I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.

The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you’re willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that’s for you to decide.

I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.

Not trying to be rude or anything; but It’s curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.

Curious, how do you explain the dual slit phenomenon?

Science isn’t actually “physicalist”. In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.

I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum’s model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.

This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?”. The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.

Ultimately, I think science doesn’t have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be “no”, since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree’s existence is independent from an observer. The tree’s matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.

Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.

You truly believe the semantics of the English language disproves the point? English and the way it defines “I” is greatly affected by things seperate from biological definitions (one being the spiritual concept of the “soul”)

Also, there did exist languages in other cultures that did not have the same concept of “I” as the English language. Your counter-argument is very weak.

You are correct, the person was on life support. But they grew and went through puberty like any other normal functioning human. (I believe the person was born brain dead, and the wealthy parents couldn’t let go so they kept the person on life support at home).

Cells are living things by definition. So it is alive, though the body functions more like a tree than a mammal at that point. But a decentralized nervous system grew around the different vital organs.

The real flip side of your question is: do you think you’d still be you as a “brain in a vat” without any body?

Ultimately this whole discussion boils down to challenging the definition of “you” or “I”. Biologically every “singular” person is the result of many living things working together, so the concept of “I” is an illusion. Physically, there is no “I”, but only “us”.

This makes the discussion easier. If the hand is removed, then of course “we” are different because “we” lost a piece of “us”. This would also be true if “our” brain was removed.

Nevertheless, there have been cases of brain dead people’s body adapting to the lack of central nervous system, so the body is more independently alive than we tend to give it credit.

Blender can be CUDA accelerated which does give Nvidia an edge over AMD. In terms of video encoding, both nvidia and AMD cards are AV1 capable, so they are on par for video encoding; unless a program does not support AV1, then the proprietary nvidia video encoders are better.

Update him again: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/no-evidence-charlie-kirk-shooting-left-wing-groups-rcna232513

It’s not about the content, but rather the skills gained when becoming an expert on the content. For example, physics degrees are often sought after in the financial realm because of they’re expert ability to model things with mathematics.

Philosophers are generally expert thinkers, writers, and debaters. Not a lot of jobs are hiring philosophers for their content knowledge, but instead, they’re hired for their skills.

Let’s update em: https://www.commondreams.org/news/charlie-kirk-2673989947

Gotta think a little further, CmdrShepard49. If the DOJ brings California to court, then whatever decision the court makes will also set a precedent for what happened in Texas. You best believe that if the courts strike down California’s attempt at redistricting, then Texas will be next.

The irony of a Republican lawmaker trying to make this point is unbelievable…

BeliefPropagator posted a link above which possibly verifies the screenshot: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/

I get that we need to be wary of AI slop, I really do; but If speaking academic English with decent grammar becomes associated with talking “like a bot”, then we are cooked.

Oops, that’s my fault on messing up the context. Nevertheless, my point still stands.

This is a major L take. Your argument is to compare bad behavior performed by a 5 year old child and a grown adult, and say “they are basically equivalent”. The Internet is trying to point out to you how ridiculous it is to hold a 5 year old and professional adult to the same standards.

The teacher is hands down “the asshole” in this scenario, and I am saying this as a professional public school teacher. Yes, the five year old was wrong to steal, but the kid is five and is in the process of learning what society considers right and wrong. The teacher escalated the scenario due to her bigotry and then expected the father to be susceptive to her concerns about the child stealing stuff. She should have professionally address the behavior to the child’s parents and admin (especially if it was repeated behavior) so that the team can help the child understand why what they are doing is incorrect.

Head over to Norfolk, Virginia and tell them that they are to ignore the years of racism that they experienced and fight a class war. This is the divide racism creates. If all sides can’t come to terms, then asking them to join and fight a class war will be extremely difficult; and a big part of this is white america finally coming to terms with their privilege and actively destroying the caste system.

Hence, why the bosses have been actively demonizing DEI and CRT to maintain white america’s denial of their privilege so that it continues to stoke the divide between the castes.

But you make a point, perspective is everything. Folks in middle america do not see their privilege as much because a lot of them live in towns full of other white people. This means they are largely of the same caste. Nevertheless, they are essentially being convinced that their grievances are due to dangerous people of color elsewhere in America.

That is frankly false, and also my biggest gripe about the modern communist movement. Racism is basically America’s caste system. If the caste system isn’t destroyed either before or during the class warfare, then it will either reform after a revolution or prevent people from banding together to form a revolution in the first place.

Telling people that racism is a distraction to be ignored is a major mistake. If the modern communist movement wants their class revolution, then this would be far easier (or actually possible) in a America without racism. Hence, why bosses have been perpetuating Racism in America for hundreds of years.