/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14639751
what do you think "observing" means

>>14639751
>Why wouldn't it be the same for the double slit experiment
Because you don't have to interfere with the experiment to see it?

>>14639757
>what do you think "observing" means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

In QM an observer is an interacting thing. It is "observed" as a metaphor. Everything else is quackery.

That chronic misunderstanding also answers your questions, OP. >>14639751
It's the same kinds of metaphor why things are described as "spin" or "color" meaning neither spin nor color nor "up/down".

>>14639757
Essentially as I understand it though, they think the mere act of consciousness alters reality. Not the some sort of physical interference caused by our presence/observation

>>14639764
How do they measure the particles passing? There has to be some sort of thing interfering with those particles to measure when they pass through the slits

>>14639768
>they think the mere act of consciousness alters reality.
No serious person thinks this. Only nutcases and theologians.

>>14639765
That makes sense and explains it.
But then I get the feeling that most of the scientific community suck at explaining the double slit experiment, or they never understood it in the first place.
Which is possible, there's a lot of popsci bullshit floating around.

thanks

some people like mysteries and söymilk

we never discuss about physics that we already know.

>>14639777
>scientific community suck at explaining the double slit experiment
There are a lot of "science communicators" who end up in the role of "communicating" a given pet quackery idea because it has no traction in actual science. Naturally, they then sell the quackery to the public and people get the wrong idea.

On that note, every single thing you read in "science journalism" is almost always dead wrong and fucking retarded.

>>14639751

It's a historical artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation when people were beginnig to deal with the implications and even consider if we actually live in a peakaboo universe.

Schroniger Cat is actually a rebuttal of the hardline interpretation by pointing up how silly the radical interpretation is since it can lead to the conclusion that there is only one observer in the entire universe: YOU.

Nowadays we think the wave function collapses much earlied due any interaction. But even the collapse of the wave function leads to problems as its collapse ought to be faster than light which is impossible.

>>14639777
>Which is possible, there's a lot of popsci bullshit floating around.
I'll do you one worse: For the people who actually know anything, they cynically think the public is fucking retarded and can only understand an idea so wrongly simplified they have no possible hope in hell of getting it right. This is a lot more rare than the "science journalists" who can't tell their head from their ass, but it exists nonetheless. I see it a lot in my own field or when people try to explain statistics and it makes me want to throw chairs. It's utterly endemic when it comes to "communicating" quantum mechanics.

There are, thankfully, more and more channels on youtube and other places demystifying the bullshit "ancient aliens" QM the public has been sold for the past 50 years due to the pre-internet equivalent of clickbait bullshit. If you're curious Sabine usually explains things very well, as does "science asylum". Veritasium and a lot of others, though, including minutephysics sometimes, revert to "mystifying" or harping on tropes that are just flatly not fucking true.

Any time some fuck plays up to the "muh weird magic" aspect of QM, you can simply dismiss them as being obscurantist because they're either idiots or cynical. The "weird part" that originates from is an ANCIENT disagreement Einstein and others had very early on where the "weird" thing was your result depends on what you measure and we still don't know why. That's it. That is literally it. That is decades upon decades of misleading the whole public, perpetually, simply because INTERACTING WITH A THING will CHANGE THE THING. It is literally that fucking stupid. Yes I'm angry about it. So should everyone else be.

>>14639768
>There has to be some sort of thing interfering with those particles to measure when they pass through the slits
Well, yes, but what do you need to measure in the first place?
The answer is right there on the wall, the narrow slit just acts like a lens directing photons in different directions due to atomic forces, the relationship between the two slits is what determines the outcome of the interference pattern

>>14639751
why does interaction with the measuring instrument cause the wavefunction to collapse while interaction with some random electric field from some random electron 100km away does not?

>>14639811
>why does interaction with the measuring instrument cause the wavefunction to collapse while interaction with some random electric field from some random electron 100km away does not?
Because you are interacting with them again. It is not a "now it's forever permanently different".

>>14639751
Wait until you discover what "observing which slit the electron goes through" actually means.
Spoiler: it means considering the case where the other slit is closed. Yes, the big mystery of quantum mechanics is "why does the second slit not interfere in the case it does not exist?"

>>14639815
is "interaction" an instantaneous event or something that happens continuously at all times?
what properties must the interaction have to cause the wavefunction to collapse?

What if there are three slits?

>>14639751
It's not about humans, or conscious observers of any sort. Measurement and observation are simply interaction. It's just a confusing bit of nomenclature

>>14639828
>is "interaction" an instantaneous event or something that happens continuously at all times?
For a given event? Well, yes, it occurs as things interact. If that fits what you mean by instantaneous, then yes it is instantaneous. For a given event. As for continuity, as many as there are interactions. Less likely in the least energy dense portion of space, probably.

>>14639828

No one knows because we cant even observe the wave-function. We can only measure the reault ferom its collapse.

>>14639768
>they think the mere act of consciousness alters reality.
This is popsci and a completely misunderstanding of terminology. No scientist thinks this. Actually it's not popsci at all it's mysticism.

>>14639818
>Spoiler: it means considering the case where the other slit is closed. Yes, the big mystery of quantum mechanics is "why does the second slit not interfere in the case it does not exist?"
Eeeeeh no. For the double slit the interesting part is that light interferes like waves. If you fire the particles individually from each slit, and were to recombine them, you would get an interference pattern again as well. In the single slit, each measured individually, these overlapped would also recombine to form an interference pattern.

Here is why the diffraction pattern in the single slit is the interesting part to the original experiment and over-100-year-old argument: In classical mechanics the particles should make a pattern corresponding to the slit. Yet fired as single particles they STILL make the diffraction pattern if you added them up.

Originally the "wtf is even going on" part was "how the hell is a single particle acting like it's part of a wave?" That's why the experiment was notable. People aren't taught the original context anymore and without that context it doesn't make sense. Hence all the bullshit shared around the campfires. It got more interesting when done with electrons, because electrons do this too.

So overall the important part is "particles behave as if they're waves EVEN IF you fire INDIVIDUAL particles in a sequence". A banal factoid to most of us now but that's what the double slit was actually about.

>>14639833
I think we can go further: 4 slits.

>>14639869

What about if you cut infinite slits, so there's no more screen? And then what if you add a second screen with infinite slits?

>>14639861

Not only electrons, even atoms and certain mollecules behave like this under certain circumstances.

>>14639751
The human mind among all living beings emit frequencies of their own, as the sun emits gamma waves, so do we have our own corona. Denying this means nothing, but you could consider yourself a hylic.

>>14639861
Maybe not in the pop-soii world, but I believe most of /sci/ knows about the result from firing individual particles why that's the real confounding element. Maybe I give us too much credit. I'm probably giving us too much credit. Never mind.

>>14639859
Then use proper english next time, you're at fault for inventing these delusional names for new phenomenas, are you doing it on purpose or what? Why not call it "measurement" not "observing" just remove the observing word it created so much pop sci drama fucking sointists

>>14639906
>you're at fault for inventing these delusional names for new phenomenas,
It's your fault for not reading anything beyond the title. In scientific circles they don't have the problem of people not reading it.

>>14639879
>Not only electrons, even atoms and certain mollecules behave like this under certain circumstances.
Oh, yes, I should've clarified that. Yes this applies to other things too. Though I think people who don't get the basis (as I keep trying to help them get above) would be extra confused by that.
>>14639896
>Maybe not in the pop-soii world, but I believe most of /sci/ knows about the result from firing individual particles why that's the real confounding element. Maybe I give us too much credit. I'm probably giving us too much credit. Never mind.
You give the board too much credit. I have to argue with idiots about basic fucking statistics 99% of the time even to the point of showing blatant contradictions in their expectations, and still get retarded replies.

Maybe the sci regulars know it, but the dipshit regulars do not. OP asking innocent questions excepted of course. Dear lord I want more of those. OP can ask as many questions as he likes.

>>14639918
What happens when we die, e?

>>14639971
>What happens when we die, e?
The suffering stops.

>>14639981
If you have a job related to quantum mechanics, just keep your mouth shut about this. Learn the new history fast and go along with it.

I don't know how many of you are from this world, but if you were in a related field of academia and insisted Robert E. Lee could take a course in quantum mechanics you would have been fired and gone from that field.

>>14639973
Really? That simple? In such a big universe with so much left unknown? Nature really just lets us off like that?

>>14639988
>Really? That simple? In such a big universe with so much left unknown? Nature really just lets us off like that?
If it does not I'm going to do my best impression of Kratos.

>>14639988
>In such a big universe with so much left unknown?
Literally a load of rocks God made for the background. Earth is the only unique part.

>>14639987
schizo rambling, you can always prove your theories anonymously, fuck off baiter

>>14639981
>>14639987
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_interference_experiment

Different experiment, or rather less mature version that didn't lead to the issues addressed in >>14639861

This is the one that proved the wave nature of light. If you want to get dirty technical about it, QM was sort of born at that 1859 blackbody result. There are plenty of variations on the double slits. Your mother and your sister for instance. That's two slits right there, thought I'm guessing they allow for much larger objects to pass than corpuscles of light.

>>14640068
>That's two slits right there, thought I'm guessing they allow for much larger objects to pass than corpuscles of light.
If he inherited from his father we can safely assume they didn't need to. Ba dum tss

>>14640086
Someone needed to give birth to the world's fattest baby, unless it was c-section.

>>14640068
>>14640086
>>14640091
Glow.

>>14639751
Because that's more to explain to the undergrads who barely understand a concept anyway much less popsci who don't understand the difference between measuring a photon and measuring a car with a radar gun

>>14639987
VMI would disagree with you

>>14640110
That's exactly how the LHC works, the whole timeline changes.

>>14639765
But doesnt the delayed choice experiment and the quantum eraser experiment complicate this?

