• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 20 days ago
Cake day: April 22nd, 2026
  • jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•Literally exactly how it works, too.English
    60·
    4 days ago

    I was curious, so I went to Wikipedia, as one does.

    A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the “observer effect” in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment’s results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the “observer” to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process

    Edit: erhm. this isnt an ad for Wikipedia. the words just shook out that way. lol

  • jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoAnarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com•[Discussion] Toughts on nonviolence?
    0·
    7 days ago

    I also won’t stand in the way if other victims of the oppressive system we live under rise up in violent revolt

    Hmm, doesn’t this make you non-pacifist? I think if you condone violence by others you might not be a pacifist, even if you refuse to take part in violence, yourself. I guess it depends on the definition…

    Only reason I say this is because I feel the same way personally about violence – I never use it as a tactic, and would like the right to refuse to use it personally – but believe that members of a movement shouldn’t restrict the range of tactics its members use against a violent system. So I feel like I feel the same as you, but came to the opposite conclusion (I’m not a pacifist)

  • jwiggler@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoFlippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Found this in the contradictionary
    2·
    15 days ago

    Well, I don’t think you’d be able to parse through the intentions of non-voters in such a way. A non-voter may be a protest non-voter, a non-voter who thinks their vote is worth nothing, a non-voter who was actually unable to vote, or a non-voter who thinks the two candidates are functionally the same for them, or any and all other reasons for non-voting. Just because a non-voter may not view their non-vote as a protest non-vote, doesn’t mean they don’t give a fuck and are okay with whatever outcome, is my overall point.

    With that said, I don’t think a protest non-vote is the opposite of a complacent non-vote. Functionally they’re the same. I guess if you wanted to judge a person by their non-voting intentions, you could do something like that. But I’m not sure its worth the time.

    I guess its worth noting that even though I agree with the sentiment of the meme and the goat story, it doesn’t map 1:1 in the real world. I don’t think someone is necessarily foolish to vote, for example. I did. But generally I agree with Henry David Thoreau when it comes down to it:

    All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or back gammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obli­gation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.”