/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10945141
The democratization of ideas. Socrates was put to death for arguing that democracy was stupid, and look at where we are now. Exactly where he had warned us not to go. In an orwellian nightmare.

>>10945158
Expound on this anon. Im interested

Sounds like OP got called out on his brainletism then got banned for sperging out.

>>10945172
No I'd better not say anything else. It's much better for everybody if you arrive at the correct conclusion by following your own line of reasoning, rather than subscribing to what some sage tells you. That's where that old hermetic teaching comes from. He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know.

>>10945182
Sounds like your very inaccurate vision of what went down stems from a luke warm iq score.

>>10945184
Interesting. Yeah pf just seems like a bunch of wannabe intellectuals who all found high school physics and ap physics challenging so they hang out on a physics forum hoping it will somehow cure their girly mental shortcomings and alleviate their deeply subconscious fears of inadequacy

>>10945211
My brother is one of those beta cucks who failed quantum physics at University twice and finally gave up and switched his major thinking "I don't understand it because of my shortcomings."
I am, on the other hand, convinced that he failed it because it doesn't make sense, and his autistic ass was incapable of proceeding with his line of reasoning without total certainty in his own comprehension.
To be based is to recognize that 2+2 does not equal 5. To never concede, even when you are about to be put to death.

>>10945141
OP's thread

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-many-bits-or-bytes-of-information-are-present-in-1-atom.952025/

>>10945227
I dont understand. Are you saying it wouldve been more honorable for your brother to except the counterintuitive teachings he learned in class?
I think if you are a man you stand by your principles. The one i stand by is causal determinism. Ill buy a case of beer for any faggot that shows me something that happens without a cause.

>>10945227
>2+2 does not equal 5
0.999...=1
0.00...1=0
1=0
1+1=2 OR 1 OR 0
2= 2 OR 1 OR 0
2+2= 4 OR 3 OR 2 OR 1 OR 0
5>2+2=>0

you might be on to something

>>10945248
buy me a beer and i'll tell you all about it

>>10945248
I'm saying if you have the brains to think for yourself AND the balls to do so, you will inevitably arrive at the correct conclusion, which is of course, causal determinism.

>>10945244
>as goldilox ventures into the dark woods of 4chan, without bringing an ak47

Hows it going faggot? Did your mom make you go down on her again today?

>>10945184
sounds like you don't know and you don't speak

>>10945282
True.
I dont know how you could possibly think the world wasnt deterministic. Like how would you explain the mechanism for an event happening without a cause. It would imply the event itself chooses to happen. Like a baseball thrown to the left stopping in mid air and then moving back to where it came from.

>>10945282
>>10945309
Of course things are deterministic, that doesn't mean they can be predicted.

>>10945309
Don't go talking about determinism in real life or you will be added to a watchlist and blacklisted for lots of different jobs. Dialectic materialism, the metaphysics proposed as a precursor to Marx's communist manifesto is causal determinism. That's why alphabet boys are raiding this board right now, my shitposting is too powerful. Anyways I don't care about politics, I just want to get fully kitted and get the fuck off this planet.

>>10945310
I dont know why a determinist would believe things could be predicted in practice. In theory you could predict the future if you knew every strings location to perfect accuracy but you will never get there. We cant even predict where a fucking hurricane will be past 24 hours later.

>>10945251
>1=0
wut

>>10945302
Kek did you make this thread hoping to have a circlejerk with your secret club?

>>10945141
You probably behaved like an asshole and they got defensive about that. Not their fault you have no social skills.

>>10945332
No but i fucked your father after church last sunday

>>10945332
I don't have a secret club, we are all operating as independent agents with no clue as to the identity of our co-conspirators. I don't even know what the objective is.

>>10945334
Of course i have social skills, but i like to troll faggots who have higher self esteem than their iq justifies.
Im like an ego police. And physics forums was full of pompous shit raping clown festivals. I had to chop those fucking faggots down to size

>>10945342
>Not the hero we deserved
>The supreme gentleman we needed
Thank you for your service, noble knight.