It's my understand that these two experiments demonstrate that you can interact with a photo and still not collapse its wave function.

e is Sabine btw. Sorry Sabine, didn't want to give up your shitposting persona but I felt I had to.

>>14640102
They don't attempt to teach or explain them to it at all, you're just going to confuse them and leave them with mixed thoughts of what really happens, that's literally why popsci youtubers exist

>>14639768
>they think the mere act of consciousness alters reality.

So this is all part of the modern teaching of 'wave collapse' and if you pass 101 idiot lecture + lab then yoi get to find out that maybe 'wave collapse' isnt actually happening because the state and the observer are totally irrelevant in actual science. Is this where you guys are at with this?

The reason consciousness still has a role to play in all this is that a conscious agent is the only thing capable of interpreting results. We can say "detectors" or just light collapses this and that, but we always must check and interpret, and there's the rub. It could be the conscious agent means nothing and the scrubbers and detectors did this or that, but we can't know that without interpreting the results. Thats the forever rub about this whole argument.

>>14640173
Gtfo jew.

MWI has less assumptions than Bohmian Pilot Wave Theory though.

>>14640131
There will always be a reason for popsci youtubers to exist

>>14639799
>ought to be faster than light which is impossible
There's nothing suggesting that wave function collapse should be limited to c. It doesn't violate causality as we know it. No information is exchanged between entangled particles when it happens.

>>14639987
This post doesn't make any sense

>>14640216
In my timeline, wave-particle duality of light wasn't experimentally established until the 1900's. It was a similar experiment, also called the double-slit.

Your worldline is literally 100 years ahead of mine.

Interestingly, the technology available to the public is the same.

>>14640246
In my timeline u r the big gay.
My timeline is this timeline btw.

>>14639751

quantum eraser experiment. you materialist moron.

>>14640388
yeah, I just asked about that too in >>14640117

>>14639751
>Why is it generally believed by scientist that this proves that humans observing something, causes the experiment to change?
Because observing something means measuring it with instruments which affect the system when smol stuff is involved
>Why don't they go with the more logical assumption of interference?
That's exactly what it means retard
>Im not a genius scientist but it puzzles me that this is seemingly overlooked.
Because you're actually retarded and never understood it. If I told you that my heart yearns for freedom you'd probably think that the guy is actually wanting to push out of my chest and go for a walk. Go get checked for autism.

>>14640388
Only proves determinism.

>>14640577
things have to be immaterial to be deterministic

>>14639861
Light particles are a mathematical abstraction. Light is only a wave. It's only obvious that it acts as a wave.
Matter particles have an associated wave. They are particles. It's a bit surprising, but once you know it's obvious that the wave interferes with the particle's motion.

De Broglie never intended for matter to "be" waves, only to "have" waves closely associated to them.
Schroedinger never intended for his equation to be applied to particles. He correctly assumed that at small scales, the "ray of light" abstraction would break, and derived his wave mechanics from there.

The question "wtf is going on" was asked by people who insisted that light had to be corpuscular and that space is empty so there could be nothing waving along with matter.

>>14640117
No retard

>>14639751
>Why is it generally believed by scientist that this proves that humans observing something, causes the experiment to change?
It isn't. The only people who think the observer needs to be human are common morons.

>>14639803
>Veritasium and a lot of others, though, including minutephysics sometimes, revert to "mystifying" or harping on tropes that are just flatly not fucking true.
Veritasium is evil. He deliberately presents things in confusing ways (often while being technically correct) to make things more click-baitable.

>>14640246
Schizos like you should be euthanized.

>>14639799
>>14639799
>But even the collapse of the wave function leads to problems as its collapse ought to be faster than light which is impossible.
Wrong. Entanglement is just a fancy term for "their states are correlated"

For example, imagine there is a hypothetical process that always produces 2 photons, 1 spin up and 1 spin down. You don't know which is which until you measure one. Let's say you measure photo A one year after it's created, while photon B is 1 light year away. The instant you measure photon A, you KNOW the state of photon B (assuming of course that both photons have remained untouched, and thus are still entangled). You don't need to wait a light year for photon B to beam it's information back, the information was present at the moment the photons were created. Hope that helps

I hate pseuds who have mystical beliefs due to not understanding quantum mech

>>14639765
there are many different interpretations of QM about what constitutes an observer but it's not necessarily an interacting thing.

the delayed-choice quantum eraser disproved that the measurement by the sensors was what collapsed the wave function itself.

>>14640810
Delayed choice quantum eraser is nothingburger. Measurements collapse wave function, end of story

https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00970

>>14639751
>Why is it generally believed by scientist that this proves that humans observing something, causes the experiment to change?
That’s the pop-science interpretation by fucking morons, though I’d assume at least some people who could technically be called “scientists” also believe it.

Consciousness is non-physical and unexplainable by science.

>>14640827
Existence itself is unexplainable by science

>>14639751

This is a very unfortunate pop science reading of it. By 'observer' they don't mean "person looking at / aware of the experiment". There's no causal power afforded to "the experimenter's awareness" such that the phenomenon changes just because it's being given attention by the researcher. By observation, they mean "measurement", which is a form of interference. It's as mysterious as noting that the volume of water in a graduated cylinder changes when one dips a ruler into it to measure its depth.

>>14640827
what an absolutely stupid thing to say

>>14640821
>The choice is really no longer delayed since the photon knows where it will
end up because of the advanced wave coming backwards in time to confirm the interaction or
handshake, as Cramer puts it.
Wow that does make the transactional interpretation more viable. This author is a genius

>>14640829
That too.

same poster as >>14640859
What I personally thought was that the objective reduction theories were correct and that the sensors were in superposition until something large enough for gravity to collapse it interacted with them.

>>14640846
>Hur dur particles bouncing around create qualia

>>14639751
>Why is it generally believed by scientist that this proves that humans observing something, causes the experiment to change?
It's not. No scientists think that, except maybe some retarded ones. It's a youtube/reddit meme.

>>14640117
>>14640388
>But doesnt the delayed choice experiment and the quantum eraser experiment complicate this?
No, and sabine also has a video on it. Anything you heard to the contrary was more journalist nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U

>>14639751
It's about information. Which path information. And it happens without measurement as well. see here
>In quantum mechanics, the Renninger negative-result experiment is a thought experiment that illustrates some of the difficulties of understanding the nature of wave function collapse and measurement in quantum mechanics. The statement is that a particle need not be detected in order for a quantum measurement to occur, and that the lack of a particle detection can also constitute a measurement. The thought experiment was first posed in 1953 by Mauritius Renninger. It can be understood to be a refinement of the paradox presented in the Mott problem.
Here is a vid that explains it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment

>>14639751
There is no anthropological factor in that.
You sound very retarded so maybe even reading a book won't help you.

>>14639815
There doesn't have to be interaction see here
>>14641002

>>14640908
Then where is the heisenberg cut? Why don't we see things in super position? What ends the von neuman chain? It's information by the way. Consciousness creates information by resolving uncertainty. A detector can do this to, but this is part of the calculations of the virtual reality ultimately. This is actually being controlled for in a new set of experiments

On testing the simulation theory

Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this ques-
tion based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite
(i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a
system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that
information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of
detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection
would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality
server before rendering content to the player). Guided by this principle we describe
conceptual wave/particle duality experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

>>14640846
They explain. How do exitations of fields, or particles, or point particles, or whatever other quantity of matter cause qualia? Be specific. Are the neurons conscious? Which ones? How do you know this? Did you solve the neural binding problem?

>>14639751
Similar post on /biz/. What do you think?
>>>/biz/50255474

Hey /sci/, brainlet here. Would it be correct to say that the strangeness and unintuitiveness of quantum mechanics is because the theory is not elegant, and that eventually physicists will come up with a better theory that fits experimental results at least as well as quantum mechanics but doesn't involve so much mathematical hand-waving?

>>14640837
Not true. See here
>>14641002

>>14640837
These set of experiments are called Interaction-Free Measurement experiments by the way if you want to look them up. It's about information creation by the way. In this case which way path info. But humans create information and 'collapse' the wave function as well, which just means 'demand a data stream', at all times. Why do you think we don't see things in super position? If you say because of the size of the everyday world, then be prepared to say exactly where the heisenberg cut is and how the von neuman chain is broken.

>>14640974
Pushing your own vids, Sabine?
shamefur dispray

>>14640097
>Glow.
you mean black body radiate

>>14640821
>Measurements collapse wave function
Not measurement, creation of which path INFORMATION. once the which path info becomes available in the physical world, then the interference pattern ends. And it can be detector free measurement as well, see the vid here
>>14641002
This is the thought experiment which ended in realization of the thought experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment

But human consciousness also 'collapses' the wave function at all times as well, hence why you don't see things in super position. And before you claim that it's about the size of the everyday world, then where is the heisenberg cut? What ends the von neuman chain? You better have answers for this.

>>14641035
The hard problem is you can't measure something without measuring it. To determine things like hidden variables or any of the other solutions requires complicated methods if possible at all. When you hit bedrock and you want to know "why" something is happening, but interaction causes the thing to change, you have to infer backward. That is notoriously fraught with difficulty due to the problem of underdetermination in science.
>>14641008
I'll look into it when I have time. This is a side-interest of mine simply because I end up doing a lot of physics related equations and probability sort of naturally fits with QM anyway.

>>14640180
It postulates infinite actual physical worlds which can't be empirically verified though. That's not less assumptions.

>>14639828
There are interaction free experiments. See vid here
>>14641002

>>14639799
>Nowadays we think the wave function collapses much earlied due any interaction
There are a whole seris of experiments called interaction free measurement experiments
see vid here for an example
>>14641002
The idea started with this thought experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment
>In quantum mechanics, the Renninger negative-result experiment is a thought experiment that illustrates some of the difficulties of understanding the nature of wave function collapse and measurement in quantum mechanics. The statement is that a particle need not be detected in order for a quantum measurement to occur, and that the lack of a particle detection can also constitute a measurement. The thought experiment was first posed in 1953 by Mauritius Renninger. It can be understood to be a refinement of the paradox presented in the Mott problem.

