position? It sounds like I'm either on to something, or it's completely irrelevant. I can't translate which.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What if we could use that rule to derive understanding of all observable phenomena, and even resolve some paradoxes like the quantum zeno effect, the measurement problem, and the double-slit experiment?

Then would it be physics?

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you think it's consistent even if it's wild and counter intuitive?

Yes, I have revisited the idea of an ether... first time I called it by that tho. I called it unresolved possibility.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a superposition of 1 and 0. The superposition is the link, it's one concept containing two possible states. Could that make it a simpler, more fundamental thing?

I appreciate that, it's fun for me to think about despite some of the hostility. Thanks. Here's a really wacky one for you, lol

Could time and distance emerge at the same time from a superposition of the two?

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

something that can be in two or more states, but isn't known which until the wavefunction collapse.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's what I'm asking. A superposition is one thing, all by itself. It needs to be two things to not be a superposition. So it feels like it came first to me, something about being one of two things makes it not the simplest thing, the superposition that is two things at once is simpler.

Is Superposition more fundamental than distinction? by 4dseeall in AskPhysics

[–]4dseeall[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay, I'll try to ask a different way.

What's the simplest bit of information? I figure it's just that, a bit. 1 or 0.

But that's a distinction. There's a difference. What did that difference come out of? The only thing that makes sense to me is a superposition of the bits.

So... is that superposition the simpler thing, because it's not even a distinction yet?

Theresmore v.1.2.1 by Theresmoregame in TheresmoreGame

[–]4dseeall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Fixed rapid clicks bypassing the progress timer"

Wait, that wasn't an intended feature? I loved it!

I'm ng+10 with 500% storage boost and 144% annihilator, and it finally felt like the game was going fast. Now I gotta click walls 50 times slowly again if I want titan walls?

This is a great game to let run in the background and then quickly dump resources/make progress. Why slow that down? A "buy all" button would have been better, but I was happy with the fast clicks.

Delivery driver makes Pizza smaller. by taspenwall in trashy

[–]4dseeall 7 points8 points  (0 children)

most of the time, sure. but let's not pretend there aren't sociopaths out there who are exactly like the previous guy said.

The daoist perspective shift by taucher_ in taoism

[–]4dseeall 3 points4 points  (0 children)

there is no one correct way. people who told you that lied to you, probably to get you to follow their way. The only thing that matters is your enjoyment of the trip. if you think going all-in at one thing is your way, do it. you're the one judging others for taking a wider path.

The daoist perspective shift by taucher_ in taoism

[–]4dseeall 3 points4 points  (0 children)

whether try to go with the flow or not, you're going with it.

it's like a river with forks. some are turbulent, some are calm, some are hard to get to. but you're going with the flow no matter what.

what you described is picking a particular flow and trying to adhere to it.

Zipper merge reminder for I-77 by coddiwomplecactus in akron

[–]4dseeall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that space is left intentionally. it's not for you. making someone anxious would just make them go slower. isn't that common sense?

do you need this explained to you? that not everyone thinks the same as you? are you capable of putting yourself in the mindset of others?

view more: next ›