I said that those who seek power over others are subhuman scum. Curious you took it personally.

I’m not a racist, but you know that already and just like to shout insults at people because your ideas cannot stand on their own merit and everything is a means to an end to you. You’re a con.

People who seek to dominate others are subhuman scum, I don’t think I’ll get a lot of disagreement on that.

Of course. You’re one of them. Got it.

“On principle what specific words do you want to say” lol yeah OK. You need to go understand what “principle” means, by definition it ignores specific circumstances.

When what I can say is subject to someone else’s dictat, de facto they have power over me. The interesting thing about that is that the kind of people that seek that out aren’t the kind of people who wield it wisely or fairly. I avoid giving others power over me, I can’t always prevent it, but I avoid it where I can. That’s the principle we are talking about, whether I want to give someone that power, not whether I agree with them on what words should be said. And that’s what this whole speech shit is about, not words, it’s about power. Generally I would agree with those people on what words should not be said, what I don’t agree with is giving them the power to tell me or other people that we can’t say them. I used to do the compromise thing, but those people inevitably overreach and begin to try to control what ideas are allowed to be discussed, because again, it’s about power and they’re power hungry subhuman scum who just want to dominate others.

No matter where you go on fedi, it’s one type of toxic or another. Either it’s people shouting the n word, or it’s people sharing drawings (at best) of little kids, or it’s power hungry subhuman scum who just want to dominate others. It’s an architectural problem endemic to the federated network architecture. So I prefer an architecture with less discoverability but which gives the user the power to censor their own feed how they see fit. There’s no real reach on either, but at least people can have their echo chambers and nobody can lean on the architecture to silence the people they don’t like.

It’s not about what I want to say lol typical. Take a conversation about principle and imply that I want to shout slurs.

You don’t have the right to dictate to me what I can say out loud, period.

That’s actually nor possible because there’s no global feed. Your network is what you make of it. I’m not a fan of voat types so I don’t interact with them online all that often.

It’s interesting, the people that tell you that they’re in the majority somehow also believe that online spaces that are left for open discussion don’t wind up the way they want them to, almost as if they’re a minority.

Nah I leave that shit to the guys at the #1 spot on the list lol. I just say what I want. I’m actually not into being angry and hateful, but I’m also not into being told what I can and cannot say.

#2 represent! Getting defederated is street cred. If crybabies don’t like you you’re doing something right.

I don’t mess with fedi anymore though, besides dicking around on here. Socially I’m all about Nostr now, it’s the future of the non corpo social media, federated network architecture is simply too prone to abuse.

Well I think relativity tells us something more fundamental, that the world emerges as interactions from relative frames of reference, even in the quantum realm. It’s easy to forget, every single thing going on is a quantum system with astronomical complexity, complexity of a system is the square of the number of quantum states in the entire system. A molecule is a quantum system, a cell is a quantum system, a tree is a quantum system, a tree rustling in the wind is a quantum system. A person interacting with another person for example is entangling those systems and is itself another quantum system. And I don’t think entanglement is a binary thing, it’s a thing of degree and quality. You’re influenced by everything in your light cone, even if you’ve never directly observed a specific star for example, you still interact with it to some degree, you’re a part of a quantum system composed of the entire observable universe, and even part of the unobservable one. Once you observe it, now your interaction is more than that. You can picture it in your mind, look for it again later, tell people about it. If you could orbit it, or touch it, you’d get entangled with it even more. I think a lot more about our experience than what we realize consciously is quantum phenomena, I think we experience these phenomena directly but we just take for granted those experiences and don’t realize what they are fundamentally, just like someone who doesn’t understand gravity doesn’t realize that the experience of falling from a tree is the same force as the one that keeps the planets moving around the sun.

Why doesn’t relativity explain it? It looks like a classic case of relativity to me, what am I missing?

Sure, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on there.

I think observation/measurement of a quantum system means entangling with the system, so the quantum system becomes larger and includes the observer. Combine that with relativity, which is absolute in the universe, and you have an e plantation for that phenomenon.

Yeah, the apparent effect to us could be something really weird like incongruent physical laws or constants or things like that. I have no idea what it would be, only that it would be detectable.

It is incredibly unlikely.

I know, “if an ancestor simulation is possible than it is much more likely you’re in one than not in one.” That’s fallacious, unfalsifiable and everyone loves to leave out the word “ancestor” which is very important to the thought experiment.

In our universe, no system is entirely isolated from the rest of it. It is impossible to create a system that does not in some way interact with the outside universe. So if it is a simulation in a universe, and the universe it is running in also has this rule we would see information from that universe leak into ours in some way. How that would appear we don’t know, but it would be possible to figure it out. Maybe heat dissipates out, maybe bit flips happen in our universe due to the parent’s equivalent to cosmic rays, maybe the speed of light is a result of the clock speed of the simulator. We don’t know what it would be, but there would be something, and it would be theoretically discernible.

at least some of the laws of our universe are laws of the parent universe. So maybe that rule, no system exists in isolation, is also true above. Or maybe our speed of light is the same for them. Whatever it is, our cumulative constraints are more than that of the simulation.

All that, unless, in the parent universe, 1) systems can exist in isolation, or 2) it is an environment with no constraints. These two are functionally equivalent, so I’ll talk about them like they’re the same thing. In such a universe, there would be no causality, no form, nothing that makes it unified. It’s not a universe at all. It’s something like a universe post heat death. In such a scenario, running a simulation isn’t possible. If it were, to create an environment in which causality can be simulated, that environment wouldn’t be a simulation, it would be a bona fide universe.

So I think, the fact that we see no evidence that we are in a simulation means we are probably not in one. So that means, if we are in one it is falsifiable and we can prove or disprove it empirically. And it also means we can escape, or at the very least destroy it.