Comment by blueprint
3 years ago
no, I'm pretty sure that my defending the senseless subjugation of people who tell the truth is much more important than my avoiding a little bit of stress. after the ridiculous life that I've had to live, I'd rather die 20 years too early then not have a conscience.
1.) You're talking about a nested comment on a hacker news post. A little perspective is helpful.
2.) You are making grandiose and uncharitable assumptions about the interpretations of things other people said, e.g. equating not having the words to to describe something to implying that we should give up trying to understand it more.
3.) Having a physical definition for every term in an equation does not mean the resulting behavior/phenomenon can be conceptually explained with words. Can you conceptually explain what "spin" is for an electron?
3. For starters, the math does not explain "what spin is". So you've introduced a fallacy off the bat, and I suspect it was intentional. But if you tell me how you know about spin then I will explain it conceptually. It's not so complicated. None of this proves anything though. What's the fallacy called? I dont remember.
And I guess you're going to invoke some vague connection to angular momentum to do so? We're talking about empirically derived properties. The math certainly predicts the empirical results but it does not give an accurate conceptual connection to concepts that we, as humans living and interacting with a classical world, can actually understand.
edit to add a bit more: I should also point out that no one introduced a fallacy except you. You are, yet again, stretching other peoples words to build straw man arguments for yourself. I don't remember ever making the claim that the math explains ""what spin is"".
5 replies →