How do you think you can rig it? I gave some more options than those two. I'm open to hearing more.

I don't see how it can be rigged unless one of the two things I mentioned above happened, or there was insane gerrymandering or voter suppression. How else could you rig it?

Because that's what matters. That's the conspiracy. That's the only way the election could be stolen - by falsifying votes for Biden, or by throwing away votes for trump. If one those two things didn't happen, then the election wasn't stolen, and trump just lost fair and square.

oh, well that's the question I asked that you were answering. I was pretty explicit about that.

Can you point me to the place in this article where they confess to falsifying votes?

They are not keeping it secret. — NOS4A2

If they are open about deliberately stealing the election via fake votes of some kind, please show me. Where's this confession?

the strength of a conspiracy theory decreases as more people have to be involved to enact the conspiracy and keep it a secret. Hordes of people don't tend to be good at keeping secrets. Have you factored that into how likely you think this conspiracy is to be the truth?

I don't think I'm the best person to explain it, if I'm honest. Is this the first time you've come across the concept that mathematics is at the heart of the universe, rather than only a tool to describe it? Or were you already familiar with the concept before I said it?

Good luck in whatever you're doing, I'll speak to you later.

Have you ever played a video game?

If you're curious about this idea that the basic structure of reality could be mathematical or computational, please check out Max Tegmarks mathematical universe hypothesis, and Stephen Wolfram's concept of the Ruliad.

I personally don't think it's a coincidence that physics behaves in ways that are describable by functions. Galileo said mathematics is the language of the universe. Perhaps he was right?

I'm not sure I agree with that framing at all. In fact I think it's distinctly the likely to be the case that the base layer of reality IS something like a mathematical structure, or a computational structure.

In other words, you're saying math exists only to describe the things you accept as real, but I think math is the reality, and the things you like to think of as real are a consequence of the math.

What if every quantum object is just a numerical vector "moving" across a 3 dimensional (or more) array, and everything you know is just a consequence of these numbers interacting?

Now, I don't think QM works that way. — tim wood

Sure it does. The op of this thread is trying to come up with an alternative of taking the wave function as ontologically real - which implicitly points to the fact that in many approaches to quantum mechanics, the wave function IS real, it is casual, it evolves deterministically over time via the Schrödinger equation, etc. So yeah, qm can absolutely work that way.

Woops, mispost

So, the high speed cameral has limitations, and when we get to situations with things accelerating at an extremely rapid rate, in an extremely short period of time, as in the case of high energy physics, the high speed camera is inadequate. And, the fact that the assumption of "constant acceleration" is adequate and useful at low rates of acceleration where a small error is insignificant, is not proof that it would be adequate for high rates of acceleration where the small error would be greatly amplified. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't give this bit the attention it deserves. You said "the fact that the assumption of "constant acceleration" is adequate and useful at low rates of acceleration" - that's wonderful! If you agree that it's useful and adequate enough at low rates of acceleration, then you've accepted the only thing I really wanted you to. Gravity accelerates things at 9m/s/s, on planet earth, at least for the low rates of acceleration that we measured.

You go on to talk about other instances of acceleration that aren't directly caused by gravity, which I think it's fair to say is beside the point. The conversation is about how gravity accelerates things, not about how your leg muscles accelerate your own body.

You and I both agree, 9.8m/s/s is an adequate and useful idea of how gravity accelerates objects, on earth and for low speeds. And in fact Newtonian physics, which has pretty much the same simplistic vision of gravity as that, was enough to get human beings on the moon! How wonderful.

9.8 m/s/s isn't some perfect magical truth. It's an approximation that works, that we derived by simply looking at the world and taking notes. If you agree that it's useful and accurate in the contexts we generally use it, then you agree with me.

What makes the comparison interesting? They reacted one way to one thing, and an entirely different way to an entirely different thing.

"I went around handing out shits on plates at all the tables and no one was eating it, then suddenly a professional chef starts handing out perfectly seared steak and suddenly everyone has an appetite!"

I don't think that's a particularly interesting scenario. Of course people react differently to different things.

I'm not sure where the right place to submit applications is. I'll let you know if I find out.

Gracious of you.

I don't think you know what whataboutism is.

This thread title indicates the conversation is about trump. It's not about whether starting the war in Vietnam was a crime. It's about trump.

It's not hypocritical of me to say I'm not interested in whataboutism about the crimes of random other unrelated people from long before trump was president.

I'm not interested in whataboutism.

it paints a picture of culpability. If it's not his legal responsibility, it's his moral responsibility. The fact that he watched it on TV , with numerous people begging him to call his supporters off, and refused to do so for 3 hours - if it's not a crime, it is at the very least an instance of moral neglect of his duties. And it does make it look like he wanted it to happen, which supports the case that he incited it, which is very likely a crime.

How can we stop a mob at all? — javi2541997

He had many options. He took none of them.

This scenario was completely out of Trump's hands — javi2541997

https://time.com/6199490/trump-jan-6-oath-dereliction-duty/

“There’s no ambiguity in what he said,” Kinzinger said. “Almost everybody wanted Trump to instruct the mob to disperse. Trump refused.”

