That giving the state permission to execute people is ever anything approaching justice.
I disagree with the belief that all police officers are automatically bad people
A friend of mine is a cop & a nice guy. I asked him why the hell he became a cop of all things & he said “this way, I know there’s at least one cop in existence who’s not a racist asshole.”
I countered with “Oh, so you’re just a regular asshole, then?” An he said “No sir; I am an ass hat. An asshole is an ass the whole time. If people are cool, I’m cool with them, but if someone wants to be an ass, I can put my ass hat on to match their energy.”
I can respect that.
Is he going to put his job on the line to stop the racist assholes? No.
It’s not the premise that they are all inherently bad. It’s that there are plenty of bad ones and the good ones do nothing about them or actively protect them.
One of my friends was a rural police officer, which I didn’t know. Dude is super friendly and queer. Unfortunately he had a lot of terribly sad stories of AD&D and DUIs. He finally called it quits when one woman rode up an industrial garage door to impress her friend and got lethally caught in it. Found her friend holding her legs to try and save her. Too many terrible things happened to nice but terribly misguided (or drunk) people.
I think that job hurt his heart.
i agree with you.
My best friend is ex-police. My brother is police.
They’re not saints but they’re good people, certainly not exploring or abusing anyone.
Then again, we’re not in the USA so I can’t comment on what it’s like there.
Biased
I have cops in my family. They’re actually all really great people and weirdly positive parents.
If they know a bad cop, and didn’t do anything about them, they’re just as guilty.
I love how you blame everyone. It must feel freeing. And you must be hell on jaywalkers and people who don’t use their signal light.
LMAO. I apply the same bullshit they use on civilians. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, you’re a fucking duck right?
“You’re in a high drug area, you must be buying/selling”
“You’re hanging out with known criminals, you must be doing similar activities”
A cop covers and looks the other way for other cops? He’s just as guilty as the corrupt cop.
Keep 👅 🥾
That AI (as in “generative AI”) helps in learning if you give it the right prompt. There is evidence to support that when a user asks AI to implement code, that they (the user) won’t touch it because they are unfamiliar of the code it generated. The AI effectively made a psychological black box that no programmer wants to touch even for a (relatively speaking) small snippet of code to a larger program, that was programmed by another programmer or him.
To further generalize, I fully believe AI doesn’t improve the learning process, it makes it more accessible and easier for less literate people in a field to understand. I can explain Taylor expansions and power series simplistically to my brother who is less literate and familiar with math. I would be shocked that after a brief general overview he can now approximate any function or differential equation.
Same applies with chatGPT: You can ask it to explain simplistically taylor and power series solutions, or better yet, approximate a differential equation, it doesn’t change the fact that you still can’t replicate it. I know I’m talking about an extreme case where the person trying to learn Taylor expansions has no prior experience with math, but it still won’t even work for someone who does…
I want to pose a simple thought experiment of my experience using AI on say (for example) taylor expansions. Lets assume i wants to learn Taylor expansion, ive already done differential calculus (the main requirement for taylor expansions) and I asks chatGPT “how to do Taylor expansions” as in what is the proof to the general series expansion, and show an example of applying Taylor expansions to a function. What happens when I try and do a problem is when I experience a level of uncertainty in my ability to actually perform it, and this is when I ask chatGPT if i did it correct or not. But you sort of see what I’m saying it’s a downward spiral of loosing your certainty, sanity, and time commitment over time when you do use it.
That is what the programmers are experiencing, it’s not that they don’t want to touch it because they are unfamiliar with the code that the AI generated, it’s that they are uncertain in their own ability to fix an issue as they may fuck it up even more. People are terrified of the concept of failure and fucking shit up, and by using AI they “solve” that issue of theirs even though the probability of it hallucinating is higher then if someone spent time figuring out any conflicts themselves.
That a hot dog is not a taco
Pick literally any religion.
Pick literally any belief.
That.
