[blueprint]

no, I'm pretty sure that my defending the senseless subjugation of people who tell the truth is much more important than my avoiding a little bit of stress. after the ridiculous life that I've had to live, I'd rather die 20 years too early then not have a conscience.

[Analog24]

1.) You're talking about a nested comment on a hacker news post. A little perspective is helpful.

2.) You are making grandiose and uncharitable assumptions about the interpretations of things other people said, e.g. equating not having the words to to describe something to implying that we should give up trying to understand it more.

3.) Having a physical definition for every term in an equation does not mean the resulting behavior/phenomenon can be conceptually explained with words. Can you conceptually explain what "spin" is for an electron?

[blueprint]

3. For starters, the math does not explain "what spin is". So you've introduced a fallacy off the bat, and I suspect it was intentional. But if you tell me how you know about spin then I will explain it conceptually. It's not so complicated. None of this proves anything though. What's the fallacy called? I dont remember.

[Analog24]

And I guess you're going to invoke some vague connection to angular momentum to do so? We're talking about empirically derived properties. The math certainly predicts the empirical results but it does not give an accurate conceptual connection to concepts that we, as humans living and interacting with a classical world, can actually understand.

edit to add a bit more: I should also point out that no one introduced a fallacy except you. You are, yet again, stretching other peoples words to build straw man arguments for yourself. I don't remember ever making the claim that the math explains ""what spin is"".

[blueprint]

we dont live in a classical world, noob. things tend to decohere and mix at this scale but quantum phenomena are obviously observable. and no, you're the one arguing in bad faith. this discussion was about whether these mathematically modelable concepts can be explained by a knowing person with words. not whether i can magically explain something you dont even have math for. go away and find something productive for your life instead of attaching yourself to discussions to feel more alive.

"Can you conceptually explain what "spin" is for an electron?"

[Analog24]

You are really an unpleasant person to interact with. And let me know next time you personally observe a quantum phenomenon with your own senses.

[blueprint]

> You are really an unpleasant person to interact with.

I'm sure Meletus felt that way while Socrates was absolutely wrecking him in court and exposing his hypocrisy. Maybe that's why they murdered Socrates?

You are not qualified to take part in the debate I raised. It's obvious you dont understand the little physics you have read nor know the math you're trying to talk about. You should count yourself lucky instead because this conversation is a chance for you to open your eyes to a world of physics which is even more amazing than you realized. Instead you'll probably just keep trolling. 'The starting point of true learning is the realization that you're not actually aware of anything yet.'

> let me know next time you personally observe a quantum phenomenon with your own senses.

to my knowledge, literally every single "sense" measurement is a "quantum" phenomenon which happens via entanglement along with literally everything else at all scales. you still have insufficient understanding of this.

and dont mince words about quantum being a theory and things being beyond theory. you contradict yourself in that way and if consciousness is beyond our science now and that is your point then I invite you to stop arguing with me and will remind you that we are discussing experiments in real life and what physics means, not what I feel in my heart.

please stop now