>>10945330
How new are you?

>>10945227

This.

The entire system currently is a fraud. Power to OP for experiencing it for himself.

>>10945310

Based

>>10945342
based

>>10945390
I circle back to sci occassionally but mostly i wage war on sjws over on pol.
Making sjws choose between suicide and accepting they are wrong and libertarianism is right is about as much fun as is possible to have on the internet

>>10945397
Yeah. Forums that ban and censor certain members because they wreck their perfect little forum with pwnage always seem to evolve into a safe space for autistic faggots who need a hangout that builds their self esteem. The mods at physics forums were probably hermaphrodites with ambiguous genitals. Thats the only type of person who i imagine would want to hide behind a computer screen venting their frustration by banning anybody they dont agree with. But at the basic, those mods are shiteating faggots, and i dont have any sympathy for them.

>>10945468
Are you unironically a libertarian? Holy shit your ideology is retarded lol

>>10945493
Most big subreddits and Reddit in general in a nutshell

>>10945513
If you had to debate ron paul you would start crying for your mommy after the first 5 minutes of him destroying you

>>10945184
Yea but thats bullshit

Telling what you know cant hurt so spit it billy

>>10945636
I sincerely believed for a long time that sharing correct information with people could do no harm, but that turned out to be false. I was an idealist then, I am a realist now. It turns out that a false belief is a delusion, regardless of how benign it may seem to the people around you. In a sense, everyone is delusional to some extent. It's a well known phenomenon in psychiatry, that challenging a person's delusion may cause their state of psychosis to worsen. It is literally irresponsible for me to drop wisdom bombs on unsuspecting people. There's more to it than that, but basically I'm serious I will not tell.

>>10945707
uh oh look like a big boy found some weird numbers

>>10945722
loloolol

and 8 is just a zero that died

also can we please finally do something about this captcha? hard to share my info from here with it still up and kicking around

>>10945342
ty based mad god

>>10945251
ah shit here we go again

now go write a good new story

>>10945158
Socraties wasnt put to death for that reason. He was sentanced to death by an aristocracy, which didnt like him challenging the established thinking. And its implied that he was only put to death because of his own stubbornness.

>>10945572
WATCH RON PAUL DESTROY SOME RANDOM ANON | HOW WILL <insert ideology> EVER RECOVER

>>10945158
woah what a gross misrepresentation of actual fact, this totally is not malicious in its intent

>>10945248
What about first cause? Can't have a cause itself an it?

>>10945468
>I circle back to sci occassionally but mostly i wage war on sjws over on pol
>pol
not sure if bait or newfag tourist

>>10945184
I'm so sick of this idea that if you're quiet you're a genius. Smart people communicate. Yes there's vocally stupid people, but Socrates (who's already been mentioned) was a big talker from what I can tell. This notion of the silent super genius is a cope.

>>10945707
Well the person you're responding to is asking for your "bombs," so they're not unsuspecting.

>>10946055
It's not that I don't share any information, ever. That would be literally impossible. I tend to talk quite a bit around my friends and family, and I will say just about anything that comes to mind. It's just certain specific things are better left unsaid. Obviously if we were to interpret the words of Hermes literally, his speaking them to his pupil would be a contradiction. Anyone can and will pick up on this nuanced subtlety if they take a moment to think about it. You are too quick to judgement, such haste. Such hasty reasoning is exactly why this particular exercise is left to the reader.

>>10945251
>1=0
Not without the axiom of choice.

>>10945572
Yup

>>10946049
My view is there may have always been something there that could cause everything else to happen.

>>10946055
Theres geniuses of all kinds

>>10945141
WannabeNewton is legit gay

>>10945141
The fact that OP did not post a screen of what he said leads me to believe he knows he's in the wrong but wants validation.