>>14639751
>>14640357
Anyone heard of this guy doing the experiment? Or heard of him at all?

>>14641119
MWI, out of all the theories, has the least number of postulates. You haven't fully groked it if you think the worlds are an additional step.

>>14640745
Proof: The whole drama with electrons in a conductor is somehow still going on.

>>14640837
This actually reminds me of this one chick on youtube who "debunked" satellite imagery because she believed that without a conscious observer at the satellite, the electromagnetic radiation could not form discrete photons that can interact with the camera sensors so digital photography is impossible without someone taking the photo.

>>14641273
Actual instantiated physical worlds are an extra step. This is different than just superposed stats of data.

>>14639775
It is always hilarious when the pseuds come out and act like they are the sensible ones. Yes, in fact all the greatest minds who invented everything you study in your textbook, did indeed "think" this. Which anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes jewgling as "research" would know. Imbecile

>>14640908
literally the exact opposite. kys mouth breather

>>14641363
>>14641381
How about you actually read their thoughts on the matter instead of posting shitty quotes from Facebook.

>>14640827
*blocks your path*

>>14641436

>>14641399
>the irony
you are fucking stupid stfu

>>14641002
>>14641008
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment
Please review this resource for people who need to understand what it's about, as the wiki article is terrible and in English it better approximates what the German article talks about https://physics.illinois.edu/people/Kwiat/interaction-free-measurements

In short, this does not modify the prior corrections given, nor does it count as "interaction-free collapse". Rather, an inference can be made retroactively on later input to reconstruct things, for example images. Sort of like reconstructing an object from its shadow. We can obtain information in this way, but this DOES NOT constitute "an observer". It would be like arguing entanglement is faster than light because you can make a hindsight inference on the particle, and while some people DO claim that constitutes faster than light that is NOT in evidence NOR is it the only inference you can draw (hidden variables being one alternative).No different than tossing a coin, seeing it landed heads, and knowing the other side is tails.

There is another issue: This inherently relies on treating the particle-wave duality as reverse-causality. How? Like most pseudobabble it asserts light "knows", somehow, that the path is blocked and therefore only travels the other path. In this case, that an object exists in its path and therefore light will travel through the other path. This is an incredibly common belief of how wave-particle duality works, but this cannot be said enough: This. Is. Absolutely. False. How?

In effect, remember that waves cancel with opposing energy. Sending a split beam can be thought of like a ripple, and the object has an opposing ripple while the other part of the pond does not. What is happening is the energy of the light does not interact because it is cancelled by that opposing wave on one beam, but free on the other. In real life this would set off the bomb, though, hence the danger of these bad ideas.

>>14641468
And keep in mind I did check additional experimental papers. That is why I explained it as "like describing an object by its shadow". That energy didn't just disappear. It would still hit the object. There is no experimental validation I can find of this cute "retroactive causality erasure" that would prevent energy from hitting the object, the bomb in this case. It is wholly based on an incorrect idea of how this works from the 1960s, while the experimental papers are as I describe. Retroactively inferring objects from the properties of half the split beam.

>>14641468
To put this into drumming terms, its the difference between using a double pedal on a single kick drum and using two kick drums, as a double pedal will always push the fall of the second beater back on impact due to a trampoline effect caused by the first beater that drives the second beater backwards abnormally fast. On separate kick drums, this effect is not present leading to a more predictable estimation for application of force and therefore smoother strokes.

>>14641346
Each version of us can only observe one instance of the universe at any given time. So maybe a version of me in a different timeline was converted to Bohmian Mechanics thanks to you Anon, but it's not this one. ;)

>>14641346
>Actual instantiated physical worlds are an extra step
There are no such things in MWI. The idea of a physical world (by which you mean a classical physics world) is something which emerges due to decoherence. It's not a fundamental or fixed thing, so there is no "instantiation" like in your popsci version where the universe is splitting all the time

>>14639768
>the mere act of consciousness alters reality.
You SERIOUSLY need to stop huffing paint, it's make you retarded.

>>14641381
there is nothing uncertain about force and vibration wdym?

>>14639751
>Why is it generally believed by scientist that this proves that humans observing something, causes the experiment to change?
It's not.
> Why don't they go with the more logical assumption of interference?
They do.

Wtf, do I live in a parallel universe or are people here playing with OP ?

>>14641770
care to explain about the "observer" stuff?

>>14641770
>do I live in a parallel universe or are people here playing with OP ?
Are you blind? The first post already pointed out that OP was using "observation" in a retarded manner

>>14641781
>Are you blind? The first post already pointed out that OP was using "observation" in a retarded manner
Be fair, that is hardly OP's fault. I would rather encourage genuine participation than the bot pepe bullshit spam. Don't discourage the genuinely ignorant from learning.

>>14641944
Do you consider my point >>14640173
ignorant? I'm not coming at it from "the consequences of the double-slit" place, but more the tradition of the tree-falling-in-the-woods. More of a what it can mean without self-reflective interpretation area. I'm a quietist when it comes to matters of philosophy, and I include science as applied philosphy, to unmask a bedrock nature.

Its a shame the scrubbers and whatnot were tied up into this very real question, but is there anything at all to glean from down and dirty QM that says anything about our inability to find bottom? It seems to my under-educated ass that we may not need a consciousness, but also we cannot know whether that is so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)

>>14640745
Yes he always came off as a massive faggot to me.

if observation doesn't matter then why does anyone insist their point of view does?

>>14642873
>Do you consider my point >>14640173
>ignorant?
More... not related to anything?
>It seems to my under-educated ass that we may not need a consciousness, but also we cannot know whether that is so.
You've reversed the burden of proof on the problem. The burden if proof is on the claimant, all anyone else need say is "We do not find that in evidence". Anyone can make a claim. It has no value nor bearing on the discussion. Hence my annoyed stance regarding that renninger 1960s misrepresentation of QM explained here >>14641468

I'm not a quietist. If there were a philosophy about philosophy one can also call misanthropy, that is what I am. The better you are at navigating truth claims the less people care about truth "coincidentally", because it's ultimately a lie with the vast majority of people caring about irrelevant things merely using truth as the trojan horse to get at them. That includes "liberating the mind" or claims to the contrary, by trying to reject the reason of inference or conflating truth with certainty, depending on your view of quietism. If you're really exceptional at navigating truth claims you will swiftly find yourself being accused of all manner of character faults invented in the minds of legions of narcissists, and supported by those who wish to get rid of you for being too good at the game. Up to and including inventing all manner of just-so stories to make up for imaginary faults to salvage the ego of the participants. Truth matters, humans just don't respect it when it's inconvenient.

If anything, I am Schopenhauer on steroids. I would have no issue wagering a kingdom to find an honest man, because I know you won't find one.

>>14642873
Also relevant to other possibilities to the contrary and claims about interpretation and results, see "the problem of under-determination". There are infinitely many ad hoc or hindsight factors one can create to explain a given set of facts, that is why you have to make predictions to justify the claim being made (hence burden of proof).

In a word, my epistemology is very greedy, because I disregard things that are either (a) not demonstrated (claiming mind somehow matters) or (b) cannot be demonstrated (invisible gremlins did it). To go one further I also think that is the only real epistemology, everything else is just noise. All we have is induction and all that matters is SHOWING that what one claims is actually the case with evidence of some kind (for abstract claims I accept abstract evidence of course).

I think this also qualifies as the pessimism of Schopenhauer, too, because I generally find people refuse to adopt a sensible epistemology purely to preserve a belief against or contrary to evidence or requiring investigation to find evidence.

>>14639751
>>14639765
it is a huge failure by physicists that they communicate so poorly

>>14643866
>it is a huge failure by physicists that they communicate so poorly
It is a huge failing by individuals that they assume everything must mean what they think they mean by default. Physicists communicating among one another and developing a different language is common to all fields. It is that latent narcissism in people that causes the problem, not some inherent trait of one particular specialty. Doubly so narcissistic in some demand that all communication be made to suit the mean or be judged as you've judged it.

>>14643891
Triply so narcissistic when post such bullshit to justify their place in the ivory tower.

>>14643988
>when post such bullshit
Just explained that it isn't bullshit, but now everyone knows you got some real envy problems.

>>14639768
>Essentially as I understand it though, they think the mere act of consciousness alters reality
This is definitely the first impression I got from it and a lot of my friends who were into pop science believed this too. It's absolutely retarded the way it's communicated.
It reminds me of all those retarded videos explaining Schrodinger's cat without actually understanding what it means. Then they say bullshit like "this absolutely means that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, until you open the box and then you force nature to decide :)", it's pure bullshit.

>>14640804
Is that really what entanglement is? The way it was explained to me it made me believe that the state of one particle is AFFECTING the state of the other one without interacting with it. God I'm so sick of all the mysticism in this shit.

>>14643996
>you dare to point out that a lot of bullshit has been steadily flowing out of my field?
>you must be misunderstanding me, you narcissist

>>14643891
>invent new language by re-appropriating existing language

>>14644003
you are a pseud and shut the fuck up.

Related question:
>measure spin up/down
>measure spin left/right
>measure spin up/down again
Will the third measurement have the same result as the first?

>>14644018
You really love that word little guy.

>>14644011
>>you dare to point out that a lot of bullshit has been steadily flowing out of my field?
>>you must be misunderstanding me, you narcissist
Here's how you know it's narcissism. Redirecting the point to try rewriting a conversation to save face. What was written,
>>14643866
>it is a huge failure by physicists that they communicate so poorly
I pointed out the failure is on people being self absorbed in such a ridiculous demand as to suppose everything must be written for them. In light of this, your reply is plain sophistry. Switching from a claim of "bad communication" to implying you had pointed out "bullshit" when there's none of that above. Except what I've been posting. One of us did the work, and it wasn't you, so fuck you for trying to imply doing anything of the sort.
>>14644015
>>invent new language by re-appropriating existing language
And?

