ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]

You mean the same man who rejected superpositioning and made the famous cat analogy to explain how it makes no sense? Like I said, you literally know nothing about quantum mechanics or it’s history, and are just googling for famous names to point at.

Hey, notice how that’s the only part you responded to? Not the part where I laid out exactly how you don’t know shit about the subject. It’s because you don’t have a response; like the big comment explains, you’re in completely over your head.

Stop trying to copy the first thing you find on google you dumb fuck, Wigner dropped his and Neumann’s interpretation because of its flaws, Penrose postulated that consciousness arose from quantum interactions not that they collapse them, and Stapp and Schrodinger were exactly the type of panpsychic new-age mystics I was talking about.

On top of that, literally not a single one is still working in quantum theory or research. Neumann died 70 years ago. In fact, none of their research is even from this century, where the majority of progress has been made. I used the present tense. Contemporary opinions, not the wild theories of the earliest days.

Now stop being a redditbrained contradictory little shit and read my comment. It contains actual information about quantum theory.

Look spacey, I need you to understand that it’s offensive that you consider yourself intelligent enough to have this conversation. To butt in and spew your completely baseless hypotheticals around as if they hold any scientific weight.

If you knew enough to have this conversation, you’d already know from the language we’ve used around superpositioning and observation that we’re discussing the copenhagen interpretation - even if you weren’t certain, you’d at least know it’s overwhelmingly the most popular theory (like you better have some fucking great evidence if you want to dispute it), and that consciouness based theories are the fringest of the fringe. You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.
If you knew enough to have this conversation, you would have at least attempted to define consciousness. You’d have some sort of working definition that you could share and we could analyse, but you haven’t because you don’t. You have no idea what consciousness is, you don’t even know that there’s a debate about whether consciousness even exists - you think, therefore you have accepted that there exists a nebulous, undefineable set of aspects that makes something conscious. Despite not being able to articulate a single aspect of it, you deeply, truly believe both that it exists and that everyone else believes it exists.
If you knew enough to have this conversation you’d know that I’ve haven’t actually discussed quantum physics at all - the only thing in each of my comments is an attempt to get you to confront your own lack of knowledge - to admit that you can’t define consciousness. I have been playing softball with you this entire time trying to lead you to your own logical conclusions, instead of pointing out that the most basic possible demonstration of quantum interaction - the double slit experiment - inherently proves that consciousness is not required, because otherwise the observation media - gold foil or a modern detector - wouldn’t be able to record the results.

Lastly, you’d know that there isn’t a “consensus definition” because it was defined by Heisenburg and Bohr when they created the copenhagen interpretation. Here are some quotes from them:

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the “possible” to the “actual,” is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.

all unambiguous information concerning atomic objects is derived from the permanent marks such as a spot on a photographic plate, caused by the impact of an electron left on the bodies which define the experimental conditions. Far from involving any special intricacy, the irreversible amplification effects on which the recording of the presence of atomic objects rests rather remind us of the essential irreversibility inherent in the very concept of observation. The description of atomic phenomena has in these respects a perfectly objective character, in the sense that no explicit reference is made to any individual observer and that therefore, with proper regard to relativistic exigencies, no ambiguity is involved in the communication of information.

Of course, I’m sure you can find some sort of peer reviewed data or study that provides literally any evidence at all for your totally sensible and informed idea that isn’t otherwise pushed by con artists and new age mystics, instead of demanding I work to both define and disprove your idea.

Don’t you fucking dare try to lecture me about belief when you have literally nothing but. You believe so strongly you refuse to even engage with questions about your beliefs, because deep down you know they’re baseless.

but in Pf2e it looks closer to an actual circle.

Same in PF1, and all the D&D’s before 4. I’m pretty sure most games made to be played with a battlemap have a rule for diagonals, making 4e an exception.

