DB

23.5K posts

DB banner
DB

DB

@des_bond

💫🐚🌺🌊☀️

Miami Katılım Mart 2014
780 Takip Edilen644 Takipçiler
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
Magnets are way stranger than most people realize. When you stick two magnets together, nothing is actually “touching.” What you’re feeling isn’t contact. It’s force. At the smallest level, magnets come from electrons tiny charged particles that are always moving and spinning. That motion creates a magnetic field. And a magnetic field isn’t a thing you can see. It’s more like a set of rules in space that says “if something charged comes here, this is how it has to move.” So when two magnets pull toward each other or push away… they’re not grabbing each other. They’re interacting through invisible structure. Even weirder 🤯 Magnetism and electricity are actually the same thing. A moving electric charge creates magnetism. And changing magnetism creates electricity. That’s how generators work. That’s how power plants work. So every time you turn something on… you’re using motion and invisible fields to move electrons through matter. No contact required. Just structure. The wild part? Everything you think of as “solid” is held together the same way. Not by things touching… but by forces preventing them from collapsing into each other. You don’t feel objects. You feel electromagnetic resistance.
B tweet media
English
16
48
223
4.6K
DB retweetledi
Mathematica
Mathematica@mathemetica·
“There is hardly any scientific discovery that can't be foreseen mathematically, without visualization.” — Nikola Tesla
English
8
35
314
25.4K
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
Yeah, I actually agree with most of that. The labels “mind” and “consciousness” are definitely constructions ways we carve up something more primitive. Same with “matter.” They’re both categories we impose on the same underlying reality. The only point I’m making is about order, not ontology. Even if the concepts are constructed, the fact of experience isn’t. You can strip away the words, the models, the categories but something is still being given. Where things get flipped is when we treat the model (brain, matter, etc.) as more fundamental than the thing it’s modeling, even though the model itself only ever shows up within that experience. So yeah, I’m not arguing for “mind over matter” as a clean category. I’m just saying whatever framework we use, it has to start from what’s actually present before we start dividing it up.
English
2
0
2
29
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
You don’t “prove” consciousness the same way you prove external objects you start from it. Experience isn’t inferred from brain activity. Brain activity is inferred within experience. The real mistake is flipping that order and treating the model as more fundamental than the thing it’s modeling. It’s not that consciousness is mysterious because we can’t prove it it’s the one thing that’s directly given. Everything else is the reconstruction.
Kekius Maximus@Kekius_Sage

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness. Even though brain activity is reliably linked to experience, the experience itself remains mysterious.

English
7
3
41
1.6K
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
Geometry is what a causal medium does near the boundary between elastic and plastic behavior when the memory timescale of the medium is comparable to the dynamical timescale of its excitations.
B tweet media
English
6
2
14
675
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
That’s the direction, yeah but it’s not a replacement for drugs, it’s a different layer of intervention. Antibodies, enzymes, and proteins are the mechanisms drugs act on. What this changes is how precisely we can design them. Instead of screening millions of compounds and hoping something works, you can start designing molecules that perform specific transformations or bind specific targets from the beginning. That’s powerful but biology is still constrained by delivery, stability, off-target effects, and system-level complexity. So it’s not “no more drugs,” it’s better-designed biology as medicine. Still a big shift but not magic.
AnirbanBandyopadhyay@anirbanbandyo

One day, humans will make proper antibodies just like this and provide cure to diseases as required, may be drugs wont be required, we are going to see revolutions after revolutions.

English
2
0
7
751
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
You’re mixing two different ideas. “Quantum” doesn’t mean “smallest thing you can measure,” it means the system has discrete states and follows quantum rules. That’s why you can see quantum effects at large scales too (superconductors, interference, etc.). There isn’t a universal “smallest piece of everything.” Energy is quantized in some systems, fields are quantized, but spacetime itself isn’t even confirmed to be quantized yet. So the core isn’t “smallness,” it’s the structure of how states behave and interact.
English
1
0
2
15
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
Why “Quantum Spacetime” Still Obeys Causality “Quantum” does not mean lawless. It does not mean anything-goes. And it does not mean causality disappears. Even in the most speculative models of quantum spacetime, causality is not optional. Here’s why. Quantum mechanics allows uncertainty in outcomes, not uncertainty in ordering. You can’t use quantum effects to decide whether a cause comes before its effect. That’s not a philosophical preference. It’s enforced by structure. • The no-signaling theorem forbids faster-than-light communication • Relativity enforces invariant causal order • Quantum field theory preserves microcausality (operators commute outside light cones) • Entanglement creates correlation, not control No matter how exotic the geometry gets, these constraints remain intact. People often confuse nonlocal correlation with noncausal influence They are not the same. Entangled systems can be globally correlated while remaining locally useless for signaling. That’s why quantum experiments don’t let you send messages to the past, jump timelines, or bypass light cones. Even proposals involving • spacetime emergence • holography • ER = EPR • quantum gravity still preserve causal structure at the operational level. If they didn’t, the theory wouldn’t be “radical.” It would be inconsistent. The deep lesson is this Quantum physics reshapes how events are connected but not whether causes precede effects. Nature allows strange correlations. It does not allow causal chaos. If a theory claims otherwise without extremely careful justification, it’s not revealing new physics. It’s breaking the rules that make physics possible.
B tweet media
English
6
5
37
2.6K
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
That means a lot thank you for engaging with it the right way. “Enforced by structure” is really the key idea causality isn’t a rule we bolt on, it’s baked into how the math, symmetries, and information flow fit together. Once you see that, a lot of the confusion around “quantum weirdness” just… settles. Curiosity like this patient, honest, not rushing to conclusions is exactly how understanding actually deepens. Always happy to think it through together 🤍
English
1
0
3
42
DB
DB@des_bond·
@QuantumTumbler Said beautifully ✨ Love it 😍 💙🤸‍♂️🌀
English
0
0
1
8
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
I appreciate that a lot and honestly you didn’t miss it at all, you felt it. That’s the part that’s hard to explain but easy to recognize once you’ve experienced it. It’s not really “hidden,” it just reveals itself the moment you stop forcing things and start moving with how it actually works. And yeah… that’s why it feels so good to watch. You’re seeing something that’s fully aligned nothing extra, nothing wasted. You said it perfectly too, just from a different angle. 💙🤸‍♂️
English
2
0
2
62
B
B@QuantumTumbler·
Ever notice how doing something “right” feels effortless? There’s a reason for that and it’s not what most people think. buymeacoffee.com/omnilens/sitti…
B tweet media
English
7
4
22
743