Bro wtf where does the river come from? I tried following it upstream on gmaps but it just stops in the middle of some field. Not even a mountain or something
I still don’t get it, personally. I just joined the one I’m on because it was the first one I saw I have no real understanding of what’s going on or how it’s didn’t from reddit other than one person can’t power trip on it.
Think of it like different email providers. There are a few big ones, and some people host their own, but they can all (usually) communicate with each other.
Alright, that tracks. But then how/ why do I see stuff from the other instances (I think that’s the right word)? Are they all like different subreddits?
That would be the different email providers in the analogy. Each instance has its own set of communities (subreddits). But if the instances are federated with yours, then you can see the communities of those other instances
I immediately thought this poor artist was in the cave for days, periodically poking his head out, and the bear was still there, just waiting.
They got many close looks at that bear and had nothing to do but draw the thing that would finally kill them when they got desperate enough to make a run for it.
This painting might be like someone writing Jeff on the tile floor in their own blood. Or they became friends like in a Disney movie. I see no middle alternative.
I think is the other way around, we keep finding rooms on the NP floor that were actually on the P one, but we can’t prove for sure that they’re the same floor.
If youre able to explain something in 5 sentences and put a table and plot with the results. Do it. No need to elaborate in 5 pages how fucked up your ability is to use thesaurus for synonyms.
Edit. Usually i read the headline and put the article into my bibtex library.
5 pages?!??! In my discipline, we spend five pages just kissing reviewer 2’s behind and begging people to take an interest. Then we spend 20 pages citing everyone and their adviser and their adviser’s second cousin on the off chance that they’re married to reviewer 2. Then you get a copy-paste of the documentation of one of the five datasets that everyone uses.
Agreed. The worst part to write for me are always the fucking "introduction"s, explain why we did this, why it deserves your attention and a lot of addedd fluff. I did it because I wanted to. Read it if you are interested, go away if not.
I had this problem for my bachelor thesis. I used some other paper about machine learning and changed some parameters. Others I didn’t touch because I didn’t knew what they do. Now I have to explain why I copied those parameters. I just wrote in testing they proved to be the best.
“observing changes the result” doesn’t mean conciousness attempting to look at it changes the result, there is nothing special about conciousness (in quantum mechanics)
“observing changes the result” means we try to measure atoms and fields but unfortunately our measurement tools are also made out of atoms and fields which interact with the atoms and fields we are trying to measure, giving us a different result than if we don’t attempt to measure it
It does bring up interesting questions about what the “real” behavior of reality is tho, since anything we observe is technically different than what it would be if left alone. We can only ever know what a slightly altered state of reality is
Then you are measuring something with matter still and it then affects it. Literally causing interactions to measure means altering it’s state even at a nonchalant glance.
hmm, I can get how that might cause the measured item to say, change its velocity, but not how that would cause a wave to collapse into a single point.
Measuring is a loaded misnomer. Interacting with a particle changes what the particle is doing. There is no such thing as nondestructive testing in quantum physics.
Measuring just happens to be something we do a lot which necessarily causes particle interactions.
Right but how do you measure the things around what you are trying to measure and get any data from it unless you expect them to also interact with the things you are measuring.
You have to have an interaction to measure even if you are measuring the outcome and steps away from the original interaction.
It’s like measuring dark matter where the easiest way to prove it’s existence was to wait and capture the decay of it but not the particle itself. But that means the particle was already gone when we got the measurements to prove it was there.
You can use a tennis ball machine to measure how far away a house is by firing the tennis ball at a constant velocity, timing how long it takes the tennis ball to come back to you, multiplying that time by the velocity, and dividing by 2 (since you measured the distance for a round trip). This works pretty darn well for measuring the distance to houses.
But now try this same trick to measure the distance to another ball. When your measuring ball hits the ball you want to measure, it doesn’t stay resolutely planted in the ground like that nice friendly house. The energy from your measuring ball bounces the ball being measured off into the distance. Even if you could get your measuring ball to return, the ball you measured isn’t in the place you measured it.
Replace that tennis ball with a photon, and you have the basic picture. There’s no such thing as passive observation. Measuring something interacts with that thing. Conventional measurement is like in the case with the house, the thing being measured is so much bigger and more stable than the thing we’re measuring with that the effect is negligible. But once you start trying to measure something on the same scale as your measuring tool, the ensuing chaos makes it basically impossible to get useful measurements.
This analogy is really well thought out. It really helps my brain understand the weirdness that goes on with measurements on the quantum scale. Thanks for taking the time to type it out.
Not quite - observability in quantum mechanics is about the event producing an interaction that could potentially be measured, regardless of whether we actually attempt to measure it. By interacting with other things the superposition is collapsed and we can determine it’s current properties, but it’s still the “real” behaviour of things, because we can only determine things behaviours from their interactions with other things - not knowing what they do when left alone isn’t just about there not being a human around to interacts with them, but about there not being any other particles - no atoms, no electrons, no quarks - for them to interact with either.
Agreed, I’ve learned a lot doing this. Sometimes it leads to a story, like the ruins of a federal fire watchtower that was destroyed by arson, or discovering one of the largest fisheries in the country. I’ve also noticed a lot more houses are torn down in my city than might be expected. Whole blocks are empty fields now, or maybe have one derelict house remaining.
It’s also disturbing just how much trash people collect in their yards… and the massive wounds of foresting and strip mining.
Ugh, I was in rural china once and the uncle of my ex threw all his trash in his back yard. Disgusting. Nobody really minded though. They didn’t approve, but they didn’t confront him.
Consciousness has nothing to do with the “observations” in quantum mechanics. The wave function collapses when we entangle ourselves with the outcome. Whether or not we actually record those “observations” is irrelevant.
The term they should have used from the get-go is “measurement” instead of “observation”. Humans will always tack on mystical mumbo jumbo if given a chance, muddying up the waters for us laymen trying to learn, and “measurement” sounds much more neutral to me.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone understands exactly what consciousness is for and why we have one, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
science_memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.