mister_monster @ mister_monster @monero.town

46zFAv8KHaKVuYDTJ15TXAah6SCXw88Dx9UhTuUJa6ydb8m9uGLaYE3AX5JPFhsJjJ6w7NMc7vN

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

478

Joined

2 yr. ago

Good god Iran's shit is all over the place. He gets sentenced to 6 years, appeals it, gets sentenced to death. Death dude. For saying something out loud. How do governments like this expect to ever gain legitimacy in the eyes of the people they rule?

Well I think relativity tells us something more fundamental, that the world emerges as interactions from relative frames of reference, even in the quantum realm. It's easy to forget, every single thing going on is a quantum system with astronomical complexity, complexity of a system is the square of the number of quantum states in the entire system. A molecule is a quantum system, a cell is a quantum system, a tree is a quantum system, a tree rustling in the wind is a quantum system. A person interacting with another person for example is entangling those systems and is itself another quantum system. And I don't think entanglement is a binary thing, it's a thing of degree and quality. You're influenced by everything in your light cone, even if you've never directly observed a specific star for example, you still interact with it to some degree, you're a part of a quantum system composed of the entire observable universe, and even part of the unobservable one. Once you observe it, now your interaction is more than that. You can picture it in your mind, look for it again later, tell people about it. If you could orbit it, or touch it, you'd get entangled with it even more. I think a lot more about our experience than what we realize consciously is quantum phenomena, I think we experience these phenomena directly but we just take for granted those experiences and don't realize what they are fundamentally, just like someone who doesn't understand gravity doesn't realize that the experience of falling from a tree is the same force as the one that keeps the planets moving around the sun.

Why doesn't relativity explain it? It looks like a classic case of relativity to me, what am I missing?

Sure, but I don't think that's what's going on there.

I think observation/measurement of a quantum system means entangling with the system, so the quantum system becomes larger and includes the observer. Combine that with relativity, which is absolute in the universe, and you have an e plantation for that phenomenon.

Yeah, the apparent effect to us could be something really weird like incongruent physical laws or constants or things like that. I have no idea what it would be, only that it would be detectable.

Just because everything in our universe is interconnected is no guarantee that the same applies to the hypothetical universe in which our simulation is run

I addressed this already.

That's a meaningless truism.

It is incredibly unlikely.

I know, "if an ancestor simulation is possible than it is much more likely you're in one than not in one." That's fallacious, unfalsifiable and everyone loves to leave out the word "ancestor" which is very important to the thought experiment.

In our universe, no system is entirely isolated from the rest of it. It is impossible to create a system that does not in some way interact with the outside universe. So if it is a simulation in a universe, and the universe it is running in also has this rule we would see information from that universe leak into ours in some way. How that would appear we don't know, but it would be possible to figure it out. Maybe heat dissipates out, maybe bit flips happen in our universe due to the parent's equivalent to cosmic rays, maybe the speed of light is a result of the clock speed of the simulator. We don't know what it would be, but there would be something, and it would be theoretically discernible.

at least some of the laws of our universe are laws of the parent universe. So maybe that rule, no system exists in isolation, is also true above. Or maybe our speed of light is the same for them. Whatever it is, our cumulative constraints are more than that of the simulation.

All that, unless, in the parent universe, 1) systems can exist in isolation, or 2) it is an environment with no constraints. These two are functionally equivalent, so I'll talk about them like they're the same thing. In such a universe, there would be no causality, no form, nothing that makes it unified. It's not a universe at all. It's something like a universe post heat death. In such a scenario, running a simulation isn't possible. If it were, to create an environment in which causality can be simulated, that environment wouldn't be a simulation, it would be a bona fide universe.

So I think, the fact that we see no evidence that we are in a simulation means we are probably not in one. So that means, if we are in one it is falsifiable and we can prove or disprove it empirically. And it also means we can escape, or at the very least destroy it.

Aah, modern day reporting, where they just talk about tweets and X, formerly twitter.

A clean redshift application for Android, like redmoon. I found something but it's not quite there.

Again thinking you know me. Just stop, you're making yourself look stupid.

This entire thread is about people shitting on their own music taste when they were younger. I figured it would be all in good fun, I forgot about the pervasiveness of humorless people here and for that I will issue a deeply heartfelt apology.

I have experience contributing to a semi successful FLOSS project, one that I'm 100% certain you use daily. Why do people just assume they know you on the internet? What is it, law of averages? "The likelihood this person arguing with me is a nobody is high enough I can assume it." "If they disagree with me it means they don't know what they're talking about." How does this mentality work? You're the third person in a week on Lemmy (which makes it particularly funny) that has just assumed I don't have experience contributing to FOSS software. Do you have experience contributing to FLOSS software? Have you ever been expected to solve other peoples problems for free? I'm asking because I don't know. Maybe you have. I wouldn't want to get egg on my face assuming something.

There's a difference between creating something and giving it to the world and being on the hook to help them solve their business problems. A libre or permissive license does not commit the person who released it to making it work for anyone, for any reason. It is in fact the first line in those licenses.

They don't want to get paid for it being used. They want to get paid to continue working on it by people who need them to continue working on it.

Me IRL IRL.

I downloaded Fight Club once and there's a few frames at the end where there is a picture of a dick.

This is proof to me that the federated model has failed. I was so hopeful early on in the fediverse, I thought it was all we needed. I no longer feel that way. It's not a network of users, its a network of power tripping fiefdoms.

Client relay network topology is the future of social networking. Check out Nostr (and ignore all the bitcoiners, see the network for what it is).

I don't know man. Imagine you could have ssh access to every Debian and fedora server on the planet, and all you had to do was write tests for some compression library for 2 years and sneak in a clever patch. I'd guess such an exploit is worth millions. You wouldn't work 2 years for millions of dollars?

This is sophisticated but it doesn't have to be a state actor.

Windows user?

https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/issues/37197

What's Wayland support for the BSDs like?