It’s like some kind of low hanging fruit party in here.
What’s a commonly held belief here on lemmy that you disagree with?
That the cereal should be poured before the milk.
But cereral first is only sane and moral. We can’t have a floating mound. And that’s to say nothing of volumetric concerns.
You sprinkle some more cereal on the milk whenever you run out of cereal.
The whole point is to not have soggy cereal
Really depends on preference and cereal type
It’s less of an argument between milk first vs second, but people that like soggy vs crunchy cereal.
The important thing is to not add too much cereal before you can eat it all. Adding in cereal last just helps make sure you don’t.
My uncle’s ex-wife would pour a bowl of frosted flakes, pour milk on it, put the bowl in the refrigerator, then eat it the next day.
I don’t think that’s why they got divorced, but I’ve always believed it was a contributing factor…
I eat my cereal dry by the handful then drink milk when my mouth gets too cottonie
Thought it was illegal the other way around. You probably think the toilet paper should fold over the back too. Don’t you?
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 your 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.
”Doug! We all love Doug!”
There are very few at ease with moral relativity.
Oh definitely. Objectivity schmobjectivity. I think it’s something completely different.
That there is nothing after death. That praying is pointless. I’m not a Christian as such, and I’ve no interest in debating the topic. I just find confident absolutists slightly annoying, be they religious fundamentalists or obnoxious atheists. Not that I’m saying all atheists are obnoxious, but there’s a certain angsty teen attitude that will assert that there’s nothing after death and I find it slightly arrogant.
You and me both.
This is not a popular belief. There are more religious people in the world than none religious people.
But to your point; there exists no evidence that there is something after death, certainly not in the wishful thinking way people do. Ergo, there is nothing after death.
I have never, in my 48 years, had anyone I’ve known in real life try to assert their beliefs on me. Perhaps I’m just lucky. My own mother is a Christian, whereas my father is agnostic. Neither have tried to tell me what is or isn’t. They tell me what they believe, which is fine. It’s only a certain type of atheist, of which I’ve met several, who feels compelled to loudly and confidently tell me about the nature of existence with absolute certainty.
To believe that we die, that’s it and there’s nothing more to it is perfectly reasonable. But to assert it as a fact implies that they have knowledge beyond others, which I find difficult not to interpret as arrogance.
I’ve had everything and everyone try to assert their beliefs. If nobody has ever approached you about anything then you’ve been very lucky indeed.
Anything from Jehova’s Witnesses and their dumb little pamphlets, Muslims blaring prayers across the street while displaying billboards on intelligent design, to scientologists starting the most disingenuous arguments.
These are fairly normal occurrences in cities. Perhaps not so much in the countryside, but even then I’ve had the Christian priest always casually bringing up joining Sunday mass.
You had me right to until the last sentence. Without evidence of anything beyond death, all interpretations of what’s beyond death are equally valid. Some require fewer assumption than others so you could say by Occam’s razor they’re more likely, but making fewer assumptions still means making assumptions.
A shared experience constitutes good evidence. But the experience might involve a special technique for getting the experience. So if you don’t do the technique then you don’t get the evidence.
The technique might involve serious time and effort. So most of us will never do it.
So now we have 2 sets of people, those who did the technique and those who didn’t, with different evidence in hand, arriving at different conclusions.
All interpretatioms of what’s beyond are equally valid.
Why? Things in reality don’t work that way.
Occam’s Razor is not the only tool; Hitchen’s Razor makes for a very good bullshit filter. And so far anything about the afterlife, or even the entire concept of the afterlife to begin with, is entirely asserted without evidence.
And so far anything about the afterlife, or even the entire concept of the afterlife to begin with, is entirely asserted without evidence.
Correct, and so is the assertion that there is nothing following death.
For clarity, I do agree that I think there is nothing and that any concept of anything following death is a coping mechanism, but I’m not going to pretend that a lack of evidence for an afterlife is evidence towards nothingness.
