Social democracy is to placate the left, not the right. Late 19th century and early 20th century western Europe was fraught with civil wars from a lot of attempts and failed communist revolutions, such as in Finland, Spain, France, and Greece. Tensions were very high and social democracy spread as a way to provide just enough concessions to working class people that the ire from the working class would not erupt into revolutionary violence.

Although, with the turn of the 21st century, with basically the complete non-existence of socialists and communists as a global force, this placation has become rather pointless and so these western European countries have begun boiling the frog and slowly rolling them back through endless austerity.

The right is never placated. It’s impossible to placate them. They always want more more more. If you give them an inch they will take a mile. It really stems from the material basis of the left and right.

The right represents the ruling class, which are well-organized and backed by enormous centralized financial institutions. The left represents the working class, which are not organized at all and not backed by any centralized institutions.

This distinction matters because it means the right always, continually, behaves as a well-organized force, constantly pushing its agenda non-stop, but the left only really can push its agenda in rare instances where working class people happen to spontaneously come together enough to push back. The right is thus always at an inherent advantage in this way.

These spontaneous coming-togethers, though, tend to be short lived and disintegrate over time. Hence, if that “pushing back” doesn’t lead to an overthrow of the capitalist class, and the transfer of these major centralized financial institutions out of the hands of the oligarchs and into the hands of working people, then any gains become short lived as eventually the spontaneous working class organizations will either disintegrate or become defanged and ineffective over time, allowing for whatever gains they achieved to be rolled back.

That’s why we call social democrats the moderate wing of fascism. They exist solely to normalize fascism and to facilitate the fascist transition, by acting as a controlled opposite to distract the left away from socialism, and then to attack those who remain in the socialist camp. Although, the US is so cucked as a nation that they don’t even get the “social democracy” part, but even their controlled “opposition” is openly neoliberal and can hardly even be considered an “opposition” at all, controlled or otherwise.

Reality is probabilistic and none knows why, almost like someone programmed a video game.

Some video games have probability, especially RPGs, but that is definitely not an inherent feature of video games.

No one knows why quantum outcome changes based on mere observation.

A measurement is an interaction, and an interaction inherently disturbs what it is interacting with. In the macroscopic world, we can avoid this through very subtle measurements that don’t disturb the system enough to matter. But Planck’s constant places an absolute limit on how subtle a disturbance can be. When we measure properties on a small enough scale, you just cannot physically interact with it in a way that is subtle enough to not noticeably disturb it.

I don’t know why people always act like this is beyond human comprehension. It’s not complicated or counterintuitive. It’s just what the physicist Dmitry Blokhintsev referred to as the “finiteness of interaction.” In classical mechanics, we tend to believe that it is always possible to have better precision in your measurement devices, and so infinite precision is conceivably possible, even if practically impossible. However, in quantum mechanics, precision is finite due to h. Infinite precision just is not possible.

You get what I’m saying - just by me looking at the experiment result changes.

You say “just by me looking” as if it’s insignificant.

Yes, on the macroscopic scale, bouncing photons off of things (looking) at something does not (typically) significantly alter its macroscopic properties. But it does alter its microscopic properties, and so on a microscopic scale, it is changing.

Hence, if you are looking at it at a microscopic scale, then bombarding it with photons is going to significantly alter what you see.

I have to observe the reality in order to force it’s hand and render the outcome. Not sure what that means or where that even came from, in regards to what you have said previously. If I were to design a video game I would surely not render the entire world unless someone interacts with it - to conserve resources.

I am not sure how you jumped from “if we try to measure something we change it” to “things aren’t rendered until you look.” That’s a big leap. I don’t know where it came from.

Also, if it were to conserve resources, then no one would bother trying to develop quantum computers, because they would compute less than classical computers. But the fact is they compute more. The mathematical structure of quantum physics is exponentially more complicated than classical physics. If I was designing an efficient video came engine, I would definitely not use quantum physics!

It just does not conserve resources but uses exponentially more resources. That’s just a mathematical fact.

And now there is this: modern work suggests that the extra spatial dimension itself may emerge from quantum entanglement. Roughly: 2D quantum information → entanglement structure → emergent 3D geometry/spacetime.

You say “modern work” but you’re really just talking about speculative papers by String Theorists building on other speculative theories. It’s really just a mathematical curiosity with no way to test it and is certainly not accepted by the broad scientific community.

I don’t know about you, but this sure as hell seems like a graphics engine.

I have never seen a graphics engine that uses 2D quantum information and entanglement to produce 3D effects. What on earth? This is another leap which I am genuinely baffled at where it even came from.

