Where to next bros?

[Anonymous No.15499201]

I thought that /sci was dead but it just keeps getting worse. Every thread on this board is either:

>shit that belongs on pol
>shit that belongs on x
> The most retarded, ill-informed discussion like pic rel
>complaining about imaginary numbers
>or IQ-fagging

Are there any alternatives or am I just fucked for luck?

[Pepedaddy No.15499205]

Lets talk about cocks instead

[Anonymous No.15499226]

>>15499201
I was about to make a similar thread. I remember checking this board out 2 years ago and I was able to spot a few genuinely helpful threads where people asked about actual science and got genuine answers
Now it's just a shithole of people either trolling or trying to toot their own horn by "showing them sciencefags on 4chan that their science is wrong" or something
I'd honestly suggest reddit but even that's going down the drain as we speak, so you're probably only left with discord

[Anonymous No.15499236]

>>15499226
Do you know any servers that are good or places to find servers?

[Anonymous No.15499305]

>>15499201
lambdaplusjs has a /math/ board

[Anonymous No.15499343]

>>15499201
You'd swear we don't even have jannies anymore. Obviously /pol/ and /x/ threads are off topic for the board, and obviously it should get the poster banned. I have no idea why they are not banned for continued and blatant off topic/trollposting.

[Anonymous No.15499383]

>>15499343
Most of it is just bot posted garbage, you can't effectively ban those as they just change IP's. The downside of an no sign up website is that the most dedicated shitposters simply can't be stopped without unreasonably hurting the average poster. In that sense it would almost certainly be more effective to ban all the posters except the OP or shadowban the thread but the actual solution would be an AI powered super janny that can read and counter AI spam on it's own.

[Anonymous No.15499403]

>>15499383
>Most of it is just bot posted garbage
Even if it were true, doesn't change the fact the OP should get banned anyway. What you get instead are all the posts remaining up in spite of being blatantly rule violating.

You can check the ban page and watch every so often. It really does honestly seem like we only have one janitor, and he only shows up once in a great while.

[Anonymous No.15499417]

>>15499201
People are getting dumber.

[Anonymous No.15499481]

>>15499403
hiromoot and the mods simply don't care anymore.

[Anonymous No.15499502]

>>15499201
What is an LLM and what does it have to do with the double slit experiment?

[Anonymous No.15499546]

>>15499502
The redditor wants to test whether GPT is conscious using the double-slit experiment, because some pop-sci video told him that the result depends on whether a conscious observer is observing which slit the particle goes through.

[Anonymous No.15499803]

>>15499236
I guess you could try googling "physics server discord" or something like that. Personally, I'm not in any of them, but I'm willing to bet money that there's probably more than a few. There are also a few sites that list servers, disboard comes to mind

[Anonymous No.15499951]

>>15499546
Exactly this
I'm not really against pop-sci. It can drum up a lot of scientific interest and can be really fun but the problem is with people watching one veritasium or kurzgesagt video and thinking they're and expert in the field.

[Anonymous No.15499958]

>>15499951
I'll take that over anti-science idealists, creationists, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers. "Wrong but trying" is infinitely better than "wrong and too narcissistic to think they have to try ever"

[Anonymous No.15499979]

>>15499958
True. The thread I posted was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I've been on the verge of starting a thread like this one for awhile.

[Anonymous No.15499982]

>>15499958
>"Wrong but trying" is infinitely better than "wrong and too narcissistic to think they have to try ever"
Probably the most ironic post on /sci/ in years.

[Anonymous No.15499997]

>>15499546
That's not propagated by popscience, it's propagated by religious/pseudoreligious grifters

[Anonymous No.15500002]

>>15499997
Pop soience is a religion.

[Anonymous No.15500004]

>>15500002
You are a dangerous shill trying to redefine words to fit your political agenda

[Anonymous No.15500008]

>>15500004
It's called "scientism." Look it up.

[Anonymous No.15500010]

>>15500008
Fuck off shill

[Anonymous No.15500011]

>>15500010
Do I really come to 4chan to promote government narratives?

[Anonymous No.15500015]

>>15499201
half the problem is that too many fags on here actually take the /pol/ and /x/ bait

[Anonymous No.15500018]

>>15500011
You come here to promote your anti-scientific statements since you were trained by your religious role models to hate science

[Anonymous No.15500020]

>>15500018
I'm not a follower of scientism.

[Anonymous No.15500024]

>>15500020
Only a brainwashed pawn for religious authorities would use ridiculous terms such as scientism.

[Anonymous No.15500032]

>>15500024
Is NPR religious?
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/08/13/211613954/the-power-of-science-and-the-danger-of-scientism
Or perhaps the dictionary?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism

[Anonymous No.15500037]

>>15500032
Can you read?

[Anonymous No.15500040]

>>15500037
Apparently better than you.

[Anonymous No.15500045]

>>15500040
Let's try again. Can you read?

[Anonymous No.15500048]

>>15500045
Apparently better than you.

[Anonymous No.15500052]

>>15500048
Your religious programmers should have trained you better than this

[Anonymous No.15500053]

>>15500052
lol pure projection.
>I hate science
>Muh scientism
bro there's a containment board for people like you >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15500060]

>>15500053
Braindead

[Anonymous No.15500068]

>observe

>doing it with soicense: look at the experimental apparatus and think very hard
>real life: turn on the particle detector.