I was taught in high school that "observing" in science meant interacting with what you want to observe, or measure it. It's not meant to say "looking at it"

>>14644030
you are an AI, greentext is not instruction.

>>14644034
it is necessary to interact to measure. the observer problem is real. you are all observed to be retarded by god's will, for example.
here you are, retarded.
by god's will, no less.

it's powerful stuff.

>>14644030
Where can I get paid to shitpost on 4chan like you?

>>14643891
>>14643866
Im OP
I heard it from at least 4 different sources.
first I heard it on a popsci channel and it sounded like bullshit so I tried to do some more research on it although not very in depth

anyway, the issue was cleared up in the first 5 posts but theres still like 80 more people trying to explain it. Does nobody read threads anymore or what

>>14644483
>Does nobody read threads anymore or what
Generally not, yeah I saw that too.

Though I was having conversation with some others on other points, which added to the post count of course, but at least it was still relevant.

>I heard it from at least 4 different sources.
Yeaaah hence my anger about clickbait mystifying BS crap. No worries you're not in the wrong or anything. Hardly your fault for not knowing. The good thing is you went to ask, and try to find more information, rather than just accepting it as gospel.

>>14644509
>Generally not, yeah I saw that too.
you talk like a bot
>>14644483
>anyway, the issue was cleared up in the first 5 posts
if you don't want a discussion you should start using google, faggot

>>14644574
Nobody cares what you think, troll. OP is the kind of person we want here. Not you.

>>14644022
No, I don't believe it would.

>>14644581
>If anything, I am Schopenhauer on steroids. I would have no issue wagering a kingdom to find an honest man, because I know you won't find one.
You are alone in this conversation, there is no "we". Go start a blog schizo, nobody here cares about your ego trip.

>>14644614
>You are alone in this conversation, there is no "we".
If that's how you cope.

>>14643891
I think you're purposely associating academic literature with pop-sci education communicators. It's easy to draw the same wrong conclusions from both forms of content but for different reasons. Thankfully, that seems to be changing from what it was 15 years ago, grifters aside.

>>14644641
>I think you're purposely associating academic literature with pop-sci education communicators.
I have in fact made extensive commentary about the difference earlier in the thread >>14639784 in a few places. I did not intend to imply such a conflation. Hopefully that clarifies what I wrote there.

>>14644483
>the issue was cleared up in the first 5 posts
I am assuming you're referring to the consensus that any real scientist (As in someone subscribing to Copenhagen interpretation) sees it as larping/religion.
In that case here's question. if I put a series of mirrors in front of an entity that is doing the measurement is that entity measuring reality? All of our experiences are subjective because we are only able to perceive the universe through our five senses and interpret it using an inner thought process guided by our culture/upbringing/education experience bundled together into a single entity we understand to be a person, it's a subjective journey which yields a subjective interpretation. If we do not define what this "process" of measurement is all we have is a collective larp of taped together subjective experiences we call reality. Is that really sufficient for you? How can you say you're measuring reality if you're following a subjective interpretation of a subjective interpretation as you build your model of the world going through the education system?

>>14644646
You did indeed call it. My mistake.

>>14644738
np shit happens. Longthreads do be long. Have a good one.

>>14644630
I am anonymous, you are a namefag

your brain lacks logic, leave /sci/ and never come back please

>>14639751
he was right all along

>>14644850
Why would I leave when my presence so effortlessly makes your ass bleed? Newfags calling people newfags never gets old.

>>14644866
>hes illiterate
I accept your full concession

>>14644935
>I accept your full concession
Yes, I did concede that you're butthurt. Weird you'd accept that but hey maybe you'll learn something going forward.

>>14644007
Yup, that's really it. There's no interaction, no bullshit, no mysticism.

That's why quantum entanglement requires absurdly low temperatures and 0 interaction: any disturbance will break the correlation of the particles.

>>14645027
>no mysticism.
Why are they entangled?
>inb4 string

>>14645038
Their states are correlated in some way or another, until some outside force interacts with one of the particles and breaks the correlation

>>14645038
>Why are they entangled?
Imagine that if you split something in half it occupies one of two states of rotation, for simplicity sake. Unless something else interacts, it will maintain this split orientation or "be entangled". One way to think about it anyway. Just in case other anon wasn't fully clear.

>>14645050
>>14645041
If the split part A goes from up to down due to an external force interaction does part B go from down to up while not directly being affected by the force?

>>14645073
>If the split part A goes from up to down due to an external force interaction does part B go from down to up while not directly being affected by the force?
No, but that is a common idea. Definitely not.

>>14643764
>More... not related to anything?
Funny, I think its related to everything.
Turtles all the way down.

>>14645093
>Funny, I think its related to everything.
Well yeah sure but: "If". Evidence. Without evidence it's just, as stated, problem of underdetermination. You can assert literally anything to retroactively explain something. There's no good evidence for the proposition, so it isn't on the table.

To have good evidence, you'd need good predictive models that explain things other models can't. With predictions. Many philosophy papers later nobody has actually met evidentiary standard, which is why it's increasingly unpopular everywhere but among laymen and theologians. Just how it goes.

>>14645103
There is no evidentiary standard for how I view reality because evidence is just phenomenal outcroppings of the unknowable true nature.

Science is playing association games with phenomena, with little regard for the bedrock. We're really quite impotent. I'm not concerned with the axioms, I'm concerned with who made the made the axioms and if human concepts like who, made, and axiom are even reflected in bedrock reality.

>>14645120
>There is no evidentiary standard for how I view reality because evidence is just phenomenal outcroppings of the unknowable true nature.
If it's indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist, why claim it exists?
>Science is playing association games with phenomena, with little regard for the bedrock.
Yet you're using a computer that works... because of scientific advancements.
>I'm not concerned with the axioms, I'm concerned with who made the made the axioms and if human concepts like who, made, and axiom are even reflected in bedrock reality.
You just said it's "unknowable". Therefore, advancing a "who" on top of that is two layers of things you could make up along with infinitely many other things. You may as well assert the fundamental nature is unicorns.

Principle of explosion. If all things are on the table including contradictory things, your position is fundamentally incoherent.

>>14641035
It is wrong to say QM has mathematical handwaving.

QM is one of the best (if not the best) experimentally verified theories we have. Constants predicted by QM have been calculated to exceptional precision, experiments have verified some constants (like the hyperfine) past many decimal points.

Asking why QM is so unintuitive is a question for philosophy or psychology. In my opinion it is because it is exceptionally different from the easily observed physics of the world around us. Relativity is often unintuitive as well for similar reasons.

Discretizing matter and fields has incredibly complicated consequences it turns out.

>>14645141
>Yet you're using a computer that works... because of scientific advancements.
I set a rock another rock. Now I have a tall rock sculpture.

>Principle of explosion. If all things are on the table including contradictory things, your position is fundamentally incoherent
Exactly! All positions are fundamentally incoherent because all arguments lead to recursion.

>>14645163
>Exactly! All positions are fundamentally incoherent because all arguments lead to recursion.
Um, no. It applies to you because you are asserting something that entails contradictions. That is why logical form is important, as well as truth preservation and so on. Simply because axiomatic systems rely on tautologies, axioms, does not make them equivalent. For one thing, again, testing reality to determine truth in that reality. This is not "infinite recursion", the buck stops at what you can predict and show in reality. Regardless of the nature of that reality.
>I set a rock another rock. Now I have a tall rock sculpture.
Go walk off your cliff, then, Pyrrho.

Your philosophical solipsism is nothing but a waste of everyone else's time.

>>14645181
>Your philosophical solipsism is nothing but a waste of everyone else's time.
And you believe you're doing something important? I see it as no different than /sp/. I don't think what we're doing has any more bearing on ultimate reality than discussing the attributes of various footballers. If you don't see the recursive hell waiting beneath even the tightest system of formal logic, well, then you just don't see it. Good for you!

Your tautologies and axioms are as contrived as the abrahamic god. You heard thunder and made a model. It just so happens your model has more phenomenological support than "god did it." But its a model nonetheless. The truth will not be our models, or relations, or anything the monkey thinks he can grasp.

OP's question has already been satisfactorily answered. I only came in here to say I am irked by how many people misinterpret the many worlds phenomenon such that there are leagues upon leagues of laymen who think it literally comes out to "woah so theres like a version of me in every universe that made different decisions every time i ever thought? woaaah"

>>14645204
>And you believe you're doing something important?
Again, Pyrrho, go walk off your cliff and leave sanity for the rest of us. Your position is self-defeating and hollow.

>>14645224
I miss sanity, e.

>>14645235
>I miss sanity, e.
Then stop making baseless inferences and realize positive positions carry a burden of proof.
>>14645204
>The truth will not be our models, or relations, or anything the monkey thinks he can grasp.
This requires evidence. You can't possibly evidence it. That's all there is to it. Denying that maps have a relation to territory is not true merely because you say so. Just because you don't like that you're limited to induction doesn't make you in any way better, it just means you have a case of sour grapes.

>>14645256
>it just means you have a case of sour grapes.
That would mean that I'm so upset that all of our tools are useless, I lament the tools as useless instead. Its not really sour grapes. I could pretend to have a grasp at any time, but I would always be pretending. Okay, I guess it is sour grapes, but only because I miss the comfort of knowledge. At the same time, I'm free to explore the infinite joy that the mundane seems to bring. Ya know, a little bit of chicken fried, cold beer on a Friday night, a pair o' jeans that fit just right, and the radio OOOOOO-OOOOONNN!!

