top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 277 points 7 months ago (35 children)

It's hard to explain quantum mechanics when you don't understand them.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 210 points 7 months ago (18 children)

    It's hard to explain quantum mechanics even when you understand them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 121 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    It's a superposition of knowledge and ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    The more you know the less you know

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    This isn't even a joke, it's literally true in quantum mechanics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Thank you for explaining the joke, I now know less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    You know nothing, but you know precisely about what you know nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    There’s an old joke about quantum mechanics professors starting their first lecture with something along the lines of “right now, some of you probably understand quantum mechanics. By the end of the semester, if I did my job right, none of us will understand it.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I understand them! They perform oil changes on the quantum

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    No one understands quantum mechanics

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You both understand and don't understand quantum mechanics at the same time... It's that simple, that is until such a point at which becomes known as to whether or not you understand or don't understand quantum physics and then some kind of quantum tunnel collapses?

    No habla English

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    The waves of this comment collapsed into photons entering my eyes showing me a joke about superposition once I observed it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Quite a few people understand quantum mechanics, but they can't explain it to you if you don't understand the maths

    There's no good way of putting quantum into words, all of the descriptions are wrong in more or less subtle ways

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    A lot of us understand it as dice rolls based on shit we can't account for, more or less. Be a bit easier when someone finds out vacuum energy causes unstable isotopes to decay but I'm not nearly that smart and I'm also digressing. Kids in 300 years acting like it's common sense lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 73 points 7 months ago (15 children)

    I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

    If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.

    Both quotes attributed to Richard Feynman.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    I can do (some of) the maths, but I definitely can't explain why any of it is like that, or how it works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • You know what, i keep thinking that maybe, our universe is the only universe that actually functions. Like, if the universe was in some different way, it either wouldn't work and we would therefore not exist to observe it, or it would be equivalent to this universe, i.e. maybe not exactly equal, but similar in some way, sothat we could form abstractions and arrive at the same universal laws that we have today. Including quantum mechanics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I like watching it in action. I don't know what the hell is going on, but it gives me a strange kind of peace, and if you stare at it long enough, you trick yourself into thinking that it makes some kind of sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    I can tell a piece of software to do the maths for ms. Sometimes the results appear to work with reality.

    People complain about LLMs hallucinating, but they have no idea of how many assumptions and just plain "everybody does it this way, I guess it works" are there in scientific research.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    It’s called the heuristic method and those doing it know the limitations. Whereas LLMs will just confidently put out garbage claiming it true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Scientific calculations - and other approaches as well - put out garbage all the time, that is the main point of what I said above.

    Some limitations are known, just like it is known that LLMs have the limitation of hallucinating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    I didn’t notice your critique on the outcome of results, but how they were achieved. LLM’s hallucinating are making computers make ”human errors”, which makes them less deterministic, the key reason I prefer doing some things on a computer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    The different domain though. LLM hallucinations may lead to catastrophe, while assuming infinite mass of an electron in absence of electromagnetic field is neat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Calculations will happily tell you that an acutely toxic drug is the best way to cure cancer.

    The reason why that does not lead to catastrophe is that there are many checks and safety nets in place in order not to blindly trust any result.

    The exact same approach can be applied to an LLM.

  • source
  • parent
  • What does "understanding" mean in this context?

    I can perfectly fine do the calculations; That's what "understanding" is, in my opinion. Feynman might be hitting on some metaphysical concept, but then again, what is that metaphysical concept, is it any different from pseudoscience, and do we really need it?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 7 months ago

    Cropped so I get the authentic glaucoma experience.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    A delightful character arc.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    My grandfather didn't die in Korea so that people could fight online like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Every time my wife walks in on me peeing she just stares at my pecker and asks me "so how does it come out?"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    I pretty sure magic is involved

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    This is peak my phone is fighting for its life energy 😂

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I’ve read this like ten times and I think the joke might be that quantum mechanics are difficult to explain to everyone, of which women are obviously a subset. But maybe I’m doling out too much credit lol

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago

    The joke is that quantum mechanics are difficult to understand, so the commenter doubts their ability to properly explain it (to women). The replier assumed it was a dig at women's intelligence, not a reflection of the original commenter's intelligence and ability to explain.

    I.e. a stupid person would have difficulty explaining anything to women.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    To be fair, the original question did not clearly state it needed to be easy to explain to men. The only requirement was to be difficult to explain to women. So, technically, this answers the question as written.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Redditor failed the litmus test for misandrists

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago
    [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Anyone else bored as fuck, and wish someone would post another Misoginyst/Misandrist post, so we can read people getting upset?

    I'm actually kind of addicted to watching the hate now. I'm not even Misoginyst/Misandrist myself.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 7 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 34 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    You, maybe. I’m living in a simulation written by Claude. Where my Anthroposse at?!?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I’m living my best life in a simulation written by a sentient wheel of cheese.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    You fools! We've all been living in a simulation written by Bonsai Buddy!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    Nah, it's just Brandon Sanderson. Slightly different.

    *James Patterson

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›