The % is a little misleading though. The total # of people who self- identify as Republican has also been shrinking (true with people who self-identify as democratic too). More and more people self-identify as independent. Most of the data I have looked at stop at 2023-2025 though, so who knows what it’d look like today after the fiasco this administration has been in 2026.
The goal is to make personal computing hardware so expensive that the average person cannot afford to do that. 😬
I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.
The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you’re willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that’s for you to decide.
I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.
Not trying to be rude or anything; but It’s curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.
Curious, how do you explain the dual slit phenomenon?
Science isn’t actually “physicalist”. In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.
I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum’s model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.
This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?”. The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.
Ultimately, I think science doesn’t have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be “no”, since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree’s existence is independent from an observer. The tree’s matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.
Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.
Tried it. It told me pretty explicitly “Joe Biden” with both Gemini 3.8 flash and via AI mode on Google search…
Article might be bait.