All kidding aside, I'm just at the wall you're all heading towards. Its a tall, smooth, and unforgiving thing.

>>14645288
>This requires evidence. You can't possibly evidence it. That's all there is to it.

>>14645321
In parody, he arrives at the damning issue.

>>14645333
>In parody, he arrives at the damning issue.
Induction counts as evidence of the root. Proposing interstitials or contradiction violates occam's razor. Yours is just a stupid troll epistemology. Do fewer drugs.

>>14645351
Induction counts as evidence that something at least is.
Occam's Razor is only as effective as predictable states, all of which rest on the one fact, that something is. That's all we got, chief.

>>14645374
>predictable states, all of which rest on the one fact, that something is.
Good luck showing something that isn't. Do fewer drugs.

>>14645396
Of course something that is would think that.

>>14639751
What's collapsing the measuring instrument though?

>>14639751
Its not so much the looking part. Its the being in the presence of and using a marker to define it that interferes with its trajectory.

>>14648186
You have to interact with the thing in question in order to map what's happening. That interaction interferes with its path just introducing another variable to the gradient.

>>14645222
It's retarded and unscientific, so it is a natural pseud magnet.

>>14639751
threadly reminder that the many-worlds interpretation is the ONLY logical interpretation of quantum phenomena.

I'm genuinely confused by this experiment. If observing the wave function causes it to collapse, how do we even measure the pattern before the collapse?

>>14650662
To make it super duper simple short: The wave function here means it embodies a set of possible states. The collapse means it is now in a single state. Do you want more detail and accuracy? There are some videos. The wikipedia articles have gotten a lot less shitty in the recent year, too.

>>14639751
quantum physics is made up bullshit by people who want to be paid for crackhead ramblings

>>14639775
>No serious person thinks this.
Faith and reason chads rise up

>>14648851
Logically, anything that fits the observation is a logical interpretation.

>>14650662
You don't measure the pattern before the collapse. The pattern is made by each particle collapsing into one of the possible states which form the pattern only when a considerable amount of particles go through. A single particle doesn't form the pattern.

>>14650662
>>14651252
A slight literary vomit there. You get the gist of it I hope.

>>14651257
>A slight literary vomit there. You get the gist of it I hope.
Man I have those days too

>>14639751
>Why is it generally believed by scientist that this proves that humans observing something, causes the experiment to change?
It's not. Physicists are forced to accept that observation is a measurement interaction with the system, and according to the postulates of quantum mechanics, measurement has some specific properties which help us accurately predict readouts.

Notice here that scientists don't necessarily claim that anything "causes" anything else in this setting. Most physicists are careful enough so say that they have a theory that has a high degree of reproducibility but do not commit themselves to hardline ontology. In this way, quantum mechanics is a good theory, but the postulates alone don't have much "physical content."

>>14651307
I just got back from work. We had a tour around a PCB assembling plant where they will be making our boards so I'm dead tired (but not sleepy) so I can't think straight.

>>14651402
Right? Me every day I swear

all the anti mysticismfags, how do you explain the rat collective consciousness experiment?

>>14652042
>rat collective consciousness
I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. What, has there been some retarded spirit science video rewriting the experiments of McDougall from the 1930s or something?

>>14652080
It's probably a reinterpretation of some experiment where rats share information with each other but they reject the idea that rats can communicate through sounds, smells and body language and conclude that rats form a hive mind or some shit.

>>14652104
Well I'd have to actually see if they DID control for sound, smell, and so on. Because last I read McDougall I don't **recall** seeing anything about proper protocols for that sort of thing, nor was McDougall in favor of the supernatural. His whole career can be partly described as in pursuit of it with chronically null findings. But the guy didn't give an example paper so I've no fucking clue what he's on about.

>>14652111
I honestly barely remember what McDougall did. I'm referring to fairly modern experiments with rats where rats are shown to share information about food by transferring smells to other rats.

>>14652119
Right but that was my first thought "Uhhh... smell?" but assjack didn't link an example. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>14652080
McDougall's Experiments on the Inheritance of Acquired Habits. Originally the experiments were trying to prove genetic memory by putting rats through mazes and seeing if their offspring could navigate the mazes faster than the control group
but it found that even the control group navigated faster than the original rats.

>>14652128
... Smell. Smell. Transferring learning through signaling. Smell or otherwise. It has nothing to do with being fucking psychic.

>>14652129
Do you not understand what a control is? They didn't get to interact with the non control rats.

>>14652148
>Do you not understand what a control is? They didn't get to interact with the non control rats.
You haven't given me an example paper. I am not going to play whac-a-mole with something I haven't read. Put up or shut up.

>>14652151
https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/rat-learning-and-morphic-resonance
includes all the citations to the original papers btw, before you >appeal to authority

>>14652148
The smell would obviously be left in the maze. Rats are social animals so it's not a very big stretch to say that the rats are more likely to follow the beaten paths by following the rat smell. How would the experiment control for that?

>>14652192
>includes all the citations to the original papers btw, before you >appeal to authority
Um, no. This is someone's review of papers. Scent is nowhere mentioned in this review either. So much for that.

>>14652194
>The smell would obviously be left in the maze
Even if so, rats in completely separate experiments in completely different countries were still faster than the original rats when tested in the same maze design.

>>14652204
>Even if so, rats in completely separate experiments in completely different countries were still faster than the original rats when tested in the same maze design.
Age of rat, species of rat, and so on. Without the papers themselves you have no way to know why that was at all.

>>14652204
If this were true, the consequence of that would be that rats get smarter over time very quickly in the wild with visibly no reason. It would be very big news if researchers discovered that the rats they use for experiments get more clever for no reason. I have never heard of that happening though.

>>14652216
It does tell you the species
>The experimental animals were white rats, of the Wistar strain, that had been carefully inbred under laboratory conditions for many generations.
>One of these critics, F.A.E. Crew, of Edinburgh University, repeated McDougall's experiment with rats derived from the same inbred strain, using a tank of similar design. He included a parallel line of 'untrained' rats, some of which were tested in each generation for their rate of learning, while others, which were not tested, served as the parents of the next. Over the 18 generations of this experiment, Crew found no systematic change in the rate of learning either in the trained or in the untrained line.
>At first, this seemed to cast serious doubt on McDougall's findings. However, Crew's results were not directly comparable in three important respects. First, the rats found it much easier to learn the task in his experiment than in the earlier generations of McDougall's. So pronounced was this effect that a considerable number of rats in both trained and untrained lines 'learned' the task immediately without receiving a single shock!

>>14652204
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.7279&rep=rep1&type=pdf
So in the original papers, the rats are housed together and there's no "controls" like you assume existed. This is why reading the original works is important.
>McDougall, Crew and ourselves have all noted that less vigorous rats tended to learn more quickly. Crew attributed this to their receiving more severe punishment. We, however, agree with McDougall that it was mainly a result of their slower and more hesitant progress through the water which gave them more time to perceive the situation.
This also reasonably explains why rats in poorer health, or older, "learn the maze faster". Odds are they also have less curiosity or interest in exploration, which is a huge monkey wrench in "learning" assumptions. Is someone a poor learner because they want to explore more? You can see how bad of a metric this is.

Re-reading over this paper after so long, I find zero support for your interpretation. Please read the actual paper, not a con artists interpretation of it.
>>14652232
>First, the rats found it much easier to learn the task in his experiment than in the earlier generations of McDougall's. So pronounced was this effect that a considerable number of rats in both trained and untrained lines 'learned' the task immediately without receiving a single shock!
Rat age, health, and so on, are demonstrated important factors. Not psychic powers.

>>14652238
>in the original papers, the rats are housed together and there's no "controls" like you assume existed.
>that less vigorous rats tended to learn more quickly
None of that explains how Crew's rats leaned the maze faster, because they weren't in poor health and weren't in contq with the original rats.

>>14652269
>None of that explains how Crew's rats leaned the maze faster, because they weren't in poor health and weren't in contq with the original rats.
I'd need the paper to find out why. "I don't know" does not mean "therefore telepathy".

>>14652269
Also you're still not reading the original paper I linked, which mentions Crew.
>Crew (1936) found no evidence of increased facility in learning during the eighteen generations of his experiment.
>McDougall, Crew and ourselves have all noted that less vigorous rats tended to learn more quickly. Crew attributed this to their receiving more severe punishment. We, however, agree with McDougall that it was mainly a result of their slower and more hesitant progress through the water which gave them more time to perceive the situation
>In retrospect it seems that we have been less successful than Crew in standardizing the factors that cause variation in the rate of learning. This has, however, had the positive advantage that it has enabled us to obtain the effect of a progressive improvement in learning rate that McDougall found.

Neither are talking about psychic powers. Your claim is not in evidence.

>>14652272
Clearly, immediately assuming supernatural explanations is the rational thing to do according to these people. Weird static on the radio? Your house is haunted.

>>14652282
>Clearly, immediately assuming supernatural explanations is the rational thing to do according to these people. Weird static on the radio? Your house is haunted.
Apparently??? Whenever I get posts like this I feel like I need to roll for psychic damage.

>>14652280
>>Crew (1936) found no evidence of increased facility in learning during the eighteen generations of his experiment.
Crew was specifically referring to his rats not learning quicker from their baseline of behaviour.
His rats baseline were already well above that of McDougall.
Both his control and inbred group were faster than McDougall's.

>>14652299
>His rats baseline were already well above that of McDougall.
Okay. AND? That does not mean "therefore psychic". RTFA I linked already. NOTHING you claimed is in evidence.

>>14652282
Clearly, immediately assuming 90% of the universe is made from a mysterious, completely undetectable matter is the rational thing to do according to these people. Your mathematics don't reflect reality? Ah, it's that invisible, undetectable matter again!

>>14652314
"We have a placeholder until we figure out the cause" is called being honest. I'm sorry you hate honesty?