>>10945468
11/10 b8 almost made me mad

>>10945141
>They are all basically chugging the copenhagen interpretations cock

As they should. There is a reason why it is the leading interpretation among actual physicists. Especially when you add decoherence.

>>10945141
Where there is moderation, you have to suck up or else you'll be banned. Where there is little moderation, survival of the fittest thought arrive. COPEnhagen dies.

>>10945244
so OP does not know basic physics, asks really dumb shit, and then cries on /sci/ when he is banned

>>10945572
Yeah totally dude.
Bait is too obvious

>>10945725
If you are to lazy to go to bitcoin ATM and get 4chan pass.

then you can install:
https://pastebin.com/raw/F7xTiJti

>>10945141
Such people usually learned only general physics, but only theoretical physics answers your question.

>>10945244
It's a fucking facebook, holy shit!

>>10945141
I think arguments for free will are better left to philosophy at the current moment. I'm a physicist that believes in free will, but my reasoning can't stem from physical intuition.

You shouldn't get mad at people for believing in it. You have to realize that if you truly think the world is completely deterministic then there is no "you". This is due to a basic concept in philosophy called "agency".

In other words, people believe they make decisions so they believe in free will. If one did not believe in free will, and instead believed in a deterministic universe, then no one has control over their lives.

>free will
>metaphysics

come on /his/ was created for this shit because we whined.
>>>/his/

>>10946672
I posit determinism not because it appeals to my preferred consequence, but because it makes the most logical sense. The implications are nothing short of all encompassing, meaning that your belief or disbelief in this particular theory is pivotal to our very survival as a species.

>>10946672
It's the other way around, you and agency exist if there's determinism, and don't exist if there's no determinism, because only determinism can provide mechanism for their existence. People control their lives, because their decisions affect their lives save for competence and force major.

>>10946713
Wew lad
Don't entertain the idea that free will is anything more than a cope.
If you don't want to concede now, you had better be ready for one hell of a definition argument.

>>10945141
>Who else thinks physics forums is full of faggots?
pic related guy definitely thinks that

>>10946682
Not sure why you said "your". If the universe is deterministic then "I'm" just a bunch of particles interacting with other particles. Also not sure how determinism is the most logical conclusion. Quantum mech is seemingly not deterministic.

>>10946713
When I'm talking about determinism, I'm talking about the whole universe being deterministic. I.e. my brain receives inputs and determines an output, regardless of a perceived choice. Hypothetically you could calculate what one "person" may "decide" in the future, if you know the state of all particles and fields at any moment in time.

>>10946755
Keyword seemingly numbskull lol

>>10946755
You may have the ability to select from available opportunities, but that certainly doesn't quality as freedom of choice.

>>10946713
>you and agency exist if there's determinism

No free will with strict determinism.

>>10945141
They don't have free will, so they can't help believing what they do. Relax to the inevitable.

>>10946801
Extremely based and metaphysical realism pilled
whoa nelly

You guys do know free will and determinism co-exist right? Whichever dumb cunt asked this question first just implied that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive.

>>10945310
Good luck predicting at the quantum scale.

>>10946786
Ok what are you arguing?

>>10946792
THERE IS NO SELECTION. You don't understand what determinism is.

>>10946799
yeah, dude's a fucking idiot and has no idea what strict determinism is

>>10946972
Yeah well certain systems can be deterministic but when you're talking about free will vs. determinism, it's because you're assuming the brain acts strictly deterministic, which means free will can't exist

>>10946755
>Quantum mech is seemingly not deterministic.
That's a mistake that can be fixed by better education.
>I.e. my brain receives inputs and determines an output, regardless of a perceived choice.
Choice is honored though. Without choice you would be unable to have conditional behavior.

>>10946974
If you make double slit experiment you will see interference pattern.