But it is. The lack of evidence for unicorns is evidence there are no unicorns. That’s how evidence works.
If someone makes the claim they are required to provide proof, they have the burdon of proof. If no proof is to be found it can be rejected. Hence, Hitchen’s Razor.
And yet you claim that nothing exists beyond death without evidence. You provide no evidence and assume that a lack of evidence on other theories is evidence of your theory. This is the same methodology theologists used as “evidence” for the heavens. By assuming a default position exists, you’re allowing a lack of evidence on any other position of the argument to support your own position.
My point is that nothingness as a state of being (or lack thereof) beyond death is its own theory that also has no evidence. This is the same for all theories of what’s beyond death and therefore all theories are equally valid, or invalid if you prefer.
From my perspective in programming terms, you’re seeing a variable without a value and assuming no value means 0 whereas I’m saying 0 is also a value which is different from “no value was defined”.
that racism is still pervasive even in blue/liberal areas, they just hide it better, plus transplants(people who move to blue areas) often come from more conservative or moderate areas, during one of my speech writing classes in college people were telling thier backstory and thier was one saying they became more conservative when they moved here to west coast, plus we have the ones that escaped from “communist” countries, pretty obvious when was pratically sucking off the military/war effort that america does, during the end of BUSH 2nd term. plus the AA on asian violence and racism never truely get addressed in these blue area, it just gets swept under the rug by the media, for the sake of offending AA people.
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!!
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.
Unless they go the fascist route, like in Germany.
Fascism is just another kind of socialism/communism, it’s national socialism. The problem of it is when they start invading other countries, for context just look at Nordic countries healthy national socialism wo getting in trouble like WWII Germany.
That’s nonsense, they’re complete opposites. The Nazis came to power because they were supported by (and supported) bourgeois interests.
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?
Karma
Free Will
Materialism (as in, matter being the foundation of reality)
Words
What do you consider the foundation of reality if not matter?
Consciousness. Though that too is just a word, which I also don’t believe in. But that’s the best of all the imperfect words that at least point away from matter.
consciousness might not be the basis of everything, but at least it’s one of the most interesting things, so it’s worth talking about :)
free will is just personal agency, something…most people just don’t really have in our modern society, especially in most parts of the US with their entirely non-existent safety nets.
they’re so depowered and stressed day-to-day just surviving that they’re physiologically incapable of thinking beyond their immediate needs/personal bubble (and that’s not considering these social media algos eating away at everyones brains). free will only comes into play when the base of the hierarchy of needs is taken care of, which in our hyper-capitilist world that entire base comes down to $
You’re always impacted by something that directs what you end up choosing. Or even thinking. Think of a fruit. Did you choose to think of that fruit? Or did something that falls under the category of fruit just pop into your head? Literally every single thought is like that. Verbal or nonverbal. Sure you can mull over a thing forever if you like, but that too is something you don’t know if you’re going to do before you’re doing it. Or not doing it. I can ask you to go brush your teeth right now. You can deliberate “it’s good for me, no reason not to do it, oh but I already did some time ago, I don’t wanna just do something because this dude online said so, maybe I’ll choose to do it just to prove a point…” endlessly but you have no idea what you end up choosing a single moment sooner than you do. You just tell yourself after the fact that you “chose” to do it or not do it, which also just depends on how attached you are the idea of free will.
yeah i get your point, humans are deterministic machines kinda but also, if you really look into IT and computers, you’ll already find that computers (which are definitely highly deterministic, i.e. their behavior is exactly dependent on the input) are already so complex that they can often only be understood statistically, and that leads to organic behavior, where you sometimes ascribe certain character traits to the computer because it’s easier to deal with than to use a deterministic mindset. and if that’s useful way of looking at things for computers, it surely also is for humans.
I share your doubt.
free will? that was long ago. now it’s enshitified to hell, ads, subscription tiers…
all my homies pirate free will.