>>14652308
I never actually claimed they were psychic, I asked for an explanation of the phenomenon.
You know, you yourself could disprove the idea with your rats and maze, but you won't because you're a bojack posting redditor.

>>14652314
Nobody is pretending here. The dark matter is the unaccounted mass holding galaxies together. It's just a model that works pretty well with existing theories of gravity and is more solid than other proposed alternatives.
If it works it works whether or not the "dark matter" is actually some real tangible physical thing or not.

>>14652326
>I never actually claimed they were psychic, I asked for an explanation of the phenomenon.
Social learning. They were raised together. You originally denied this as a possibility due to "controls", and now you've been shown no such controls existed. You have your answer, now fuck off.

>>14652321
"We spend literal billions repeatedly failing to prove that this thing that totally exists because if it didn't everything we've said for the past 100 years would be incorrect " isn't honesty, it's a cargo cult.

>>14652333
>>14652326
And if you mean "why were the other rats faster" MAYBE READ THE STUDY AND FIND OUT? Or do I have to spoonfeed you everything? I LINKED the fucking thing YOU did not link.

>>14652333
>Social learning. They were raised together.
Crew's rats never had contact with McDougall's. Never smelt them or the original maze either.
Not an answer, try again.

>>14652326
You could start by actually repeating the experiment multiple times. With just 1 repetition done you have no way to control for the random or any other factor.

>>14652341
>Not an answer, try again.
Try reading the study.

>>14652331
Newtonian gravity works for aerodynamics and in the majority of situations on earth. Doesn't mean it's actually how gravity works.

>>14652334
>"We spend literal billions repeatedly failing to prove that this thing that totally exists because if it didn't everything we've said for the past 100 years would be incorrect " isn't honesty, it's a cargo cult.
Um, no, it's called "experimenting instead of assuming". Not having a satisfactory answer does not make it a cargo cult, it means "we don't know".

You are trying to make an argument from ignorance. "We don't know therefore", including "therefore everything is wrong", is an argument from ignorance.

>>14652356
>Um, no, it's called "experimenting instead of assuming".
If you've spent billions of dollars trying to confirm your thesis, and explored countless theories on how you could possibly observe said thesis, but every. single. time. it comes back with nothing at all, wouldn't it be the sane thing to assume said thesis is incorrect?
>insanity: trying the sams thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

>>14652355
Newtonian gravity is a good approximation in certain cases but fails to make accurate predictions in others. General relativity replaces Newtonian gravity and has a much stronger predictive power able to account for the movement of the planets within our solar system to a high degree of accuracy but becomes inaccurate at galactic sizes. Dark matter is a placeholder that makes the predictions work (because galaxies really do behave as if they had more mass than we can see). So far there's no good model that can replace General relativity, make at least as good predictions and also account for the missing mass so dark matter is here to stay for the time being.
It's a model like every other physical model. If it works better than other models it's silly to reject it on the basis that the name and implications make you uncomfortable.

>>14652341
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/jgen/033/01/0061-0102

Since you're as incompetent as you are dishonest, here, I found you the PDF myself. Again.

>Fortunately it is possible to examine the validity of this suggestion. In 1931 McDougall took back to Durham with him 12 of my rats whilst I kept their litter mates and trained ~hem here. The rats that I gave him were out of my generation V, and those that I retained became the parents of my generation VI.

>>14652341
>Crew's rats never had contact with McDougall's. Never smelt them or the original maze either.
>Not an answer, try again.
So that was a fucking lie. Crew is the one who gave McDougall his rats.

Table V is McDougall's rat times. Table VI is rerun of the same experiment.

Guess what? Crew also comments on why there is a difference.
>This beiltg so, I incline to the view that his own rats do not differ in any significant way from my own, and that the difference in our conclusions must refer, not go ourselves, not to our tanks or our procedures, not even to real differences in the results we have obtained, but go differences in our methods of selecting the parents of the succeeding generations and of recording, and especially in our methods of controlling the experiment.

which McDougall also agreed to in the PDF I linked above. They had different methods in selecting the parentage and lineage for subsequent rats.

>>14652379
Nobody knows if dark matter exists or not. But the currently accepted models predict that it does so physicists are trying to test the idea by attempting to find other evidence of its existence apart from its gravitational influence.
Literally, what is wrong with that?

I just love this.

So first, dipshit declares "Oh they controlled for that" referring to communication via scents and so forth. Then come to find out, rats were raised together communally, so they absolutely did not.

Next, retard claims "They were different rats!" when they were the same lineages.

What next? I wonder what else dipshit gets wrong.

>>14652396
>on the basis that the name and implications make you uncomfortable.
No actually, it's on the basis that dark matter is exactly what you said it is, a placeholder and nothing more.
Newton gravity is a good approximation, Relativity is a better one.
Neither are the laws of the universe but both are useful in practical applications.

>>14640804
Isn't there something else about how, when you have two photons of indeterminate spin, you choose to measure one of the photons in a particular measurement basis, then the other photon's spin is then defined in the same basis?

>>14652407
>what is wrong with that?
currently accepted models are clearly wrong because they need 90% of all things to be made of *thing* that hasn't been proven.
look for new models instead of wasting money trying to fix bad math without re-doing it.

>>14652420
>currently accepted models are clearly wrong because they need 90% of all things to be made of *thing* that hasn't been proven.
>look for new models instead of wasting money trying to fix bad math without re-doing it.
Feel free to earn your nobel prize by "fixing the maths". I'll wait.

>>14652420
>hasn't been proven
The observations imply hidden mass. Some physicists are following up on that.
>look for new models
The others do exactly that. Nothing good came up yet but feel free to contribute to the effort.

I don't understand why you are assuming that physicists are unwilling to change the models they use? Clearly, many physicists are unsatisfied with dark matter and are looking for answers elsewhere.

>>14652404
>Acshully the rats from the original experiment were taken to a different country from the rats from the second experiment, therefore the rats from experiment 2# could smell the maze... from PSi rat scents an sheet
Kek, you're an idiot. Crew gave the rats away, then the rats that stayed somehow benefited from scents hundreds of miles away?

e is dunning kruger personified

>>14652451
>Kek, you're an idiot. Crew gave the rats away, then the rats that stayed somehow benefited from scents hundreds of miles away?
Wow you're even retarded about being dishonest. I quoted why the rats ended up with different times.
>This being so, I incline to the view that his own rats do not differ in any significant way from my own, and that the difference in our conclusions must refer, not go ourselves, not to our tanks or our procedures, not even to real differences in the results we have obtained, but go differences in our methods of selecting the parents of the succeeding generations and of recording, and especially in our methods of controlling the experiment.
What, you thought ignoring it would make it go away?

>>14652356
>>14652379
>>14652396
>>14652407
>>14652413
>>14652420
>>14652426
>>14652448
Chaos theory is the correct nature of the universe desu.

>>14652464
>Chaos theory

>>14652462
>scientists deny their findings and don't elaborate exactly how their methods differ
Wow, it's almost like being a soientist and publishing a paper that proves something like the collective consciousness would get you ostracized by people like (You) so they come to conclusions that don't match their data.

>>14652474
>Wow, it's almost like being a soientist and publishing a paper that proves something like the collective consciousness would get you ostracized by people like (You) so they come to conclusions that don't match their data.
Argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is on YOU to show differences in breeding selection cannot account for time differences.

>>14652448
>I don't understand why you are assuming that physicists are unwilling to change the models they use?
maybe because they are and they don't want to be seen rebuking le Einstein because everyone would call them a kook if they did?

>>14652493
What are you talking about? General Relativity is clearly incomplete, not only in the aspect of dark matter and physicists are very well aware of it. It's not some controversial issue or a conspiracy. But if you are rebuking Einstein you should put forward a working model that can replace it.

>>14652489
>show differences in breeding selection cannot account for time differences.
In this case it's easy. Both the English and Scottish rats came from the same lineage.
Both the control and active Scottish rats were faster than the English ones.
The Scottish rats were healthier, which is inversely associated with being faster learners.
So both control groups didn't go under selective breeding, but the Scottish control were way faster than either group of English rats faster despite being healthier than the rest, despite good health being adversely related to learning this behaviour faster?

>>14652525
>In this case it's easy.
What you wrote completely ignores both PDF's. You clearly still have not read them. The second group was faster DUE TO differences in selective breeding you stupid jackass.

>>14652513
>General Relativity is clearly incomplete
like saying Newtonian gravity is clearly incomplete
>if you are rebuking Einstein you should put forward a working model that can replace it.
yet is isn't feasible for scientists to try that because they'll get ostracized in the current climate. so the only research that's allowed in the mainstream is proving the existence of something that doesn't exist to keep the current system.

>>14652537
>The second group was faster DUE TO differences in selective breeding
Only applies to the non-control rats.
The controls didn't get selective breeding but were faster too.

>>14652537
>The second group was faster DUE TO differences in selective breeding
>control benefited from selective breeding they didn't have
kek, what an etard

>>14652343
that's what was done though, multiple times
and all the rats just got better at doing it

>>14652546
>The controls didn't get selective breeding but were faster too.
NOPE! This is your third main lie contradicted by both PDF's. Again, you refuse to read them. You're plainly trolling, because nobody is this fucking stupid. You've been shown wrong time and time again, yet you persist in making more excuses.

As a prelude, you lied again. It isn't about speed, it's about number of errors. Speed is mentioned in both articles, but the data is not given for speed. So you don't even know what the experiments are. Fucking amazing. YOUR OWN CITED SOURCE from Sheldrake is about errors, not speed, as well. You didn't even read that.