No, I don’t have to define it, because I’m talking about observability in quantum mechanics, not some philosophical metaphysical bollocks about what consciousness is. My definition of observation does not in any way include consciousness, so defining consciousness adds nothing to my definition. Your definition of observation is being seen by something with consciousness, so you have to define what consciousness is. I have to define things like interactions and particles, I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

No, you dumb fuck, I don’t need to define consciousness for my explanation of observability in physics to make sense - my interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn’t mention consciousness at all. You have to define it because your interpretation of quantum superpositioning claims that it only collapses when a conscious mind observes it, so you have to define what conscioussness is.

A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer

If you’re going to claim that consciousness is the influencing factor in quantum mechanics you need to define consciousness. You need to define the point at which consciousness starts. You saying “yes a dolphin is conscious” only tells me you think humans and dolphins are conscious, and nothing about what you think consciousness is, what things you think are conscious, or why consciousness would influence particles. So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.

I hope you’re right, but I’ve seen a bunch of this “slavery is for African Americans” rhetoric recently and I’m not sure if it’s ignorance or maliciousness.

Sorry, you’re trying to turn slave into an unsayable slur? What the actual fuck, is this some kind of right wing psyop to nullifying discussions of historical and modern slavery, or just USian libshit racism that equates black skin and slavery?

that would include dolphins

This is literally the closest form of consciousness to our own - the easiest and most obvious case. They weren’t actually asking if dolphins would count, they’re asking at what point it counts as consciousness. The ones you need to answer are things like tardigrades, bacteria and viruses, or nonphysical forms of consciousness. After all, you’re seriously claiming that the scientific definition of observation is observation by a conscious mind, not interaction with another aspect of the universe, so why don’t we consider all the nonfalsifiables? Do ghosts collapse the quantum superposition?

Sony have a few decent wireless ones under £100 - I’ve got some MDR-ZX770BN that are about 7 or 8 years old now. I think WH-CH720N is about the current equivalent of them.

I’ve had good results with JBL earbuds too - the Reflect series have done a solid job while I’m cycling.

I’m sure it’s worth the money if you have plenty to spare, but somehow I suspect that OP isn’t just trying to be thrifty, and your advice is about as helpful as telling them to just walk on water.

Hey, no, keep paraphasing. I want to see what I said after that. Just the next sentence.

How did you play those systems and still think you’re talking about “crazy homebrew shit”? All 3 of them have your homebrew in them - let’s try an analogy; imagine you have a large, expensive, and nearly featureless car. You are very proud of how its simplicity lets you keep innovating the craziest new features. You punched some holes in it to create airflow and keep you cool while the car’s moving. You set up an array of antennas on the roof so you can take a radio with you and listen to music. You cut a hole in the roof and attache a panel with hinges, so you can open it up on nice days. And then you brag to me about your genius ideas you homebrewed, and I ask why the fuck you didn’t just get a car with AC, a stereo, and a sunroof, and you get defensive because I’ve pointed out something very obvious to everyone but you.

Don’t get me wrong, I love crazy homebrew shit. I homebrewed 5e into some crazy shit, but that’s about skeleton PCs competing to commit felonies, not adding basic features of other games. Aliens and time travel and dimension hopping aren’t unusual in fantasy. This isn’t some crazy homebrew shit, this is a basic expectation of the genre - one that other games provide. One that your own examples provide. If you’re going to homebrew crazy shit, then homebrew some crazy shit, don’t homebrew the most vanilla aspects of other games and complain when it’s pointed out that they’re not remotely crazy shit.

Yeah, no, this is exactly what I mean - you didn’t describe any “crazy homebrew shit”, you described things that are just in other systems (even older editions of D&D) without any additional work. One of my PF2e players is a time traveller, without me having to add anything. One of my PF1 players was basically a power ranger, entirely RAW. hell, one of the players I played 4e with was a dimension hopper, even if it was largely flavour.

When I say try another game I don’t just mean try something on the opposite end of the ttrpg spectrum like FitD, I also mean try one of the many “5e but better” systems (including previous editions of D&D) to get rid of these ridiculous illusions about all the work you’re having to put in.

I am begging you to just try another system. Even a same-but-different system like pathfinder. Most of them are much easier and require a lot less work.

“AN ORPHAN?! It’s powered by a FORSAKEN CHILD?!”