[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 922 KB, 400x225, 1364445140200.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5687277 No.5687277 [Reply] [Original]

So, applying the individual to QM
>inb4 stopped reading there
When you see a picture on a message board, and you have never seen that picture at all, is that the first time that picture has been existing outside itself? The conundrum being that you as an 'outside' can not say that you're able to be with another 'outside' and thus undermine the problem.

Can this not be overcome in the smallest of steps?

>> No.5687289
File: 134 KB, 413x395, 1356473345847.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5687289

>>5687277
>.
As to say that from an angle an area would acquire a blind spot? We live in rotations buddy the way things work well account for that

>> No.5687292

>>5687277
I have no idea what you're talking about. But if its in some form related to the whole "falling tree in a abandoned forest" thought experiment you're fucking retarded.

>> No.5687310

>>5687292
Nono not at all, just the opposite really, it's what extension it made when we do observe something, I'm saying that... well I was about to say that photons actually override the thought form, but then I realized the p takes it a little further.

Realize it like when you can't see something, it's distribution is contained inside/of a field, and then when you do see it, you're opening this field without giving any basis for it's close, that it's exposure would exist as x
Now take x, and say x/y, y being how many times it's exposure could be maintained, always y>x ofc, now taking that and applying it to the OP, how can you determine that you are x and not y.

>>5687289
funny guy, funnnyyy guy

>> No.5687331

>>5687310
ITT: OP trolls us with worded putnam

>> No.5687431

>>5687289
Poster unintended outlines a good point

>.

>>5687310
.

Shall we have another go at determining some set science /sci/?

or r ju scurd

>> No.5688444
File: 2 KB, 125x125, 1365617468639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5688444

>>5687331
>thinking this is putnam

No but seriously, this simply cant be disproved, and by extension, do we exist easily by means of technicalities

>> No.5688491

OP, are you aware that you are not communicating in a way that is intelligible to anyone else?

If your question is about thought affecting reality or something, then that has nothing to do with QM.

>> No.5688523

>>5687277

This idea is not even wrong. It's complete garbage. You are way too high to be thinking about quantum mechanics right now.

>> No.5689329

>>5688491
> >>5687310
In terms of what QM deals with, I don't see how you could argue that, the prospect is maintaining that you are as much what you are seeing as what you are being, you're giving the fact when your not giving discretion to something that it is a constant in it's availability of interpretation, as to say that when it's not being interacted with it is a constant, but when it is interacted with, it is breaking this constant without means of saying that it will be maintained after your induction of it.

I suppose 'seeing' may not be the most ideal term but I interpret all interaction as such.

The point being that if you're y it's QM, if you're x you're interpreting y and it's QM and if your both, reality is predicting your movement while you're orientating it, and you existing as both should not have the debilitation you have when interacting with 'you'