Firstly, the tanks are different.
>However, having seen it, McDougall tells me that our tanks do differ, and this has to be remembered when our results are compared.
Second, age of training.
>In general it appears that the smaller the rat the greater is its sensitiveness to shock, and that the more severe the shock and the greater its duration, the lower is the score.
CREW, again, page 72
>It is seen that whereas McDougall's arithmetal means fell between 80 and 17, those of my experimental group range between 61.64 and 20.51
Crew page 73,
>The average score of 1445 experimental rats is 43.39, that of 1014 controls 40.50. The range of the experimental group is 0-307, that of the control 0-298. It is of interest to compare these figures with those of McDougall (generations 13-34): Best 2, worst 147; and of Agar: trained stock best 0, worst 142; control best 5, worst 143.

Oh look here again, McDougall's mice made fewer mistakes. So much for psychic powers. What was that about Crew's mice being better?

Jesus christ why is every /x/tard a fucking dishonest lying piece of shit. There are differences in age of training, time of training, generational selection, everything possible to confound the experiments. Then in addition, turns out there ARE NOT fewer errors made in Crew's group but in McDougall's group.

>>14652546
>The controls didn't get selective breeding but were faster too.
Since you don't read anything you clearly didn't realize SPEED. WAS NOT. THE POINT.

>>14652661
In general if one reads Crew it is readily apparent how deficient the experimental reporting of McDougall and Agar is by comparison. Crew included all his data properly, and repeatedly makes notes on the deficiencies of the other experiments.

To have completely dissimilar reporting and experiment, and somehow conclude "therefore telepathy", is the dumbest fucking /x/ move I've seen on this board so far. These could not possibly be less related. The only way you could do worse is by implying Nicholas Cage films correlate with hangings as evidence of some mass social psychic damage.

Fuck off back to /x/ you retard.

>>14652661
>NOPE!
Yes, it says nowhere in either study that the control group got selective breeding like the non-control
>Second, age of training.
Says nowhere about training age either, size=/=age
>Oh look here again, McDougall's mice made fewer mistakes.
McDougall's experiment lasted longer and had more generations. The argument was always that the baseline of Crew's experiment produced much better results than the original.

>multi replying
kek, this soience fag is mad frfr no cap

>>14652735
>Yes, it says nowhere in either study that the control group got selective breeding like the non-control
The fuck are you on about?
>Says nowhere about training age either, size=/=age
Page 66, where that quote was from, "4 weeks old" vs "8 weeks old". You dumb stupid fuck. Again, you refuse to read.
>McDougall's experiment lasted longer and had more generations. The argument was always that the baseline of Crew's experiment produced much better results than the original.
Which is not accounted for by "muh psychic powers". Crew had different tanks, different methodology, and his baseline did not produce fewer errors. You're an illiterate fuckwit.

>>14652717
Collective consciousness isn't telepathy retard, read Carl Jung.

>>14652753
>Collective consciousness isn't telepathy retard, read Carl Jung.
These experiments don't support your bullshit, retard. Read the PDF's. I'm mocking you. Because you're illiterate.

>>14652540
Untrue. If this was the case there wouldn't be so many theoretical physicists exploring different models. There's no such Einstein cult among them apart from midwits who aren't doing any actual research.
You have pulled everything out of your ass so far.

>>14652750
>The fuck are you on about?
You're saying that both groups benefited from selective breeding, when the entire point of the study was to establish if genetic memory (through selective breeding) lead to more efficient rats
> "4 weeks old" vs "8 weeks old".
What's your point? Both McDougall's and Crew's rats were trained at both of these ages.
>>14652750
>his baseline did not produce fewer errors.
His baseline produced rats that chose the correct choice faster than McDougall's.

>>14652757
Actually they do, you're just too midwit to see it.

>>14652778
>You're saying that both groups benefited from selective breeding
No, I am not. You're illiterate. I never said that.
>>14652778
>What's your point? Both McDougall's and Crew's rats were trained at both of these ages.
The McDougall paper I cited above lists no age. Your website ref lists no age. Another lie.
>His baseline produced rats that chose the correct choice faster than McDougall's.
Time was not compared between the two studies nor was that ever the point of either study. Lie again.

I think we're done here. You can't read the PDF's, you can't even read my posts, and in each reply all you do is repeat lies already corrected. Fuck off back to /x/.

>>14652784
>I never said that.
Lie>>14652537
>The second group was faster DUE TO differences in selective breeding you stupid jackass.
>>14652784
>The McDougall paper I cited above lists no age
they were trained from adolescents till adulthood, 4 weeks and 8 weeks are in that timespan.
>Time was not compared between the two studies nor was that ever the point of either study. Lie again.
Yes lie from you (again) you even said time was measured in a previous post, also you yourself mentioned the second experiment's rats being faster multiple times.

>>14652784
>You can't read the PDF's
neither can you apparently, since you've been saying rats have been faster due to x environmental factor when they were never timed?

>>14652812
>Lie>>14652537 (You)
>>The second group was faster DUE TO differences in selective breeding you stupid jackass.
Note that's about the experimental group not the control group you illiterate jackass. Lying again.
>>14652812
>they were trained from adolescents till adulthood, 4 weeks and 8 weeks are in that timespan.
Age in weeks is not listed. The important point Crew made is that earlier shocks are traumatizing. Training, therefore, was worse if began at 4 weeks. Yet another lie. You still haven't read either PDF.
>>14652812
>Yes lie from you (again) you even said time was measured in a previous post, also you yourself mentioned the second experiment's rats being faster multiple times.
No, I went off what you said, before discovering you're full of shit. Yet another lie.
>>14652823
>neither can you apparently, since you've been saying rats have been faster due to x environmental factor when they were never timed?
I'm the one who tracked down the references, and then discovered you're full of shit. Keep lying.

Fuck off back to >>>/x/

>>14652776
the midwits hold a lot of power, why do you think alternative theories never get much funding?
cause muh Einstein possibly incorrect don't attract the midwits who donate and fund.

>>14652833
>Source: my ass

>>14652831
The second group has always referred to Crew's rats in this conversation, you lying little rat.
>The important point
It's unimportant in this discussion, because it's about the speed of the rats who made the correct decision.
>No, I went off what you said, before discovering you're full of shit.
Bullshit, you literally say here speed was measured>>14652661
>Speed is mentioned in both articles
Lies lies and more lies from a seething "soience is so cool!" faggot
>I'm the one who tracked down the references
Yet you yourself never read them, according to yourself.

>>14652842
SOURCES???? GIMME A SOURCE??
use the internet you immense faggot, it's not hard to find the evidence.

>>14652880
>Bullshit, you literally say here speed was measured>>14652661 (You)
Mentioned. Not measured to compare the two. All you can do is lie. It was not measured in the McDougall article, as I stated, and you're too illiterate to remember.

>>14652887
>Mentioned. Not measured to compare the two.
How can you mention the speed of the rats if you didn't measure it? They said that Crew's rats were faster.
>It was not measured in the McDougall article, as I stated, and you're too illiterate to remember.
You said, and a quote "Speed is mentioned in both articles" BOTH, you are extremely dishonest or have the memory of a goldfish
>>14652661
>Speed is mentioned in both articles
>both articles

>>14652897
>How can you mention the speed of the rats if you didn't measure it? They said that Crew's rats were faster.
Mentioned, not measured, you illiterate dipshit.
>You said, and a quote "Speed is mentioned in both articles" BOTH, you are extremely dishonest or have the memory of a goldfish
Mentioned. Not measured. You illiterate dipshit.

>>14652661
>Speed is mentioned in both articles, but the data is not given for speed.

Trolling is against the rules of /sci/. Thanks for playing. You lose.

>>14652906
The time WAS measured in McDougall's experiment, but he didn't include the data in his paper because it wasn't significant to what he was trying to prove.
Crew also measured their rat's speed, and noted that their rats were faster because they had the data from the original study to compare their data to.
>You lose.
Ironically, you do by posting that. Because it provides the exact sort of person you and people like you are.
You don't care about the scientific method, you don't care about the truth, all you care about is "winning" and having the last word.
Absolutely pathetic.

>>14652906
>playing semantics
that's when you've lost

>>14652753
I agree. I believe in both collective unconscious and a perfectly material theory of mind. Not sure about the Jung, but I definitely see the mind modeling from an aggregate of cues to come up with something powerfully predictive.

I'm "a" btw. e's epistemologically more-dangerous cousin that likes to point out that his bedrock is made of piss and froot loops.

>>14652952
nah, you're just a mentally ill multiple personality disorder homo.

>>14652956
I do not have multiple personalities.

Not in any greater sense than we all do. I mean, you can see a car is front of you and receive an authoritative auditory "go" signal that overrides the visually confirmed fact of the matter, causing a crash. No one really has one cohesive "mind" or ego.

>>14652969
>you can see a car is front of you and receive an authoritative auditory "go" signal that overrides the visually confirmed fact of the matter, causing a crash.
no one does this but the mentally ill i.e. you

>>14652974
No, I'm an excellent driver.

>e got btfo so hard he spontaneously transitioned into a
holy shit, the absolute state lmao

>>14653003
I'm not him. e is a wallfacer and if anything I'm his wallbreaker.

>>14652925
>The time WAS measured in McDougall's experiment, but he didn't include the data in his paper because it wasn't significant to what he was trying to prove.
So remind me again: How are you comparing times in two studies which don't list times to compare the run of the rats?

Ohhhh right, you can't, and you're a lying piece of shit.

>>14653003
>holy shit, the absolute state lmao
Constantly citing his own studies showing he's wrong about everything he claimed is "getting btfo'd"? Christ you /x/tards are idiots.

>>14652952
>I'm "a" btw. e's epistemologically more-dangerous cousin that likes to point out that his bedrock is made of piss and froot loops.
See image. I'm sorry if you don't like evidence, burden of proof, sane stuff that belongs on /sci/?

I remind you idiots that >>>/x/ is where you belong otherwise.

