I love being right, but it’s better when others think so too, lol
If you are right in the woods and no one is around to see it, were you really right?
Peacefully so.
“If you are right in the woods and no one is around to see it, were you really right?” is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception.
Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world? – e.g., “does observation affect outcome?”
A similar question does not involve whether or not an unobserved event occurs predictably, like it occurs when it is observed. The anthropic principle suggests that the observer, just in its existence, may impose on the reality observed.
However, most people, as well as scientists, assume that the observer doesn’t change whether the tree-fall causes a sound or not, but this is an impossible claim to prove. However, many scientists would argue that a truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where ‘other’ might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all. Of course, the fact that the tree is known to have changed state from ‘upright’ to ‘fallen’ implies that the event must be observed to ask the question at all – even if only by the supposed deaf onlooker. The British philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar, credited with developing critical realism has argued, in apparent reference to this riddle, that:
If men ceased to exist sound would continue to travel and heavy bodies to fall to the earth in exactly the same way, though ex hypothesi there would be no-one to know it
This existence of an unobserved real is integral to Bhaskar’s ontology, which contends (in opposition to the various strains of positivism which have dominated both natural and social science in the twentieth century) that ‘real structures exist independently of and are often out of phase with the actual patterns of events’. In social science, this has made his approach popular amongst contemporary Marxists — notably Alex Callinicos – who postulate the existence of real social forces and structures which might not always be observable.
For example: In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In Schrödinger’s original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.
In conclusion: When there is noone to hear if you are right or not, your righteousness is not yet confirmed, thus you being in a superposition state where you are both right and wrong. Unless someone comes and hears your words, will then your righteousness be judged and stated.
I agree although this only deals with problems where the outcome is not predetermined and your judgement cannot be resolved until the solution is observed by another.
I’m pretty sure ChatGPT wrote that
ChatGPT can suck my nuts.
If chatgpt was running a sex robot, do you think it’d try some really awkward techniques? I mean porno moves that don’t really happen in real life. How many genitals will be mutilated before we raise up against the machines?
I’d be more scared of the hentai shit it’d try to mimic. There’s some weird shit out there. No, ChatGPT, you cannot put your penis inside her nipples.
stroganoff
What do you call a masterbating cow? Beef stroganoff
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
9 people had the time
deleted by creator
I love being funny, but it feels best if just one person hated it.
deleted by creator
😘
Oh yeah. Echo chamber my favorite.
Metal Gear Solid 2 (released in 2001) predicted our current/future catch 22 scenario. If echo chambers are left in place everyone isolates themselves and surrounds themselves in their own half truths afraid of a larger forum.
But the proposed solution is for AI to run everything behind the scenes censoring the internet to manipulate information and by extension the world.
idk why this reminded me of that
Or seeking self validation to cope with insecurity.
I disagree >:)
Wrong again.
I understand that im wrong, but I’ll double down
People care more about avoiding humiliation and emotional hurt than the truth, and it’s the root cause of all of our problems.
deleted by creator
How many people are in the same boat and won’t admit it to themselves for fear of emotional pain though?
deleted by creator
For that, I recommend lots of vodka
If you’re blind, then why even wear clothes anymore.
Because in western society walking around naked in public is considered illegal and wrong
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Your arguments don’t work in heated, low-insect-rate buildings.
Do you have more, or do you give in?
deleted by creator
I agree with you
I don’t even care if they agree with me as long as they can form a constructive argument against me and not go into hysterics just because my opinion differs from theirs.
I’m always happy to find a hopeless optimist on Lemmy…
Especially when it’s a controversial opinion
deleted by creator
I agree! Pffft
deleted by creator
Correct opinion good, incorrect opinion bad.
This but without sarcasm
I sincerely hope people aren’t using upvotes or downvotes as a metric for this.
they are
I just did a presentation in my university about lemmy and the fediverse, people loved it!
What did you talk about? Like give me an overview I’m curious.
The presentation went along like this:
- context about social media and the problems with centralized models
- some news articles about the reddit debacle and Elon being musk
- overview of the dapps framework
- the fediverse and the different apps in it
- the concept of federation and how instances work
at the end I mentioned what I considered to be the most important challenges and steps ahead for the fediverse, thinks like escalation, funding, onboarding and moderation it was fun, the class liked it, i think some were going to try mastdon, it’s a start!
Nice! You should’ve pointed everyone to lemmy.world and had them make an account right there lol. (Or lemmy.ml, beehaw.org, sh.itjust.works, lemme.ee, or any of the popular instances).
Forgot about that. Well, I’m sure there’s some instance they could’ve picked lol.
maybe, but lemmy is not for everyone, most people didn’t use reddit either. i still showed a couple screencaps from the lemmy.world frontpage
Beehaw may be leaving lemmy
Okay maybe not that one. That would be sad, though. Hope they don’t.
Also…
Would know what that is like… too many people are wrong all the time. :)
I like turning off vote counts to keep me more honest. It makes me vote honestly because I myself like something, not just because others happen to like it a lot.
Ah, but a short glance at my comment history will reveal that that is not how i like to enjoy Lemmy…
Then I unjoy you.
Ah yes the anti echo chamber user: providing the viewpoint you disagree with whether you want to hear it or not.