swansont

Calling it a computational lattice just kicks the conceptual can down the road. It’s not consistent with our rules - at some point this needs to be based on some kind of solid science, rather than word salad. How does one calculate this “computational load”? You said the relevant term was energy density - how does one determine this?

What makes you think they do not get illnesses, or do not fear getting them?

And in Maxwell’s conviction, conspiring with Epstein, they mentioned girls as young as 14; Epstein wasn’t found guilty of that because he was already dead, but it underscores the point of distinguishing between what he did and what he was found guilty of.

It’s descriptive language. If you fall in love do you literally fall? Collapse of the wavefunction is less cumbersome than “a superposition of multiple wavefunctions of an undetermined state are determined to be one particular eigenstate” But you can have one quantum, e.g. a photon, where there is no threshold of energy

No, because you can’t guarantee there is no interaction. I don’t know that there is one.

Once it’s in an eigenstate there is no probability distribution anymore; there must be an interaction for the state to change. You don’t get interference, but you can toss a coin or roll a die. There are similarities to think about. There are differences, especially when you go out of your way to look at different circumstances. e.g. you allow an interaction for the quantum system, but not for the classical. The coin stays in the same state with no interaction, and that’s exactly what I said about the quantum system.

So where’s the definition of this processing rate? What’s being “processed”? What’s the energy density if you have a vacuum inside a spherical shell that has mass M? To be clear, there would be no gravity there.

You said “according to my thinking” which is not evidence. I didn’t see anything else This is your assertion, so the burden is on you to provide this definition. Nope. But I never said gravity was a physical object, so I don’t see how this is anything but a distraction. It’s a useful concept in some circumstances Asserting that there’s a spectrum is yet another speculation, which, like a house of cards, does not make for a very solid argument. Once you make a measurement the system is in a defined state. It doesn’t evolve unless there’s some other interaction (which there always is) Yes, that’s how probability works. A 1% result can happen; if you identically prepare 1000 particles and do the measurement, you expect 10 to end up in that state. Nothing mystical, or having to do with consciousness

Yes, there’s a slice of folks that are explaining that it’s ephebophilia, which is a distraction that misses the point. We’re not discussing this in a clinical or strict legal setting. (Kinda like arguing that it’s manslaughter, not murder, rather than focusing on the fact that someone’s dead and it’s still illegal). Pedophile is the word that most people know, and splitting hairs is a lame attempt at deflection.

Moderator NoteThere’s not enough context here for discussion. Perhaps you’d like to try again.

Yes really. Your thinking is not what matters. You need evidence. What meaningful definition of consciousness is there that predates life? Can you hand me a wave function? Pilot waves are unconfirmed, which is weird for something that physically exists and would interact so readily. Phase space is a mathematical description. Reifying concepts is a common pitfall in these kinds of discussions. Along the lines of what Mordred said, effects are what is physical, not the math we use to describe them. Why is consciusness required?

He was probably worse, since his influence means many details were obscured. He was wealthy, so he didn’t have to. He got others to do the equivalent, and deliver victims to him. If we found that Jeffrey Dahmer was nice to some people, does that mean he wasn’t a serial killer?

You have a previous thread on package voting and alleged authoritarianism, which looped back to your thread on referendum voting. I’m not sure how this is anything new, which makes it soapboxing, and suggests it should be locked. You can discuss those details in the existing threads. What is your definition of authoritarianism? Because there seems to be a disconnect here. Authoritarianism is about power vested in a leader or single group, with little accountability. Your beef seems to be with the fact that multiple viewpoints exist on multiple topics, and to some extent these topics are independent, so there a lot of permutations of pro vs con. That’s an issue of choice, which requires compromise (as CharonY points out) and doesn’t have much of anything to do with accountability.

What evidence do you have to support the idea? QM did not apply before life existed? Wave functions are how we describe QM. They do not physically exist.

“Astronomers have watched a dying star fail to explode as a supernova, instead collapsing into a black hole. The remarkable sighting is the most complete observational record ever made of a star's transformation into a black hole, allowing astronomers to construct a comprehensive physical picture of the process. … The discovery will help explain why some massive stars turn into black holes when they die, while others don't.” https://phys.org/news/2026-02-supernova-clearest-view-star-collapsing.html