>>10945227
>his autistic ass was incapable of proceeding with his line of reasoning without total certainty in his own comprehension.
This is basically me, except with math and I got a tutor who convinced me that it would all make sense (plus I had the experience of enough esoteric stuff ending up making sense that I could trust it).

>>10945342
Based

The role of the genius is to be a scourge on smug, overly zealous midwids but to protect the retards from the midwit attempts to attack them.

>>10947273
Knowing about determinism is not enough to understand free will, it's different concepts, mong.

>>10945141
>forums
who the FUCK uses a forum anymore?

The only people who use forums like that are 1st year physics students.

>>10948404
That is a statistical phenomena. You can't guess where any single detection will occur.

>>10950618
We're on a forum right now

>>10945248
Causality and determinism aren't the same thing.

>>10945310
Things are causal but not deterministic.

>>10951245
You can tell that a single detection won't occur in the dark patches with a high confidence

>>10946406
This

>>10948377
>That's a mistake that can be fixed by better education.
Different interpretations have nothing to do with having a better or worse education.

>>10946672
You have something like a 70 iq sir.
Of course everybody acts as if they have control of their decisions. Its not like determinists just sit there and wait.
The point is that determinists are smart enough to understand that our sense of free will and control is an enormous illusion. For the world to not be deterministic would be the most gigantic paradox in the history of science.
Sodium molecules on the border of the membrane of a neuron dont “choose” to jump across the cell membrane.

>>10945141
>they all believe free will is a thing.
define it

>>10951331
The smartest physicists are almost always determinists.
Theres a whole niche that beta mid tier scientists use to make a living telling retard brainlets that “free will might exist”

Its just like democratic and liberal politicians who are actually conservatives but they arent smart enough to win elections as a conservative so they run around screaming “equality“ and “ make the rich pay their fair share” so they win as a democrat.
The scientists who say they believe in free will are smart enough to know determinism is almost 100% likely to be true but they are not smart enough to join ranks with the megageniuses like suskind who dont need to be dishonest about their true beliefs in order to carve out a niche.

>>10945172
Democracy is mob rule. Not everyone's opinions should be taken to be equal.

>>10951353
Defining free will is like drawing a picture of a unicorns horn. You will never have a true drawing of it, because it doesnt exist.
Free will is a logical, philosophical, and parodoxical violation of some very fundamental foundations of physics.

>>10945158
Socrates knew people are retarded.

Still democracy is the best way imo. People can fuck things up a lot, but they learn every time they do.

Look at communism. People thought it was great, but then failed over and over. The more it fails the more retarded you have to be to believe in it. Let people do their social experiments.

>>10951245
The interference pattern is the quantum phenomenon. If particles fly without system, it would not be conclusively quantum.

>>10951331
Like antievolutionism? Stuff like "experiments prove randomness" can be easily shown to be mistaken using established material from standard course of theoretical physics, then it is a matter of education.

>>10951353
Freedom from external influence.
Anti free will goyim basically argue "but I trust the jews and my trust proves that free will doesn't exist, let's all be jewish slaves". What are they even after? Really makes you think.

>>10951370
>
Still democracy is the best way imo. People can fuck things up a lot, but they learn every time they do.
You couldnt be more wrong

>>10946672
But free will follows only from physical intuition. Something can exist if it's existence is provided by fundamental mechanism. The only known fundamental mechanism is physics, so existence must be provided by physics. And physics is mathematical, and mathematics is deterministic. What is the argument against free will? Because there's mechanism that provides existence for all the stuff, then stuff doesn't exist. That's the most retarded argument ever invented.

>>10951683
people uneducated on issues should not be given the right to vote.
blindly voting for a party, person, single issue is a very large issue with current politics
people should have to be educated on issues before being allowed to vote.

>>10951695

>people should vote how i think they should because i think im educated

>>10951735
If they had more information, they would vote differently. Filtering of information is basics of social engineering.

>>10951307
Thats not determinism

>>10951695
Single issue is the best way to vote. Just go with whatever politician is the most based on guns.