[Anonymous No.15500075]

>>15500020
>scientism
god I love when religious zealots so clearly advertise that they know nothing, that their words mean nothing, and that they don't intend for their words to mean anything. It only takes one word to know all discussion with you is going to be a roundabout shitfit.

[Anonymous No.15500104]

>>15499201
mathchan is dead af, i think some ppl should regularly post there. Last time i was there I talked to a turk, iranian and an indian on /int/
There are some telegram groups (/g/ has atleast), but i'm not too keen on using russian spyware.

[Anonymous No.15500315]

I think the mods are deliberately making it extra shitty right now to repel wandering redditfugees who would otherwise want to set up camp.

[Anonymous No.15500339]

>>15499201
not science or math

[Anonymous No.15500410]

>>15499546
>>15499997
The von Neumann / Wigner interpretation "consciousness causes collapse" is exactly what von Neumann (the man who fucking invented the mathematical formalism of QM) intended with the axiom of collapse. You are the pop soi retards if you put so much effort into refusing to learn the math behind QM and its meaning.

[Anonymous No.15500415]

>>15500410
Was that interpretation put forward by serious scientists? Yes. Has it been refuted? No. Is this the kernel of truth behind the pop-sci nonsense the Redditor watched, read, or listened to? Yes. Does the result of a double-slit experiment depend on whether a conscious observer is observing which slit the particle goes through? No.

[Anonymous No.15500425]

>>15500415
What collapses the wave function? You pop soi morons hide behind the vague term "interaction" but you can't specify what kind of interaction you're talking about. Interaction with another particle? Sorry hun, that merely alters the wave function by interference but doesn't collapse it. Interaction with a force like gravity? Sorry hun, Wheeler's cosmic interferometer shows the particle is still in superposition even after millions of light years of such "interaction". Particle-antiparticle annihilation? Nope sweaty, no collapse according to Hardy's experiment. So what is it? Tell me what collapses a wave function if it's not an observer.

[Anonymous No.15500429]

>>15500425
I simply adopt your preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics for the sake of argument, and note I am still correct about the predicted result of a double-slit experiment.

[Anonymous No.15500485]

>>15500425
I'm not gonna pretend to know because this is no where near a closed case in physics but the issue is people saying, with full confidence, that some kind of conscious observer needs to witness an event to collapse a wave function which is clearly erroneous.

[Anonymous No.15500497]

>>15500485
>clearly erroneous
You have no evidence to disprove it. It is clearly not "clearly erroneous", it merely distresses you emotionally that world views other than yours exist and are at least equally valid. Now go back to that website that starts with r.

[Anonymous No.15500513]

>>15500410
>The von Neumann / Wigner interpretation "consciousness causes collapse" is exactly what von Neumann (the man who fucking invented the mathematical formalism of QM) intended with the axiom of collapse.
Well Aristotle's work is the earliest known reference to "Physics" as such so I guess everyone after Aristotle is wrong. After all, he invented the fucking concept, right?

You could not be more retarded if you tried.
>>15500497
>You have no evidence to disprove it.
Reversal of the burden of proof.
>It is clearly not "clearly erroneous"
Stuff happens when it isn't observed. So you must now either further evidence a universal observer, good luck, or continue lying. Guess which one you'll do? Bet I know. Bet it won't be evidence. It's never evidence.

[Anonymous No.15500517]

>>15500497
If a conscious entity was need to make a wave function collapse then surely quantum computers would be a lot easier to make right? The biggest issue in modern quantum computing is getting superposition to last long enough to do useful calculations. If all it took to make them not collapse was to not have someone look at it surely everyone could just look away and the problem would be solved. It's just not that simple and though we don't have an answer to wave collapse we can still discount stuff like consciousness is required for wave collapse.

Whenever there is room in science for metaphysics it will appear and it's always a waste of time seriously considering it. So instead of interfering in discussion go back to bible study where your armchair philosophy might be appreciated.

[Aureliano Buendia No.15500529]

>>15499201
Kill yourself, naive fuck. There is no good place in the internet unless it is restricted to certain people, and that itself would restrict traffic which ultimately would kill the website

[Aureliano Buendia No.15500532]

>>15499226
>Now it's just a shithole

Yeah especially with subhuman cretins like you infesting it with their fruitless complaints

[Anonymous No.15500536]

why don't you try talking about science and math instead of making a whiny effeminate meta thread

you do realize that you have the power to do that, right? there are people here talking about science and math. go reply to them. how are you so stupid that you are doing the opposite of what you claim to want to do when you can easily do exactly what you claim to want to do

[Anonymous No.15500551]

>>15500517
Bruh, learn the difference between collapse and decoherence. Quantum computers suffer from decoherence. No collapse involved.

[Anonymous No.15500630]

>>15500551
Then how about when the wave function collapses at the end of a calculation. That's the basis of how quantum computers work. To end to calculation does a person need to open up the hood of the computer and stare into the machine? No because a person doesn't need to observe to collapse the wavefunction.

>>15500536
Because it will be derailed almost immediately. And the people talking about math and science are just having the same discussions that have been had every day for the past few years. The thread isn't a call to action dip shit it's me giving up on /sci.

>>15500529
Retard