Tfw the idealists were right all along. How will realists and sobjectivists ever recover

If science can't prove itself than science is wrong lmao analytics btfo

>sensational journalism which is exaggerated to the point of lies
The word for this is "journalism".

>Tfw the idealists were right all along
It's been known for almost 120 years now, and this one paper isn't likely to enlighten low-IQ realists. They will redefine the "observer" to mean a classical measuring apparatus (as if there's a clear cut between two worlds governed by different laws); "observation" to some interaction between said device and particles (as if they were lil' billiard balls), or, even worse yet: cling to some silly "interpretation" incompatible with special relativity (Bohm) and no-cloning theorem (Everett)
>Also, any good books about idealism in general?
anything by Bernard d'Espagnat

Attached: 70e015d86207fda7d4b0b863601ca86e.jpg (850x400, 35K)

observation is dependent on interaction

>Quantum

This is the biggest red flag. If there was a ranking for the most pseud word it would be quantum. Unless you are a physicist please dont use it ever.

>Renninger negative-result experiment
look it up
physicists don't care about philosophy and won't ever admit that consciousness is fundamental. even if all the established results (theoretical and experimental) point directly to that conclusion

>Believing anything about quantum mechanics
The only ones who have some actual idea of it are the scientists who dedicate their lives to its study, and anything they explain to other people is lost in translation. Journalism about it is fucking retarded, no need to concern yourself.

Is this just

>cant kno nuffin

This is a good course on Quantum Mechanics for those who are interested
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPH7f_7ZlzxQVx5jRjbfRGEzWY_upS5K6

>consciousness is fundamental
What does this mean?

If you count rocks as conscious too, then yes, because that is valid oberver too - read something about decoherence. My favorite buddhist teacher says rigpa is processing of information and that external observation and conscious experience are two sides of the same coin, and neither reigns over each other.
All quantum paradoxes cease to be them when one views quantum mechanics from information theoretic perspective, Renninger negative-result experiment included.

From the first lecture
"Not even for the stone you throw, it doesn't simply follow a trajectory. It Doesn't. It doesn't follow a trajectory by Newtons axioms, it doesn't follow a trajectory at all. Even the IDEA of a particle following a trajectory turns out to be entirely wrong. Now you all know of the double slit experiment, you probably heard of it in school, who knows that? Everybody, right? In a sense, investigating or thinking about what the result means, it means that an electron that you shoot, an individual electron, neither goes through one slit nor the other, in a sense it goes through both slits, and through none, it's very complicated, okay? But the same is true if you were to take a whale. You make a double slit, sufficiently big slits, and you shoot a whale, okay, a fish. Well it's not a fish but nonetheless, a big thing, you shoot the whale, and the whale neither will go through one slit or the other, it's just that... well, okay so people did this up to molecules with something like, i think eight hundred and something, it's roughly right that you can do this with very big molecules and the effect is still there"
yea pretty cool stuff
It's not about consciousnesss

>idealist desperately trying to shore up his retarded philosophical position

Quantum mechanics always acts weird compared to normal physics and the article is full of 'suggest' 'potentially'. Even look at the title. 'suggests'. If it actually did say there's no objective reality they would have gone with that for the title because it means more clicks.

who woulda thought that the guys who spend all their consciousness finding the absolute truth would be right and proven to be by the ones who take a hard science approach to proving what already became known.
no that sounds horrible user. Find something more sincere.

Anything related to physics is massive pseud bait.

>no that sounds horrible user. Find something more sincere.
It is sincere, it's a lecture series by Frederic Schuller, one of the greatest lecturers of mathematical physics in the world and a leading authority on Quantum Gravity

Don't know much about it yet, but are there any implications for German idealism?

Attached: hegel.jpg (500x426, 26K)

it means the mind isn't constituted by the particles that make up your brain - the inverse is true
>read something about decoherence
are you serious?

This thread again??? Stop that shit.

No "reality" as a quantum scale means nothing about how we see each other at a human scale, so just gtfo

*journalism driven by adware

this. what non-STEMfags don't understand is that all uncertainty says is that the act of observing the particle changes how it behaves, not that your mind can influence reality by tapping into Midi-chlorians.

>How will realists and sobjectivists ever recover.
In their minds they were correct! In their minds they will remain.

Well, there's this.

You can't know what is correct

how are you able to make that statement then

>It's been known for almost 120 years now

Try 6000

Western primitives are only now beginning to reach the same conclusions that the superior East has reached long before them, albeit from a mechanized materialistic perspective

Attached: krishna3_228391f7-2031-4a25-85c4-5beece9fe832.jpg (1101x1400, 476K)

I'm not arrogant enough to believe that.

Based.

this but unironically

I just watched porn and stayed flaccid. An experiment suggests boners are an urban legend.

yet another misunderstanding of the uncertainty principal. yawn.

Attached: 9780198746973.jpg (367x550, 34K)

Doesn't it say something when an argument is not made but presented already at victory? How do you think just posting this image with those words does anything? Where's the beef bitch? Explain it you fucking donut.

For me, its the green face guy

You do realise Hinduism is an offshoot of Indo-European (Aryan) religion, right?