>>10945707
I've never seen a poster so up their own ass
But of course my comment will not hurt you, because I just don't know better, I'm an ignorant fool. But maybe now you are thinking about contradicting me in that too.

EE and chemE forums are where the real phyics happen. If you want to do high energy physics research you have to be a gunsmith or licensed demoman for BATF related issues.

I'm going to come off as arrogant but I had a 3.98 for my undergraduate in Physics/Biology. I was literally top of my class in the Physics department. There were a few 4.0s in the other "college of the sciences".

But what I saw was a lot of struggle. I'd overhear other students or work on group projects and they'd talk about how the class average was a D. Or how 70% of the class has to retake next quarter. The highest grade was a B. etcetc. Ofcourse most of it was false claims except perhaps the class average. I'm not sure how the highest grade was a B when I got near 100% without a curve. I just don't share my grades. But it's shocking because noone pays attention to class averages that are posted which shows the highest score and the lowest (usually always a 0 from dropouts so hard to see the true lowest). Most Physicists are normalfags who use the degree for "look at myself I'm in Mensa".

I take everyone's knowledge with a grain of salt nowadays. I see so much false shit or assumptions thrown around. Ask a question and some smart individual will give you "advice", but usually it's not what you're looking. I found the best companion to be google search or published articles which often leads to the answer that someone already figured out. You'll just likely never meet the guys who "figured it out", and they're still clueless to the things they didn't hyper focus on.

>>10952246
I'm not tellin'

I never really liked physics forms. They seem to be composed of a bunch of graduate students asking questions about specific research topics in solid states physics, chemistry, solar energy, or material science...you know..the kind of research professors at mediocre colleges work on.

The topics on this site are funny and amusing, and you can even learn a new thing or two.

>>10945141
Just ask your question on stack exchange. Don't put any bullshit about the heisenberg uncertainty principle in your question or the question will be closed.

FWIW there are infinite discrete energy levels for the electron in an atom (and also for the nucleus), so if you could set the atom to be in an arbitrary level (and read it back later) you could store an arbitrarily large amount of info. However these levels are pretty much all unstable, so you can't actually do this. Maybe someone working in the field has thought about how many bits you can practically store in an atom.

>>10954160
That forum thread looks pretty good compared to stack exchange.

>>10955133
I didn't read much of it, but indeed the first guy gave a legit attempt at an answer. Stack exchange is better than that site in general. Actual working physicists will give answers (like Peter Shor of Shor's algorithm).

>>10955219
don’t tell them about stack exchange they don’t deserve to know!

>>10945141

I've had problems with Physics Forums too. One time I had a mod lock my discussion because he didn't recognize that I was talking about electrolysis of water, and thought it was psudo-science.

Another time I was having an interesting science conversation with (probably) a young kid, and a mod shut it down and really couldn't explain why. Maybe the education level was too low?

A third time I brought up a discussion on home schooling and that got shut down before much of anything had been said - I think they felt really threatened by the idea of alternatives to education.

Oh, I've never lurked on physics forums but I just see that Arnold Neumaier is still very active there.
Also see that he's about to release a book on QM in the next 2 months and he's uploaded 5 papers on the topic in April

https://arxiv.org/search/?searchtype=author&query=Neumaier%2C+A
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.10778.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.10779.pdf
...

Anybody wanna read it with me?

>>10955373
I'm kinda curious to be honest. He's been around the physics internet forever. I remember reading some of his posts in the old usenet physics faq

>>10945251
You divide by zero in step 3

>>10955391
2010 era internet physics was a good time, when all the infinite resources of the web were just finalizing its emergence and you had 't Hooft citing Ron Maimon in his papers. Or maybe I'm just old and nostalgic.

Like with the online academia culture in general, I find Neumaier pretty tough going, but that might be a matter of interpretation.
He has an educated opinion on everything and I never saw him making any formal mistake. I expect it's worth reading into those papers. He also words just 15 minutes from my apartment actually, but I've never met him.

