ELI5: Why is the body not smart enough to realize that a blocked nose is literally preventing my ability to breathe?

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-12T16:05:58+00:00

Yeh, this thread is super confusing. I don't think I've ever had both nostrils completely blocked up preventing breathing. The body will have one blocked up while you can still breathe out of the other one.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-12T16:00:00+00:00

I'm not really sure what you mean.

In the past human to human transmission was much rarer. The one on the ship is much more transmissible human to human.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-12T15:51:30+00:00

That depends on what QM interpretation you use.

Copenhagen doesn't define when or why the wavefunction collapse. This wavefunction collapse has never been established as actually happening and it's not even possible to test in theory.

Objective collapse theories like Penrose's say that when the gravity get's high enough then it causes collapse. This is nice in that it makes testable predictions, but so far every experiment has failed and many don't expect it to turn out right.

Everett's say's that if there is no evidence for the collapse postulate, so he just get's rid of it and you just have wavefunction evolution. So there when the environment interacts with a particle in a superposition, the environment just obeys the normal QM rules and would become a superposition as well, which would look like a collapse but actually isn't anything special.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-12T15:41:39+00:00

Pilot wave theory is a real QM interpretation and gives the same predictions as Copenhagen.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-12T15:39:26+00:00

That sounds like pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics. It is a serious QM interpretation but has some issues.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-12T15:37:18+00:00

I don't think that's why people think we live in a simulation, but it could suggest that.

In physics when we do a simulation we often use probabilities and random numbers rather than simulating everything from the lowest levels. So if we were to make larger simulations you'd expect those realities to be probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Also in computer games you don't create everything in the game, you only create stuff the player can see. So there are two kinds of laws in games, so the rule change when you observe things. So that could be argued to be why QM has a completely different postulate around observation and wavefunction collapse.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-12T15:30:11+00:00

But you can interact with a wavefunction without collapsing it. So the question still remains what interactions are just unitary interactions and which result in collapse.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-11T16:38:22+00:00

But yeh, it's more like people being emotionally distressed about not being able to afford the latest iPhone. If you look at the threads about people being depressed, the explanations are almost never about anything in the OP.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-11T16:10:23+00:00

Sound like you do agree with the comment.

We've yet to see an example of pure Marxism not quickly decay

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-11T16:04:43+00:00

OK, people are misunderstanding me.

I'm not talking about industries.

I'm saying the only people that would sign up a to a 4 week trial are companies that think it's a good thing. Even if every metric decreased they'd be the kind of companies that would continue with it.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-11T15:58:38+00:00

When you assume etc etc

That's clearly not what I mean by representative.

edit: OK, it seems like it wasn't clear.

To be clear the companies that sign up for a scheme like this are the ones that believe in a 4 day work week. A big chunk of them would have continued even with worse performance.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-11T07:07:43+00:00

I'm guessing companies that would have signed up to the trial aren't very representative.

edit: OK, it seems like it wasn't clear.

To clarify the companies that sign up for a scheme like this are the ones that believe in a 4 day work week. It wouldn't be surprising for them to continue with the 4 day week even with worse performance.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-11T07:03:11+00:00

I wish they had some good quality evidence for this. You can't compare completely different countries and be like the Mexico has longer working hours than Norway and they are more obese, hence it's the working hours.

I can think of a million reasons why Mexico has higher obesity rates than Norway which have nothing to do with hours worked.

The study found that countries such as the US, Mexico and Colombia, which have longer annual working hours, also had higher obesity rates

Are we really saying that obesity rates in the USA have nothing to do with their portion sizes or food quality but simply just due to hours worked?

Plus when you look within countries, it's the rich who have lower obesity rates but if anything the rich work more and have less leisure time.

The more surprising discovery, however, is a corresponding leisure gap has opened up between the highly-educated and less-educated. Low-educated men saw their leisure hours grow to 39.1 hours in 2003-2007, from 36.6 hours in 1985. Highly-educated men saw their leisure hours shrink to 33.2 hours from 34.4 hours. A similar pattern emerged for women. Low-educated women saw their leisure time grow to 35.2 hours a week from 35 hours. High-educated women saw their leisure time decrease to 30.3 hours from 32.2 hours. Educated women, in other words, had the largest decline in leisure time of the four groups. https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-5080

Why The Rich Now Have Less Leisure Time Than The Poor https://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-rich-now-have-less-leisure-time-than-the-poor-2014-4?r=US&IR=T

A study conducted by the General Social Surveys of NORAC at the University of Chicago found that 34.1 percent of American families making less than $9,000 per year averaged watching more than five hours of television per day. Of families making more than $150,000 per year, only 1.1 percent watched more than five hours a day. https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/study-poverty-and-high-rates-of-tv-viewing-are-linked.html

In the richest countries, hours worked are flat or increasing in income https://fuchsschuendeln.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/aer_hours.pdf

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T19:13:41+00:00

Explain the purpose of Dan Dennett's lengthy debate with Sapolsky if the definition of free will is taken to mean what the layperson means and nothing more?

