this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
138 points (93.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
33355 readers
820 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hello? Yes, I would like one survivorship bias, please, but could you add some physics and a little philosophy so it's less obvious I have an untestable, maladaptive hypothesis? Oh, and coping mechanisms on half. Thanks!
In all seriousness, it's a fun theory, but it's unknowable at this point.
It’s not unknowable, you just have to conduct enough tests personally to have a reasonable level of confidence.
You shouldn’t, but you could.
Okay, first of all, that's clever and hilarious, so thank you.
Secondly, I put it to you that testing this either results in the end of personal knowledge entirely or else an outcome that can't be peer-reviewed. I feel like that's a pretty hard limit on the knowledge that can be gained here.
To test this you need an external observer who can register every quantum outcome and therefore can see/measure in every quantum reality. How else would you get verifiable and reproducable data?
We are very far away from such a possibility, we don't even know for sure if quantum theory (or which one of the many specific quantum theories) in general or the many worlds interpretation in speciality is even correct or not.
It is a nice thought experiment though.