On that former note, and coming back to OP forum comparison...
There's a similarity between the mathematically minded community and open source developments: Both have those cliques and niches and they want to reel people in. But whereas it's often pleasant to get into a niche programming language, online communities and hacker spaces, when you want to learn some math, you usually have to put on some skin when you ask a question. People get really angry if you misinterpret the intricate of the topics they work on. I'd rather get called a brainlet by an anon than offend the high score PhD student who feels like they need to defend their reputation and exotic subject that they hope will at one point get some sort of relevancy.

Mainstream science labours under the delusion that it is steadily progressing towards a 'theory of everything' - a master equation concise enough to 'wear on your T-shirt', as one joker (a leading physicist) put it. In reality, physicists are plunging ever deeper into a morass of arbitrary and irrational mathematical fantasies. Infinitesimal particles, one-dimensional strings, multi-dimensional branes, collapsing probability waves, 10- or 11-dimensional spacetime, curved space, expanding space, spatialized time, dilated time, time reversal, backward causation, ex-nihilo creation - it seems that any garbage is acceptable as long as it avoids the need for a dynamic, energetic aether.

As Bertrand Russell once observed, 'What men really want is not knowledge but certainty.' Reigning paradigms do indeed offer scientists certainty and a sense of security, financial as much as intellectual, and this helps them to ignore, trivialize or suppress anomalies that expose the shortcomings of their cherished beliefs. Above all, official science has largely lost the willingness and ability to question, and sometimes even acknowledge, its own basic assumptions.

It is vital that alternative scientific models and viewpoints begin to receive a fairer hearing. Multiple working hypotheses and theories should be able to compete freely for attention and should be judged on their merits - on their grounding in experimental and observational facts, their ability to provide realistic explanations, to make accurate predictions, to generate new insights, and to spawn innovative technologies. On all these criteria, aetherometry scores very highly and therefore deserves careful scrutiny.

http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/pratt_aether_grav.php

Just read this and it gave me the missing piece I have been needing to solve my interpretation.

>>10955432
>2010 era internet physics
>Or maybe I'm just old and nostalgic

Lol. I'm talking about 2000 era internet physics. And Neumaier was active in the 90s too.

Those people that seem to get angry with you do that because it is frustrating to deal with the same misconceptions over and over again. In math and physics you need to put in some groundwork before you can have useful discussion, and some questions indicate right away that you haven't done that (for instance OP's question). Another example of this is questions about virtual particles which seem to irritate most physicists that actually understand QFT, Neumaier included

>>10955432
...but seriously if you want to read Neumaier's book feel free to make a post about it, maybe I will read it too

>>10955494
Yeah, I know you mentioned and meant the usenet times - but I am not THAT old
;D

Also of course it's annoying if people don't put in any work and ask as first impulse instead of consulting a text or try it out. But kneejerk reactions go well beyond that and also those guys choose to answer questions on these forums.

>>10955453
fuck off pseud

>>10945201
>luke space warm

>>10955554
You have no right to call me that, tranny.

>>10945141
Free will IS a thing, even in a deterministic universe your actions are still the byproduct of your brain and your thought processes.

>>10952072
As a /k/ommando I can not stand this. Especially when the same politicians dick us anyways.

>>10955494
>In math and physics you need to put in some groundwork before you can have useful discussion, and some questions indicate right away that you haven't done that
We've been hearing for eons that for any progression, we're more likely/expectant to have it come from some outsider.
Look at Brian Greene whenever he hosts a for the public panel. He outright belittles most guests just on the FYI portion.
And I don't blame him. He asks for a definition of some concept to get the ball rolling and sure enough. Rote.
Not even as a off the cuff response, but they steady themselves and take a moment to be sure it's what was said in the book.