>>14652661
>McDougall's mice made fewer mistakes
Where did you pull this shit?
>McDougall estimated that the average number of errors in his first generation was over 165. In Crew's experiment this figure was 24, and in Agar's, 72; see the discussions in Crew (1936), and in Agar et al. (1942).
a lower score was better/less mistakes, retard.

>>14653082
>>McDougall estimated that the average number of errors in his first generation was over 165. In Crew's experiment this figure was 24, and in Agar's, 72; see the discussions in Crew (1936), and in Agar et al. (1942).
>a lower score was better/less mistakes, retard.
There's a difference between the control group and the experimental group, retard. He claimed the control group had a better score, that was not the case.

>>14653075
you're a lying piece of shit, literally everything you posted itt is a misrepresentation of data by you

>>14653092
>you're a lying piece of shit, literally everything you posted itt is a misrepresentation of data by you
Yet every single attempt to demonstrate that I'm supposedly lying has to prune context to misrepresent what was said.

Nice try, narcissists, but you still lose. Cry about it.

>>14653085
Nope, it's the average of all rats. Even if you weren't lying here, you still couldn't explain the baseline experimental groups of the follow-up studies having better results than the original off the bat.

>>14653096
>more misrepresenting
>more goalpost moving
you're deluded and a liar.

>>14653080
You know, I had a pretty solid grasp on the marvel universe back in the day, 3 years subs to amazing spider-man and uncanny x-men, but I've never been able to watch any of these movies. Are they any good?

As for /x/, I'm not hear to recite Deepak Chopra to you. I'm not an idealist. I'm here to fight for the noumena. Everybody wanna talk about the phenomenal, don't nobody give the noumena its time in the sun!

Anyway, hey e, why doesn't any of the equipment, like say a little static on the paint on the edge of a slit, collapse the wave function? Is it because we're only measuring what got through all that?

>>14653080
>capeshit
jesus, couldn't get more r/science if you tried

>>14653114
*here

Or maybe its that I am here to hear. What is the collective unconscious trying to tell me?

>>14653100
>Nope, it's the average of all rats.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.7279&rep=rep1&type=pdf

You're all retarded. McDougall lists the measure of performance and counts the errors. In the experimental group, fewer errors are made on average compared to the average in Crew. The claim was "Crew's rats were faster", but speed series was not listed. On the claim they made fewer errors, this is false, Crew's control group rats were worse.
>>14653100
>Even if you weren't lying here, you still couldn't explain the baseline experimental groups of the follow-up studies having better results than the original off the bat.
Read Crew's paper linked above. Your illiteracy is not my problem.
>>14653104
>you're deluded and a liar.
Yet I'm the only one posting and citing sources. HMMMMM....

>>14653114
>As for /x/, I'm not hear to recite Deepak Chopra to you. I'm not an idealist. I'm here to fight for the noumena. Everybody wanna talk about the phenomenal, don't nobody give the noumena its time in the sun!
I have no idea why I should care.
>Anyway, hey e, why doesn't any of the equipment, like say a little static on the paint on the edge of a slit, collapse the wave function? Is it because we're only measuring what got through all that?
Yes, you're recording what hits the backstop in one kind of experiment for the double slit. Others can include instruments earlier but of course that causes an interaction as well. There are dozens and dozens of variations of experiments. You need to list one to be more specific, or I'd just be pissing out an ocean of examples.

>>14653124
>In the experimental group, fewer errors are made on average compared to the average in Crew.
No one ever claimed that the experimental rats were slower than the control of crew.
The claim is that both rats in crew and agar's studies were faster learnere on average than the original average of the rats, starting from generation 1 (which is before any of the experimental breeding took place, therefore both control and experimental were practically the same.)
>I'm the only one posting and citing sources
You're not reading them but pulling shit from your own asshole and claiming your shit is in them (it's not.)

>>14653138
>I have no idea why I should care.
Me neither.

>You need to list one to be more specific
Okay, delayed choice qe. The real turd in the pop-sci punchbowl.

So many classical objects standing between the gun and the detector, to me its a miracle that the thing ever recovers a wave pattern.

>>14653147
>No one ever claimed that the experimental rats were slower than the control of crew.
Neat. I never said this either.
>The claim is that both rats in crew and agar's studies were faster learnere on average than the original average of the rats, starting from generation 1
Please explain how you infer this when time series were not provided. Source: Your ass.
>You're not reading them but pulling shit from your own asshole and claiming your shit is in them (it's not.)
The projection is hysterical.
>>14653160
I've no idea what you're on about, nor how it relates to your question.

>>14653170
>Please explain how you infer this when time series were not provided
Uh, because generation 2 and the second test of the control rats in crew and agar had lower errors than McDougall, both relatively and absolutely?
>starts off lower
>lowers faster
there you go, dipshit.

>>14653170
That if a non-conscious agent is just fine for collapse scenarios, why do we ever recover wave like properties, especially if we're dealing with single-fired objects? How do they control for all of the things that should collapse the wave function, like light, room air, dust, all that shit? I mean, I'm sure they do.

>>14653181
don't even bother, he's just gonna mental gymnastic and goalpost move again

>>14653181
>Uh, because generation 2 and the second test of the control rats in crew and agar had lower errors than McDougall, both relatively and absolutely?
Oh so now it's JUST the first one? I posted figures for the totality, and in totality McDougall has a lower range and lower average, but now you move the goalpost again. Now you just want the first one? Okay. So how do you account for all the factors, the temperature of the water, the differences in the mazes, and so on? I'll wait.
>>14653243
>don't even bother, he's just gonna mental gymnastic and goalpost move again
You mean like he just did by shifting the goalpost from claiming Crew's mice were better to "No but the first comparison" that arbitrarily compares the 13th generation, and disregarding all the notes Crew makes of experimental differences, and all the notes McDougall's final report makes on temperature variability?

You retards are allergic to honesty.
>>14653185
Given the multiple dipshits I've been dealing with, I frankly have no more patience left for further conversation. Failure of people to chase retards like this off /sci/ is the reason you don't get good conversation.

>>14653181
>>starts off lower
>>lowers faster
>there you go, dipshit.
As an aside, since you can't get literally anything right because you're illiterate and won't read the source, time of exploration would include heading back to the start or meandering about without receiving shocks in any given path either.

There you go, dipshit.

>>14653265
>Failure of people to chase retards like this off /sci/
What should I do? Shoo them off with a broom?

>>14653285
>What should I do? Shoo them off with a broom?
Among the range of possible choices, "Leaving one person to tackle multiple repeat dishonest actors" is the worst one. Don't pretend otherwise.

>>14653265
>Oh so now it's JUST the first one?
The rats started off better without any reason was always the major take away but
>totality McDougall has a lower range and lower average,
Because he ran the experiment the longest, retard. He had more generations to train them.
If you cut off his test where the others did, they have a much lower average too.
>>>14653273
>time of exploration would include heading back to the start or meandering about without receiving shocks in any given path either.
It was never about time of exploration, it was always time (in generations of rats) of improvements in choosing the correct path. Actual time spent in the maze was reduced too, but it's a secondary finding.

>>14653291
>>14653285
take your meds and stop talking to yourself

>>14653291
Your fault for answering them.

>>14653298
the narcis needs to 'win' every conversation he has or his ego is shattered

>>14653293
>Because he ran the experiment the longest, retard. He had more generations to train them.
Crew deliberately chose same number of generations from his 13th. Good job retard. Your illiteracy continues to fail you.
>It was never about time of exploration, it was always time (in generations of rats) of improvements in choosing the correct path.
And the average score was lower for McDougall for the same run of generations as reported by Crew. You lose. Bye bye.
>>14653298
>Your fault for answering them.
That's cute. You get what you deserve. In this case, for that attitude, my disinterest in your questions. You might want to rethink your model.

>>14653306
>the narcis needs to 'win' every conversation he has or his ego is shattered
My hatred for lies is not narcissism. Your projection, however, is.

>>14653310
>Crew deliberately chose same number of generations from his 13th.
Quite literally false
>And the average score was lower for McDougall for the same run of generations as reported by Crew
Quite literally false, both crew and agar have lower overall averages and starting points than mcdougall.
Both claims are false, from they guy whose been making completely incorrect claims about these papers that he had supposedly read from the very beginning of this argument.

>>14653306
Nah, he's a crusader. Prometheus thinks he can bring fire to the masses, when they'll just end up burning themselves.

>>14653310
>You might want to rethink your model
I don't actually have one. Don't believe in them. I just wanted to introduce my swaggy new name by pretending I cared about collapse scenarios. I left any genuine curiosity towards QM at the door years ago. I don't possess the maths ability so the best I can do is some jerk-off's interpretation.

Funny, that's my ToE: Its all some jerk-off's interpretation.

>>14653328
kek, crusaders don't scream "YOU LOSE YOU LOSE NAHNANANA AH NO YOU LOSE" like a temper tantrum having child, they kill whoever they don't like
he's a blown out faggot

>>14653340
Frustration comes from an unmet need. He mourns that you could not build your half of the bridge of understanding, which was never your duty. Its idealism. Not everyone is built to understand and there is no teacher great enough.

except for OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR!!!

haha, nah, jk

>>14653359
>He mourns that you could not build your half of the bridge of understanding
not even the anon he's arguing with but maybe if he stopped acting like a stuck up prick who thinks he knows everything their is to know and didn't immediately think any theory he didn't know about is false, anons would actually listen to him more.
also he should drop the namefag because it makes him stand out as a tourist.

I suck cocks by the way

>>14639751
> interference
Please explain this with particles

>>14639768
>the act of consciousness alters reality
This is exactly what "an observer" does NOT mean

>>14653328
>Nah, he's a crusader. Prometheus thinks he can bring fire to the masses, when they'll just end up burning themselves.
That is probably the only time anyone has actually made an accurate remark as to my unfortunate personality. You have my attention.