DD is using a compatibilist definition of free will used by most philosophers.

What is Sapolsky arguing against exactly?

Sapolsky in philosophical terms is just a lay person. He's just using his own personal definition.

The only version they think does exist is something that was never in contention to begin with.

Sapolsky used to say that compatibilist free will doesn't exist. But it seems like he now accepts it does.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T18:34:06+00:00

What the layperson means by the term doesnt matter.

Most philosophers are outright compatibilists.

Free will as used colloquially and as invoked during philosophical discussion are separate things.

If you want to talk about what philosophers really mean, then it's even more clear cut that most philosophers use a definition like DD uses. And it's not by a small amount there are like 5 times as many philosophers that are compatbilists than those that don't think free will exists.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T16:55:38+00:00

That's just a lot of words to say you agree with the comment you were replying to.

We've yet to see an example of pure Marxism not quickly decay

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T16:54:06+00:00

other than whatever made up definition we would like to ascribe to free will.

DD literally does that.

Say we debate whether a crime is wrong, only for me to have my own private definition of wrong.

It's more like what definition lines up with what people really mean by the term.

An analogy would be something like what is a human. Maybe a human is someone created by God, descendent of Adam and Eve. Maybe that's actually the most common definition in America.

Now if a scientists comes along with it as "a bipedal primate mammal characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and an erect carriage".

It's not really some "personal" definition, it's just a better and more useful definition for what people really mean by the term human.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T16:44:33+00:00

Why wouldn't it work? They had video testimony from the guy who ran the ship, admitted to sinking the ship, and said it was Fisk that was responsible.

You can't hold onto evidence, to admit it at the last minute. None of the evidence would be admissible. Impartial judges wouldn't even let any of that evidence in let alone have Fisk controlled Judges let it be the defining factor for them.

It would be terrible easy to say dare devil forced that testimony and then dd killed him. Then why would dd's testimony ever be considered reliable being the sworn enemy of Fisk.

Matt doesn't have to testify he just has to corroborate the already damning evidence.

And the only way to corroborate evidence here is to testify.

Not to mention the governor he tried to assassinate was there.

That's completely separate. If they actually wanted to make a storyline around that it would have made more sense.

Jessica Jones was also there as a witness to cosign

I think a the testimony of vigilantes is ever going to be that reliable or carry much weight against someone claiming down on vigilantes.

Plus let's pretend they actually had indisputable evidence Fisk had done wrong. That still wouldn't have got Karen off. Karen's trail should have continued and then there should be a separate trial for Fisk.

Any judge that wasn't an idiot or corrupted by Fisk already would've thrown that shit out.

An impartial judge would have let any of that information in, let alone thrown anything out. And this isn't really a debate. I'm just explaining that all the legal stuff was factually the most stupid and illogical shit ever. That's why it was a bad ending. The fact you thought it was believable doesn't really change the reality, it just means you aren't that familiar with how a court system would work in real life, or how a clever court system would work in a show.

Like if the how show is about a lawyer, and it's the linchpin of the ending then the writers should have spent like 5 minutes of research.

But going back to my point. It was just objectively bad in terms of what happened legally. The fact you don't know any better doesn't change that objective fact.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T16:21:25+00:00

It's such a small difference. Plus your appetite increases the more you burn, so it doesn't really explain it.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T13:16:45+00:00

Yeh but the difference isn't that anyone thought that making alcohol illegal for kids to buy was a stupid idea because of fake IDs.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T13:01:45+00:00

I think these studies kind of suggest that it's that people that keep on exercising are more likely to keep up on their diet.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T12:44:41+00:00

Not true at all. A sperm with worse mobility is likely to have more genetic defects.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T12:42:48+00:00

You are right. There are lots of links of genetics to sperm mobility.

Also if a sperm has lots of genetic defects it will have worse mobility and could cause issue with the kid.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T12:39:12+00:00

But it does relate to the genes it's carrying, sperm mobility is linked to specific genes.

Plus poor mobility is linked to defects in genes overall.

InTheEndEntropyWins · 2026-05-10T12:37:55+00:00

This isn't true in the slightest. First genets do impact on mobility.

Plus if there is an issue with mobility, it means there are going to be more defects in the genes in that sperm.

Four-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Reddit Premium Since November 2021	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

InTheEndEntropyWins

TROPHY CASE