I disagree with the belief that all police officers are automatically bad people
That the cereal should be poured before the milk.
A surprising number of people on lemmy seem to have this belief, which i think is unpragmatic: They think that to live ones life correctly, or to form a coherent society, one, or the society, must have a Set of Ethical and Moral Principles that crucially, has to be easily enumerable, and preferably named (Like, “The Ten Commandments”). These people also think that they do not have such a named Set, and that this is a really bad problem for them. I think having values is good. However, I think that worrying about how they might be inconsistent seems to be a kind of wild-card disscussion-ender (“Well to solve that problem, we’d first need to sort out Philosophy”), and that therefore, using this worry in any discussion but an abstract one is bad.
(For the society part, holding way too high standards for the Set also creates weird Cultural Homogeneity problems, which irks me.)
If you believe something adjacent, which Sets of values count for you? The Ten Commandments? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or whatever Kant said?
Pick literally any religion.
Pick literally any belief.
That.
Karma.
If it existed, then how come bad people get away with a lot of shit?
Being the bigger man.
I don’t outright disagree with it to where I think it’s not useful, but I don’t agree with it either. There are some specific situations and circumstances at play where maybe being the bigger man wasn’t worth it. It’s hard to tell sometimes but I’ve been in situations where having been the bigger man just meant more bullshit for me in the end. Than, having done something right then and there that would’ve solved the issue and prestige not mattering.
good things do have a way of coming back around, but that’s more so because…well…that’s just kind of how communities as a whole function, people working together to common goal, shouldering each others burdens etc.
bad deeds definitely don’t go punished on their own though, that…takes someone with the agency/time to actually punish bad people
The battle between socialism/communism and capitalism, in my POV both compliment each other. For the system to work as today there should be both types of countries.
Capitalism is the best system to live in when the owning class has a genuine fear of a communist revolution.
God.
We don’t care about God here. You got anything we care about?
You said popular belief. You did not say popular belief on lemmy
Well now you know. So do you?
Just answering you question.
That there is a correct way to live or that objective morality exists
You’d like The Good Place if you haven’t already seen it.
There are very few at ease with moral relativity.
Oh definitely. Objectivity schmobjectivity. I think it’s something completely different.
Cynicism isn’t inherently more mature than believing that things can be made better. For a lot of people “everything is fucked, nothing matters” is a way of absolving themselves from the responsibility and personal risk involved in actively trying to make the world a better place.
I agree with this. People think being pessimistic is more realistic than being optimistic. They think spinning things as negative is automatically more realistic than the positive spin. In reality, realism sees both sides and adjusts one’s behaviour to make the best out of everything
They get mad at the very idea that people can work together and successfully create change, despite numerous historical examples. It’s actively immature to be wholly cynical
I agree. And I think that cynicism is just easier. The claims of maturity part is mere justification.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The pilot wave theory makes much more intuitive sense, needs les hypothesis, was supported by a lot of famous scientist in the early days of quantum and is mathematically equivalent.
does the pilot wave theory respect locality?
EPR proves quantum mechanics violates locality without hidden variables, and Bell proves quantum mechanics violates locality with hidden variables, and so locality is not salvageable. People who claim quantum mechanics without hidden variables can be local tend to redefine locality to just be about superluminal signaling, but you can have nonlocal effects that cannot be used to signal. It is this broader definition of locality that is the concern of the EPR paper.
When Einstein wrote locality, he didn’t mention anything about signaling, that was not in his head. He was thinking in more broad terms. We can summarize Einstein’s definition of locality as follows:
(P1) Objects within set A interact such that their values are changed to become set A’. (P2) We form prediction P by predicting the values of A’ while preconditioning on complete knowledge of A. (P3) We form prediction Q by predicting the values of A’ while preconditioning on complete knowledge of A as well as object x where x⊄A. (D) A physical model is local if the variance of P equals the variance of Q.
Basically, what this definition says is that if particles interact and you want to predict the outcome of that interaction, complete knowledge of the initial values of the particles directly participating in the interaction should give you the best prediction possible to predict the outcome of the interaction, and no knowledge from anything outside the interaction should improve your prediction. If knowledge from some particle not participating in the interaction allows you to improve your prediction, then the outcome of the interaction has irreducible dependence upon something that did not locally participate in the interaction, which is of course nonlocal.
The EPR paper proves that, without hidden variables, you necessarily violate this definition of locality. I am not the only one to point this out. Local no-hidden variable models are impossible. Yes, this also applies to Many Worlds. There is no singular “Many Worlds” interpretation because no one agrees on how the branching should work, but it is not hard to prove that any possible answer to the question of how the branching should work must be nonlocal, or else it would fail to reproduce the predictions of quantum theory.
- Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states
- A no-go theorem for Quantum theory ontological models
- An Elementary Proof That Everett’s Quantum Multiverse Is Nonlocal
Pilot wave theory does not respect locality, but neither does orthodox quantum mechanics.
