/siberia/ - Off-topic

i manifested this outcome

>>751936
We really don't understand this phenomenom. Highly unlikely some kind of magical spirit ideas are involved.

What about all these 6 year olds with leukemia, whats that from, all their negative thinking?

Am I supposed to be seeing something? Looks like fish lips

>61k likes
people are so fucking stupid

That's just basic dialectics:
>It is a natural idea that in philosophy, before we come to deal with the Thing itself, namely with the actual cognition of what in truth is, it is necessary first to come to an understanding about cognition, which is regarded as the instrument by which we take possession of the absolute, or as the medium through which we catch sight of it. The concern seems justified, on the one hand that there may be various kinds of cognition, and one of them might be handier than another for the attainment of this goal, and so by a wrong choice among them, cognition is a capacity of a determinate kind and scope, without a more precise determination of its nature and limits, we shall get hold of clouds of error instead of the heaven of truth. What is more, this concern must surely turn into the conviction that the whole enterprise of securing for consciousness that which is in itself through cognition is absurd in its concept, and that between cognition and the absolute there lies a boundary that completely divides them. For, if cognition is the instrument for gaining possession of the absolute essence, it is immediately obvious that the application of an instrument to a Thing does not in fact leave it as it is for itself, but rather effects a forming and alteration of it. Or if cognition is not an instrument of our activity but a sort of passive medium through which the light of truth reaches us, then again we do not receive the truth as it is in itself, but only as it is through and in this medium. In both cases we use a means which immediately brings about the opposite of its intended aim; or what is really absurd is that we make use of a means at all. It seems, no doubt, that this drawback can be remedied through an acquaintance with the way in which the instrument works; for this enables us to subtract from the result the instrument’s own contribution to the representation of the absolute which we
gain by its means, and so to get the true in its purity. But this improvement would in fact only bring us back to where we were before. If from a thing we have formed we take away again what the instrument has done to it, then the thing—here the absolute—is for us exactly what it was before this now superfluous effort. If the instrument is supposed merely to bring the absolute a little closer to us, without altering anything in it, like a bird caught by a lime-twig, it would surely deride this ruse, if it were not in and for itself already with us and willing to be so; for in this case cognition would be a ruse, since by its complex endeavour it assumes the air of doing something quite different from simply establishing an immediate and thus effortless relation. Or if an examination of cognition, which we represent as a medium, acquaints seless to subtract the refraction from the result; for cognition is not the refraction of the ray, but the ray itself by which truth reaches us, and if this were subtracted, only the pure direction or blank space would have been indicated to us.
>Meanwhile, if concern about falling into error injects a mistrust into science, which without any such misgivings gets on with the job itself and actually cognizes, it is hard to see why we should not, conversely, inject a mistrust into this mistrust and be concerned that this fear of erring is really the error itself. In fact this fear presupposes something, a great deal in fact, as truth, and it supports its misgivings and inferences on what itself needs to be examined first to see if it is truth. That is to say, it presupposes representations of cognition as an instrument and medium, also a distinction between ourselves and this cognition; but above all, it presupposes that the absolute stands on one side and cognition on the other side, for itself and separated from the absolute, and yet is something real or, to put it bluntly, it presupposes that cognition which, since it is outside the absolute, is surely outside the truth as well, is nevertheless genuine, an assumption whereby what calls itself fear of error stands exposed rather as fear of truth.
<Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit
tl;dr - The existence of uncertainty doesn't mean all of science is suddenly void, neither that knowing something is fundamentally impossible.

isnt observation just sophistry for human created measuring equipment.

But are we, or are we not getting Quantum world generation for video games?

>>751952
on a different rant, its interesting how some technology is seen as part of the human body, i.e "observation" with devices capable of interacting w things that the natural has never been able to do while other technology is lambasted as separate like the language learning models. I think this makes sense but i dont have the proper words to describe it other than it being contextual. a human accessing the internet is researching while the algorithm itself in LLMs are also pulling from a database. tech, or maybe its a recent phenomenon, seems to be always be part of the human. although i guess you could reason that these are just "philosophies" of the body, that because they are similar, they are seen as part of the human. with x-rays you can see human bones. See I did it right there. The "you" can "see" human bones. No we dont! the tech is doing part of it for us!

The observer effect is about how the minimum condition for getting any information about a system requires interacting with it in ways that change its state. That doesn't mean "observation" has magical properties that change the system. It means that e.g., to see something we need light to bounce off it, which has an effect on it because light carries energy. But this is the same regardless of whether the light then reaches our eyes or not. The photon can just hit a wall somewhere and it will still have affected the system. There's nothing about "observation" by humans, aliens, machines or anything else that's important.

It's baffling how much of popsci is just scientists making satire and it getting taken as fact. Schrodinger's Cat was taking the piss at the notion that observing things collapses their state, yet it popularized the idea because people don't understand satire that isn't just a stand up comedian griping about poors and minorities.

Like Dyson Spheres were making fun of SETI for trying to pick up radio waves by making a scenerio where infrared was the thing to pick up.

>>751953
QRD? I know the original elite had interesting world generation, which basically generated parts of a fixed universe on the fly by seeding an RNG.

>>751955
>its interesting how some technology is seen as part of the human body, i.e "observation" with devices capable of interacting w things that the natural has never been able to do while other technology is lambasted as separate like the language learning models.
It's not about how different from the human senses these tools are, neither how much the individual using them understands about them, but how well science as a collective discipline can reason about them. LLMs are by definiton black boxes, that may only be examined statistically and thus cannot be trusted to the same degree a measuring instrument, constructed based on well-understood or peer-reviewed research and calibrated with physical phenomena known to be constant, is. Or can you tell me a reliable error estimate for a ChatGPT answer?

>>751936
watch this

>>751971
What's especially sad is how people take these pop sci subjects as "deep thinker" stuff and peddle it into education.

>manifestation
Peasant brain phenomenon. Also very treatlerite-coded. I've never seen a new ager using manifestation to bring about world peace or reverse climate change or anything, it's always just wishing for more money or a chad boyfriend

>>752038
I love cold weather, I'll manifest reverse climate change to the point it snows at least once a year in Miami.

>>751936
This concept is actually super easy to understand and people are being fucking stupid about it because they want to shill their supernatural bullshit.
Quantum mechanics is the study of the very small (the subatomic scale). When you are observing something, by necessity you have to physically interact with it.
We see this on a macro level all the time. To test your blood it has to be drawn. To test the pH level of a river you have to take water from it. On a macro level that kind of observation does not have a noticeable impact on the results because the interaction required to observe is minuscule relative to the margin of error that's acceptable for accurate results. But when you are dealing with the SUBATOMIC, the tiniest interactions can have a major impact. So when you are making observations you have to account for the change in results made -by- observing.
That's all it is. Quantum mysticism is not a thing.

>>751936
its 2026 and theres retards still regurgitating this hollywood-tier understanding of quantum physics lol

>>751940
yes

>>752044
why did my image of House disappear
it was thematically appropriate

>>751940
It was from my positive thinking (in my moral system it's good for kids to die)