And another thing : At the deepest level, the universe may consist of quantum information and relationships. Space and time emerge from how that information is organized and changes. So… Do I understand it right? “It from bit” as they call it - is this basically like a video game source code? We are “information” floating in space?

You are trying to draw analogies between computers and reality, that reality contains information, and so does computer code, therefore reality is computer code. But the comparison can equally go the opposite direction: computers contain information because reality contains information, and therefore that only proves computers are physical, not that reality is a computer.

I see this fallacious line of reasoning all the time from proponents of the simulation hypothesis, whereby they draw comparisons between computers and physics and then want to declare that this means physical reality is a computer. But computers are parts of physical reality, constructed within it, and have to follow its own laws. And so it is only natural there would be similarities.

Again, similarities between computers and physics only proves that computers are physical. It does not prove reality is a computer.

And why is spacetime quantized? - This is pretty crazy imo.

It’s literally not. In both general relativity and quantum mechanics, it is continuous.

Quantum mechanics does not mean “everything is quantized.” Plenty of things still are continuous, including spacetime.

It is only quantized in some fringe speculative theories which are not even complete and only worked on by a tiny handful of physicists, like Loop Quantum Gravity. I don’t know where you got the idea from that spacetime is quantized. That is definitely not part of contemporary, established physics.

No reason to believe we are in a simulation and nothing about quantum suggests we are.

You are literally upset that I pointed out a giant contradiction in your worldview.

• Position A: “I want a left-wing government.”
• Position B: “I should vote for politicians who want a left-wing government.”

Yes, I hold both positions in my head simultaneously and you do not.

What’s the relevance? The point of my post is that you are voting for a clearly right-wing party and the expectation that they will become left-wing is irrational. The existence of a spoiler effect does not negate this reality. It is incredibly incoherent to say, “we should vote in the right-wingers because we’re afraid of the spoiler effect,” then turn around and say that the right-wingers are "stupid’ for not running left-wing candidates as a right-wing party. It makes no sense. If you think you should never vote for a left-wing party out of fear of the spoiler effect, then you are really conceding that a left-wing government is impossible in the USA under its current form, and only maybe hypothetically in the far future if we ever have a different form, maybe with RCV, would it be possible.

US mentality is weird. Most countries we understand that a “party” stands for certain principles, and so if you don’t like the party, you vote for a different one. It makes no sense to demand that the party change to accommodate the voter, that’s not the role of a party. The role of a party is to try and change the minds of the population to support the principles of the party. A party exists to convince the masses to accommodate them, not for the masses to accommodate the party.

But Americans always vote for the same parties and always insist that the parties should violate their principles that they are very explicit about and openly declare all the time in order to accommodate the people. When the party inevitably does not do this but instead tries to explore new strategies to win over the population while adhering to their principles, Americans act surprised that the party isn’t bending to their will, but then vote for the same party again anyways.

I see this all throughout bizarre American commentary, where American leftists like Hasan will constantly call the Democrat party “stupid” for not abandoning their principles and running on an entirely different platform. But this, again, misses the whole point of a party. They are not “stupid.” They have a set of principles and want those principles to win, and it defeats the whole purpose of the party of they entirely abandoned their principles.

I mean, let’s say you live in a very racist country but have an anti-racist party, and then the anti-racist party decides to become racist to win the election. Did you really “win”? At the end of the day, the racist party still won, because you would have abandoned your principles to win, so it defeats the whole point of “winning.”

Democrats have a set of principles and want those principles to win, so naturally, as rational actors, they will not run candidates who oppose those principles while also try to push out people who infiltrate the party with ideas that oppose their principles. In any normal country, this is no problem because people understand that it just means you need to vote for a different party with different principles.

What’s even weirder is the Americans who delude themselves into believing the Democrats hold principles they literally do not. They are very open about being a neoliberal nationalist party, but I have encountered weird Americans who tell me things like Democrats all support universal healthcare / “Medicare for All” and they will argue until the cow’s come home that this is true and all evidence to the contrary is Russian propaganda.

Even here on Lemmy, criticizing Democrats by pointing out how they are right-wing can get you downvotes from weirdo Americans who are convinced they are a truly left-wing party. There is a huge delusion among Americans that Democrats are all secret far-left socialists who are just so incompetent that they constantly fumble the ball and mess up getting their policies across and so that’s why they never achieve the working class utopia. If you point out that there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of Democrats even want these left-wing policies in the first place and they openly say they want the opposite, they will get very defensive and upset with you.