[Potemkin]

Let's contemplate synchronicity as an acausal connecting principle for a moment...

I thought you didn't like Jung's ideas, Frollein?

[Frollein]

Can't I pick and choose as I like?

[Potemkin]

Well, they do say that self-consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds....

[Frollein]

I'm reading Memories, Dreams, Reflections at the moment and it confirms my suspicions that he was a mystic masquerading as a scientist. Not that I have anything against mystics... but then the whole gamut of psychological theories is just poking around in the dark anyway. One theory is as good as the next.

Synchronicity is fun, though. I embrace the concept of synchronicity. If I think long and hard enough about Merkel falling from power, maybe she'll get hit by a bus tomorrow.

[KlassWar]

Synchronicity is fun, though. I embrace the concept of synchronicity. If I think long and hard enough about Merkel falling from power, maybe she'll get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Agitating against her would probably be a more reliable course of action... But then again, maybe not: You're a German, after all.

The SPD still exists after making a coalition with the conservatives twice to keep the left out of power. For the social-traitors in any normal country, crossing that Rubicon would mean electoral annihilation and a serious likelihood of actual physical harm. In Germany they have crossed it twice and they don't only still exist, they still outpoll the communists.

German political conformism is fucking eerie.

[Frollein]

German political conformism is fucking eerie.

I know... *sigh*

[Noelnada]

German political conformism is fucking eerie.

It makes more sense if you consider CDU-CSU-SPD just as one big ordo-liberal party.

It's simplistic but it works for me

[Frollein]

Actually, it's like the undemocratic alliance the Swedes have now in parliament. It's one big Green-SPD-FDP (when they still existed)-CDU/CSU clusterfuck.

[Zamuel]

But what is the application to bricklaying?

You're gon'na have to work a lot faster ...

Synchronicity is fun, though. I embrace the concept of synchronicity. If I think long and hard enough about Merkel falling from power, maybe she'll get hit by a bus tomorrow.

And if "WE" think about it Long and Hard, maybe the Bus will stop and back up over her ...




Zam

[ThereBeDragons]

I still believe in hidden-variable theories and if I have to throw locality out the window for it I'll do it. I would prefer to do away with causality entirely but that makes things hard.

Not that I have anything against mystics... but then the whole gamut of psychological theories is just poking around in the dark anyway. One theory is as good as the next.

I liked his theory of neurosis. I once saw the quote "I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life" which really stuck with me.

[Frollein]

There's a book about Merkel, Die Patin, which translates to The Godmother...

[Ummon]

Just to broaden this topic a bit I believe I "recently" saw a paper on distinct from the information in the OP about locality, realism, and causality in which any world in which two hold the third cannot. I will try to track it down, but I am definitely one to be interested in not yet popularized views of physics that are interesting and hold potential but defy our conventions like QBism

[Rich]

Indeed. Science is an open-ended quest for knowledge; it's not a set of religious dogmas. Nothing in science is set in stone.

So is the fact that "nothing in science is set in stone" itself set in stone? Could something in the future be set in stone so supporting the axiom that even the fact that "nothing in science is set in stone" is not even itself set in stone?

Or does the above logic portray a nieve use of sets? The problems with sets at least as original defined being one of the major impulses for category theory.

[Potemkin]

Just to broaden this topic a bit I believe I "recently" saw a paper on distinct from the information in the OP about locality, realism, and causality in which any world in which two hold the third cannot.

But we can easily imagine a world in which all three principles are true simultaneously - for example, the world as described by classical Newtonian physics is one such world. I think the idea is that, given our experimental observations, the world can only be consistently described by theories in which if any two of those principles hold, the third cannot hold. We therefore have to choose which principle to discard. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics - the orthodox consensus of modern science - chooses to keep locality and causality at the cost of discarding realism. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. The Buddhists have been telling us for millennia that the world isn't real anyway. Turns out they were right all along.

[Lexington]

I thought this was Donald Trump for a moment.

I'm seeing him everywhere.

[Potemkin]

I thought this was Donald Trump for a moment.

I'm seeing him everywhere.

I know the feeling....

[youtube]S4m848bh1iY[/youtube]

[Ummon]

But we can easily imagine a world in which all three principles are true simultaneously - for example, the world as described by classical Newtonian physics is one such world. I think the idea is that, given our experimental observations, the world can only be consistently described by theories in which if any two of those principles hold, the third cannot hold. We therefore have to choose which principle to discard. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics - the orthodox consensus of modern science - chooses to keep locality and causality at the cost of discarding realism. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. The Buddhists have been telling us for millennia that the world isn't real anyway. Turns out they were right all along.

What do you think about Quantum Bayesianism?

[quetzalcoatl]

:eh: Dialectal materialism! You forget yourself sir!

I contemplate a historical materialism. But one not borne of a German idealist philosopher. A non-dialectical historical materialism, if you will. And if you won't, no matter. I still have the dream.