It is odd to take an example model, go counter to how the au...

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "fde39d219cb28efaec2d145589913e24d20d3764b0e8ead8e9fcbe0516865722",
  "pubkey": "9a21569255d0a3a9e75f1de2e4c883c9be2e5615887f22b2ecf6b1813bcd587d",
  "created_at": 1779811765,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "c21b1a6cdb247ccbd938dcb16b15a4fa382d00ffd7b12d5cbbad172a0cd4d170",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/",
      "ABH3PO"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "ee7f69fb377e82059a7f552101719ddc58c09e349e67dc721b93c39f8f2486ed",
      "wss://relay.mostr.pub/",
      "root",
      "c21b1a6cdb247ccbd938dcb16b15a4fa382d00ffd7b12d5cbbad172a0cd4d170"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "It is odd to take an example model, go counter to how the author of the model used it, and say people are brainwashed for not using your version of the model from the perspective of your view of physics. It is Schrödinger's model. It worked a certain way to make a point. It wasn't his science, just illustrative.  \n\nMy quantum mechanics kung fu is like pillow fighting:  Small shit acts weird, and sometimes acts weird at a distance. Fast shit acts weird, too. Sometimes the universe appears to have resolution. We don't know for sure it doesn't, because we can only measure at a certain resolution. We know stuff is statistically there, and statistically flows continuously, but that small shit at a distance coupling is kind of spooky, and makes the resolution thing weirder.  Then there is Stephen Wolfram's version (which appeals to me because graphs and small programs).  I'm not a physicist though, nor do I wave that around to show I'm smart. It is interesting, sure, but I have no hill I'm fighting on. \"Truth\" will be different next year and the year after that.",
  "sig": "90482d2dc9a69104c4b7fc6a36440be81f9a028d3e3bb0f9624ecbdefbd96c57e534fe835e421acc247eabef681262fd368e57795e308ff7baffff98fb57f178"
}