People noted in their field, too cautious to stray off script! Any wonder Brian subtly accosts them "Good.. Good".
Fuck thanking these organic task schedulers.
What good is a live discussion where all that takes place is citationplagiarism?


>>10955548
>Also of course it's annoying if people don't put in any work and ask as first impulse instead of consulting a text or try it out. But kneejerk reactions go well beyond that
'He say's as he suckles the authoritative tit.'

You just spieled about mental cuckboxing.
Given few others use the char limit, I'll assume you're also Tippy Mc'tipperson.
You've reverenced Hermes for fuck's sake!
Then go on to reject 95% of alternative interpretations because.
"I hate reiteration, and fear that the ill read will see what these blinkers made from hardcovers and wasted memorization shield us from."

Get the fuck out of your exclusive discussion of literal scripture. Start engaging with bunk, fail and aids.
You're not going to think differently if everyone is on the same page.

...
Or, you've put the smiley in the wrong place.
But the onus is still really on you with that one :^)

>>10958079
I'm just replying to say you quoted me but I'm not gonna read your wall of nonsense

Many Worlds > Copenhagen

Aether > Spacetime

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-many-bits-or-bytes-of-information-are-present-in-1-atom.952025/page-2
Holy shit how can OP be this fucking retarded?!
>Compares himself to Einstein
>Gets called out for being a brainlet who can't source his retarded claims.
>Compares himself to scientists who were persecuted for questioning the church
OP, OP please

>>10958402
Thread was basically a trap for Peter. Whole time he's reeeing about literal terms.
The whole discussion got derailed due to ineptitude to decipher free form debate and discussion.
Peter clawed and clawed for citation just so he could spout 'you've read it wrong/Pop Sci'.
Reread the tread.
It matters the fuck not where OP got this idea from. That's why Einstein was brought up.
This is the concept he'd like to develop further. Never herd of it before?
Great!
Means we've now got a totally new approach path to quantifying strings/Halbach arrays.
>persecuted for questioning the church
He was, by Peter. For not quoting the scriptures.

>>10945513
>brainlet cope
Libertarians have the highest IQ of all political affiliations, dummy

>>10945513
why? don’t tuck your tail between your legs and flee without answering this question like the spineless coward you are

>>10946406
this, don’t be a faggot OP

ITT
>JIDF

>>10945244
OP sounds like is displaying classic schizotypal behavior and is unable to understand the holes of his own logic. Expect his schizo conspiracy website """that experts don't want you to read""" in a few years.

>>10945468
>Djfjskdjjdjsjs pol sndbdhjsdjjd SJW sjdjfhjsjdjdjd own the libs djdjkksfihdibsibubrinsn
Please go back and stay there. Also, 18+ site zoom mong.

>>10945172
literally just read the Apology. Its not some mystic statement like>>10945184 puts it as. Fucking Hermetics, they're basicly esotericist.

>>10945513
based retard

>>10958589
http://sys.4channel.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fhow-many-bits-or-bytes-of-information-are-present-in-1-atom.952025%2Fpage-2
This is the thread where OP revealed to the world that he lacks the ability to understand high school physics and proclaims himself a modern Albert Einstein because he is fucking disabled.

>>10945513
Daily reminder

>>10951362
>The smartest physicists are almost always determinists.
This is false, the greatest scientists and mathematicians are almost exclusively platonic idealists who believe in free will.

>>10951665
You're a literal retard pretending to be intelligent and educated.

>>10945244
>being disagreeable on an online forum makes you some kind of Einstein tier revolutionary
Top kek

>>10945141
more like you're dumb and annoying as hell
got called for it and also became triggered as hell

>>10956926
i suspect these people are mentally disabled AGP trans who think their worldview is the norm and want everyone making important life decisions like women do by rolling dice

>>10955373
>No other theory has such controversial foundations.
But they do: climate studies, race, IQ, cosmology, flat earth. It's just a matter of being flooded with jews, shills and brainlets.