The fear of developing nonlocal hidden variable models also turn out to be unfounded. The main fear is that a nonlocal hidden variable model might lead to superluminal signaling, which would lead to a breakdown in the causal order, which would make the theory incompatible with special relativity, which would in turn make it unable to reproduce the predictions of quantum field theory.
It turns out, however, that none of these fears are well-founded. Pilot wave theory itself is proof that you can have a nonlocal hidden variable model without superluminal signaling. You do not end up with a breakdown in the causal order if you introduce a foliation in spacetime.
Technically, yes, this does mean it deviates from special relativity, but it turns out that this does not matter, because the only reason people care for special relativity is to reproduce the predictions of quantum field theory. Quantum field theory makes the same predictions in all reference frames, so you only need to match QFT’s predictions for a single reference frame and choose that frame as your foliation, and then pilot wave theory can reproduce the predictions of QFT.
There is a good paper below that discusses this, how it is actually quite trivial to match QFT’s predictions with pilot wave theory.
tldr: Quantum mechanics itself does not respect locality, hidden variables or not, and adding hidden variables does not introduce any problems with reproducing the predictions of quantum field theory.
I’m going to apologize, I love science, have a PhD in biology, so all that goes over my head, you did a good job explaining it, but yeah, I’m not able to fully digest it.
it’s an interesting answer, and In think I understood some of that.
Copenhagen!!! Woo!!
“Natural” means healthy
I like to point out to those people that arsenic is natural. Malaria is natural too.
It’s common to advise young people that Working hard and grinding when you are young, then having relatively calm and relaxation life for the rest of the life.
I think the relaxation never comes, if you work to death right now then still there is a pretty good chance you would be doing same 10 years from now. I believe ther should be balance between work and life no matter what age.
I encourage everyone to aim to have their midlife crisis moment sometime in their mid twenties.
Get off the treadmill of life while it’s still cheap to hop on and off.
Also working hard doesn’t get you anywhere. You have to also be an asshole that claws your way out of the bottom of the bucket of crabs.
There’s so many really good hard workers at dead end jobs that get treated like shit.
About relaxation. I’ve found that I can’t relax untill I’ve chilled for 2 weeks. Until then I have a wheel in my head that just won’t stop spinning. But after that 2 weeks I transform.
That a god exists.
I’m right here dude
Or karma, or fairness.
Karma exists. Western karma is nonsense.
It’s not supposed to fairness/consequences in this life but rather across lifetimes.
It’s fine for you to believe but I see it as totally made up to keep people in line.
When we die we’re dead and don’t care because we are no more.
Meh. I don’t see that belief much on Lemmy.
You didn’t specify it had to be a popular belief on Lemmy. 🤷♂️
It would be pointless otherwise.
You’d just get a bunch of popular complaints about what those other people believe.
It’s what’s popular here, and dissent from that, that’s interesting
Oh, I get it. I would be like me saying you’re a moron. Pointless because Lemmy as a community agrees with the statement.
Yes, something classy like that.
You should’ve specified that’s what you were looking for, then.
if I underline every single obvious thing then we’ll be here all day.
Not with your attitude, we won’t be.
It would be pointless otherwise
So we can’t just vent about real-world issues? Everything in your post needs to be through the lense of this very specific social media platform?
That “growth” is inherently a good thing to do and if you aren’t trying to grow as a person everyday then you’re not living ‘correctly’
Excuse my curiosity. Do you think learning and experiencing new things is not an important aspect of life? Or maybe you just have a different definition of growth than me?
A life without would be stagnant and boring to me.
I believe where we differ is the degree. I do still learn new things for fun and whatnot, but if there is ever a time I am NOT doing that (besides work, sleep, or helping society as a whole in some other way), I’ve been conditioned to feel guilty. Like, if I’m not growing at all times, then I am personally spitting on the graves of all my ancestors
aaah. the morally of cancer
One of the best takeaways from the Wizard of Earthsea books. Ambition can be poison.
I love Earthsea
the industrial revolution and its consequences. also the enlightenment, fuck those guys
Can’t even “grow” when your parents destroyed your self-confidence.
Eh, you can circle back through nihilism into absurdism, and wind up in a place close enough to self-confidence to actually turn into it eventually.
Ask me how I know.
Have you considered growing past that? /s. Stupid joke aside, wholly relatable for lots – including myself – i imagine.
that sex is binary or immutable. for anyone that believes this, get on HRT for a year and tell me if you still feel like your sex is identical to what you started out with
I really wish I was immortal or could save/load life, because I’d love to try something like this. Not specifically this, I’m not uncomfortable with myself or anything, its just theres so much experience I’ll never understand because we only get one shot.
tried it, your mom said it was different. You’re right
So sex depends on how you feel?
if a cis person goes on cross-sex hormones, they will develop gender dysphoria because their sex doesn’t match their gender identity anymore. that’s where the feel part comes in
Nope, try reading it again
Well you said, “tell me if you still feel like your sex is identical to what you started out with”, so I figured you were implying that how you feel determines your sex.
Not my comment, I just read it
Well then you read it too and are now telling me that I’m wrong in my interpretation. So what’s your better interpretation?
