Did the world become quantum in 1900 when Planck discovered quantum mechanics or was it quantum before that? I'm having trouble believing quantum mechanics existed in the middle ages, when everything moved classically

>>16708036 (OP)
>when everything moved classically
It didn't, the quantum fluctuations in macroscopic objects averaged out to create classical motion.

>>16708036 (OP)
it becomes quantoom when the consciousness prolapsed the assfunction

>>16708038
that's what happens today, but did it happen in the middle ages as well?

>>16708042
Why wouldn't it?

>>16708046
because quantum mechanics hadn't been invented back then

>>16708047
>invented
discovered*
cool bait though

>>16708049
nobody knows how the world worked back then because nobody ever tested it. according to occam's razor, the world must have been classic back then and then nature's laws changed when planck discovered quantum mechanics

>>16708054
>midwit misunderstanding of what "Occam's razor" is
cool bait

>>16708036 (OP)

>>16708036 (OP)
Nobody had electron guns back then

>>16708054
Applying Occam's razor would mean not assuming the way physics worked changed unless you can propose some mechanism that would change it.
So it's on you to propose such a mechanism if you want to defend this idea.

>midwits pretending to be retards to get attention on /sci/

My brother in christ go spend time with your family

>>16708059
Funny, clever, thought-provoking, wholesome. This comic has it all.

>>16708036 (OP)
The world didn’t become quantum in 1900, we merely gained the eyes to see it. Planck didn’t change the universe; he changed our model of it. Quantum mechanics was always the underlying substrate of reality, classical physics is just the statistical shadow it casts at human scales. Even in the Middle Ages, atoms vibrated, photons interacted, and probabilities danced beneath the surface. The world was never classical, only our descriptions were.

The simulation is designed efficiently. Thus it will always only render what is being observed, down to the detail it is observed at. When there is the potential for it to be asked to render something it can not handle or would slow it down badly it just goes: 'Rollerino'.

>>16708995
>would slow it down
this is pretty dumb tho. everything will slow down, including your processing of reality. thus we wouldn't notice. last year might have spanned across a few trillion years in real time and we wouldn't know. why do people not simply understand this is beyond me, it's like banal

Math is invented imo the same way law is invented. Meaning it exists before in the World of Ideas but is nevertheless not part of Reality until that time (because someone needs to speak or write it down for it to become real).

>>16708054
>according to occam's razor, the world must have been classic back then and then nature's laws changed when planck discovered quantum mechanics
According to Occam's Razor, the solution that makes the fewest assumptions is that the physics that underlie the universe are built on the same principle regardless of time frame*
I'd like to know how you think the early universe would have worked if this isn't bait.

>>16710565
Because if we do live in a simulation, it's not for our benefit. Whoever's running the simulation still has to let it resolve in real time.
We wouldn't experience anything different because it's the same number of click ticks, but if they're running the simulation at, say, 10 years per second then the simulation has been running for about half a century in "real time." If that slowed down to 5 years per second, then the people born when the simulation started would already be dead.

>>16708036 (OP)
Kek