You might argue that he didn't want what happened at January 6 to happen, but he certainly didn't even do the bare minimum to stop it. Not so much as a tweet.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-has-firsthand-testimony-ivanka-asked-trump-intervene-n1286831

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes

"President Trump sat in his dining room and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff closest advisers and family members begged him to do what is expected of any American president."

This all puts me in a position where I have to wonder, did he in fact want what happened to happen?

but if the press were not that biassed, maybe the capitol accident would not have happened. — javi2541997

How do you figure?

sure, every source is a little biased. Doesn't mean some aren't less biased than others.

Just ask yourself what would the right wing media, that's currently saying trump did nothing wrong, react like if Biden does the same thing in 2024? If Biden loses, starts calling states asking to find him votes, hires some fake electors to falsify electoral college votes, convinces a crowd of his followers to storm the capitol?

I do not consume media. I just try to figure out what happens by myself, only if I am capable of doing so. — javi2541997

You can't do that without consuming media. You don't have access to the raw data, you only have access to information filtered through previous information sources - IE media. You cannot "figure out" what happens without consuming media.

Absolutely. But I do not know any. Can you please tell me one press which acts objectively? — javi2541997

I said more objectively, not objectively.

If one media outlet is saying he's done criminal things, and the other media outlet is saying he hasn't done criminal things, one of those is probably being more objective than the other.

No, I don't even see how you see there's a contradiction.

You have some assumptions here, as well, that are very premature. Do you know that you weren't manipulated by the media you've been consuming? You're assuming it's everyone else that's been manipulated and not you, but you've been consuming media too, presumably you are capable of conceiving of the possibility that it's you who's been manipulated by the media you're consuming, and the rest of the media has been reporting most of the stuff going on with Trump with more objectivity than the media you consume.

Can you imagine a world where that's the case?

The truth is the collective media refused to take the myriad of real anomalies in the 2020 election seriously. — yebiga

It really doesn't matter much what the media did, Trump's team brought their evidence to MANY courts and they were laughed out of every court room for insufficient evidence.

Trump isn't on trial for questioning the results. Trump is on trial for what he did to get the results changed. It's very dishonest to say he's on trial for asking questions.

It must be that there is a different "structure" yet to be discovered out of which "falls" as a natural consequence what is actually observed. Which would preserve reality, locality, logic, and the speed-of-light limit and dissolve all the mystery. — tim wood

I'm pretty sure physicists call that structure quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics explicitly predicted the results we do in fact see.

Fun fact, the Schrödinger equation is deterministic! It's a deterministic mathematical equation that determines how the wave function evolves. Quantum physics is still math, like any other physics. It's still structured, it's not just a bunch of physicists around a hookah pipe.

It seems you reject qm for what it is out of hand - perhaps, given its incredible track record for successful predictions, you could give it more of a chance than that.

you're asking the right questions, except instead of saying "let's look at the data and check if the acceleration is going up and down wildly" you're just saying "oh well we can't know for sure so I give up, there's nothing left to discover."

Don't give up so quick, we have a lot of data from the camera. I mean, if you WANT to remain ignorant of the pattern of how things fall by gravity, then by all means give up here. But the rest of the world is operating on many centuries worth of physics past the point that you give up.

So him being found guilty wouldn't affect the odds at all, and him being found innocent wouldn't affect the odds at all?

Will him being found guilty in any of these ongoing trials increase the likelihood that he's actually, genuinely guilty, decrease the likelihood or leave them the same in your eyes?

No argument, just looking for the general possibility that you might have fallen for a lie. Do you think it's possible at all that Donald Trump lost the election and tried to take it back? Take it back via unacceptable, unethical means, potentially illegally means?

Do you think there's any possibility that you've fallen for a big lie?

You don't concoct the fake electors scheme to contest the election.

You don't ask to find 11k votes to contest the election.

You do those things to change the election.

And, of course, you would only contest the results to change them anyway. You're not contesting them if you want them to stay the same ffs.

Why is it debatable that he tried to overturn the election? What does overturn mean to you?

There's a handful of definitions online, brittanica gives one:

to decide that (a ruling, decision, etc.) is wrong and change it

Is this not literally what he was trying to do? There's not even a negative connotation to this word, some legal rulings SHOULD be overturned.

He wasn't asking those people in Georgia to find 11,000 votes because he wanted the results of the election to stay the same, was he?

Do you have some other definition of overturn? Or do you really think he wasn't trying to have the results changed because they were rigged according to him? Don't play games, be honest.

Yes, I'm well aware that it's within your personal psychological interest to pretend like you have no idea what everyone else is talking about. WHY that's in your personal interest is anyone's guess.

If you want to know why the rest of the world thinks it's obvious he tried to overturn the election, there's an entire Wikipedia article for you to peruse, with sources cited.

In my searching I’ve found nothing — NOS4A2

There's a Wikipedia page for it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

Has he requested, demanded, or pressured anyone to do such a thing? — NOS4A2

Yes, quite obviously so. I know you know that

Well I think he certainly did a lot more than "challenge" it - he looked for every opportunity to reverse the results outside of the normal process.

If my company underpaid me I could challenge my paycheck. It's a bit beyond "challenging my paycheck" if I go to the office after work hours and ask the janitor to just let me into the company safe so I can take everything I think the company owes me.

What do you think "contesting" means?