Thread 16783307

We are entirely made of waves.
I find this fascinating.

>>16783307 (OP)
If we're waves in the time domain, does that mean we're time series in the frequency domain?

>>16783307 (OP)
some things can be represented as waves for sures

>>16783314
One of Sabine's latests videos talks precisely about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh5NAM0oNaQ

>>16783482
With all due respect to German Quantum Lady and to OP, I do not, in fact, believe that we are "made of waves". Nevermind the fact that "waves" in and of themselves aren't independently real. The idea that you are "made of" wavelike probability distributions is something only a biological LLM could ever take seriously.

>>16783489
what are we made of though? and before you say atoms, what are they?

>>16783489
Lol yeah, funny how so many scientifically oriented people don't seem to realize just how much a logical leap there is between coming up with an abstraction from perceptive gestalts and thinking those abstractions are actual things and things can be made of them.
>>16783497
We're made of three pounds of flax.

>>16783497
>what are we made of though?
Who knows? Maybe we're not "made of" anything and the question assumes the wrong type of relationship between the basic substance of reality and phenomena.

>>16783508
Reality is made of infinitesimal quantum trolley dilemmas.

>>16783307 (OP)
Waves in what?
>inb4 quantum fields
Circular definition

>>16783307 (OP)
This is just fancy materialism like "we're made of stardust", which sounds poetic but is an inherently flawed way of looking at ourselves as human creatures. We're more than just matter, we're spirit, mind and have a material body.
How did chaotic waves leading to electro-chemical neurological processes intentionally type that post in this website, with that specific picture, OP? That's like saying the radio host in your car's speakers is made out of whatever the speakers are constructed with.
Materialistic thinking leads to moral relativism, and moral relativism leads to atrocities. This is why people nowadays say "humans" as opposed to human beings, because we're now being compared to animals like swine and snakes in the name of the French Revolution's Equality pseudo-value.
We're not inanimate objects physically made out of some indescribable substance. Maybe p-zombies exist but human beings are not supposed to be soulless in that case.

>>16783685
This post is entirely made of strawmen.
I find this fascinating.

>>16783685
>Materialistic thinking leads to moral relativism, and moral relativism leads to atrocities
Literally the opposite. Communism and nazism, empirically the worst things that have ever existed, both arised out of moral objectivism. Moral subjectivism is objectively morally superior to moral objectivism.

>>16783721
>Communism and nazism, empirically the worst things that have ever existed, both arised out of moral objectivism.
>Moral subjectivism is objectively morally superior to moral objectivism.
Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions.

>>16783721
>Communism and nazism, empirically the worst things that have ever existed, both arised out of moral objectivism.
Both of these actually pale in comparison to fatal damage Western """liberal democracy""" (with its moral subjectivism) has inflicted on this species and neither of them would be characterized as "moral objectivism" by any sane person (which you are not).

>>16783307 (OP)
>We are entirely made of waves.
Whoa ... totally tubular, dude.

>>16783307 (OP)
Wait till you learn that the brain runs on waves too

i want to get to the bottom of whether fields are fundamental or not and how quantum fluctuations arise from nothing. i have a vague conceptual grasp on how forces arise. they're constraints of field interactions. but do fields themselves emerge from mathematical constraints or do the fields constrain particles?

we aren't made out of waves in the same way a glass disc isn't made out of circles. but it is super cool that whatever the hell the universe is can be viewed as approximating waves

>>16783497
> what are we made of though? and before you say atoms, what are they?

Dirt and blood and shit. What is dirt and blood and shit made out of? Smaller bits of dirt and blood and shit. All the way down.

>>16784408
> i want to get to the bottom of whether fields are fundamental or not and how quantum fluctuations arise from nothing.

You can spend as much time as you want learning physics. You'll never get the answers to those kinds of questions. Fundamentally, those come down to weaknesses of the metaphysics of modern physics as a discipline.

Theoretical physics needs to make a decision on whether it wants to be a mathematically coherent axiomatic discipline, or whether it wants to have a correspondence with physical reality. Right now it's trying to do both and failing pretty badly at it. Map-territory errors are a never ending problem in 21st century physics departments, as people genuinely confuse their mathematical models for the reality they seek to model.

>>16784812
Quantum fields are defined by the measurement of waves in the first place, it's circular.

>>16783489
Your words and ideas are also just approximations though

>>16784873
Could God create a system so self-referentially symmetric that it disagrees with itself about being real?

>>16784875
>Your words and ideas are also just approximations though
All words and ideas and models and patterns and concepts and abstractions of any kind are "approximations". But some of us know it and some of us don't.

>>16784963
Lucky I don't take you or the person you're responding to seriously, otherwise I'd believe my thoughts didn't count. You people are so fucking dumb. It's education teaching you stupid. Seek help. Not from psychologists either. That's a con too. Try the rope. NOW

>>16784964
You really shouldn't take your "thoughts" so seriously if you're incapable of basic reading comprehension and fly off on irrelevant tangents like some spastic.

>>16783598
Pure energy

>>16783307 (OP)
Waves energy mass and particles are the same thing observed differently

>>16783497
>what are we made of though?
Mass, space, and time.
How do you convert those to waves?

>>16785055
Energy isn't pure, it is like a fifth derivative made of one part mass and two parts space divided by two parts of time.

>>16783698
>This post is entirely made of strawmen.
How so? Your post is almost entirely made out of an ad hominem attack. And I don't think you understand what a straw-man fallacy is. I didn't misrepresent some kind of opinion OP didn't express, in a simplistic fashion to more easily attack it. You, on the other hand, actually misrepresented what I said in order to easily attack it with an ad hominem fallacy. Talk about irony.

>>16783721
You don't know what you're talking about and seem to just talk from a contrarian position to what I said. Communism comes from Marx and Engel's atheistic understanding of both History and Economics. They understood man's place in society as a constant class struggle and did so with "scientific materialism" in mind which is a key concept in the communist ideology. When you take the supreme moral authority, God, out of the equation, you end up with moral relativism, which is like saying opinions on good and evil vary from century to century, society to society and person to person. Nazism arised from the National-Socialist German Workers' Party, and German catholics during the 1920's and 1930's were amongst the least-probable groups to vote for Adolf Hitler, because of their objective moral values and principles.

>>16785721
>I didn't misrepresent some kind of opinion OP didn't express
You did exactly that, though.
And I find the contradiction fascinating.