Time is real though. I found Kant. Down with that. Everyone is Kantian nowadays.Originally Posted by wasp
the time is fake guy is pointing out the Ti construction of time is artificial, not really disproving that time itself is real. he says we could render reality in a way that compresses time such that compared to the current model its akin to "removing" time. but he's mistaking the map for the territory inasmuch as he says it touches reality. this is persuasive for rationals because they can subordinate their perception to their rational structure, but for the person for whom reality is time itself and not some model its like saying your hands aren't real and what if we're all in the matrix (descartes famous example and G.E. mooore's rebuttal). the bottom line is people live in different realities and their claims about reality tend to reflect their own unique perspective but tell us nothing about the intersubjective "true" reality we by definition do not have access to. Now if we made science God and said the current model is the absolute truth, because by definition it animates that gap, and then we adopted the time is not real rational construction, we would be as close to possible as time not being real, but even then there would be some heretics and so forth. if Te is your God and the model does more "work" than the preceding model, time becomes fake on those grounds, etc etc per function. the Ne God is the mysterious alternatives we never fully know, i.e. numinous "beyond" which boils up from our subconscious and propels us in a direction for reasons we don't yet comprehend, but which we nevertheless trust as "most real" and going somewhere, on balance, good
Time is not something that exists, it's just "there", so time is indeed an illusion.
In Einsteinian physics (or physics in general), there's no real such thing as time because in principle, everything can be predicted by the laws of physics and is deterministic. You can theoretically pin-point where anything will be at any given moment, as well as where anything was in the past. The future, the past and the now all exist together, at the same time.
What we perceive it to be "flow of time" is nothing more than our consciousness emerging from the laws of physics. We think that the time is flowing only because we have our memories of our past to compare it with. If we don't perceive any change, then the concept of time will become meaningless and there will be no such thing as time.
If you drop a ball, it drops to the ground not because the time is going forward, but because of due to gravity and the laws of physics. If you reverse the laws of physics, which is possible by merely reversing its velocity, then the ball will indeed move back to its original position.
To get a clearer picture of this, imagine that the world is a 10-minute YouTube video of a person jumping up and down. Now imagine slicing and splitting this video into 1000 frames of snapshots. Now imagine jumbling these frames randomly.
You can probably put back these jumbled frames into their original positions with ease, because you intuitively understand the laws of physics from your own experience, that "what goes up must come down" due to gravity. So indeed this explains that it is the laws of phyics that explain the progression of things, and its timeframes are quite irrelavant.
So you might ask, "Well then why does the time move forward, and not backwards or in some random direction?", the answer might be due to increased entropy and the second law of thermodynamics that started with the Big Bang. Order will only lead to more chaos, and things were incredibly orderly in the beginning of Big Bang. This entropy will eventually stop as the universe expands, and in the end time will cease to exist.
what does it even mean to predict something without reference to time
We say "predict" because we are speaking from our own subjective viewpoint. Objectively speaking, there's no such thing as "now", and hence there's no real such thing as the "future". It's all already there in the first place. Just as in space, objectively speaking there's no such thing as "here", there's just space.
It's easier to imagine time and space not as separate and independent entities, but as a same entity, which is why Einstein had combined both and called it spacetime.
So we can imagine time just as a point in space, which is why this concept is called the block universe, because it's as if the entire space and time exist within a single block of a universe.
So "time" is really just like a point in space. It's all frozen and laid out in full. It cannot flow and it can not change.
We can also say we do not really "predict" things, just as in the YouTube video example, we can put the jumbled pieces back together as if like fitting the pieces of jigsaw puzzle into the missing pieces of a complete jigsaw puzzle. But we don't say that we predicted how the jigsaw puzzles fit together, nor do we say that once piece caused the other piece to be fit into another space. It was all just there in the first place.
(You might say then, "So is there no cause and effect?", it would depend. In spacetime physics, and if we were to restrict reality to this universe only, then yes, it's all just an illusion since the future, the past and the now all already exist at the same time. But then there is the multiverse theory, which would bring the idea of an infinite number of possibilities in different universes, essentially bringing back cause and effect. So when we say cause and effect, if and then statements, we might actually be thinking of different possibilities in different universes).
If time WERE an independent entity that was outside of physical reality, then the laws of physics would become meaningless. We could have the correct "flow of time", and yet have the laws of physics would be completely incoherent and jumbled up, such as things randomly appearing and then disappearing, with objects randomly flying all over the place. Yet we know that doesn't actually happen in real life. It's the laws of physics that make things appear coherent, it's the laws of physics that glue things together, not "flow of time".
"time can't possibly be real because that would upend my understanding of physics"... uh welcome to the unknown, there are all sorts of these problems in science and the humanities, what you're doing is just called denial... further, time as it is modeled and time itself are two different things, you seem to only think in terms of the first, which begs the question as to the "reality" of time. of course if you model it as a trajectory in physical space with various known properties you can determine exactly where it will go. the point is you can't actually do that in real life because of things like quantum uncertainty. anyway, keep learning, it feels like you're making progress
Determinism was once discussed by physicists and today is well known to be untrue and the most well known reason is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. So you cannot pinpoint anything with absolute certainty. Chaos theory says more about problems with predicting future. Also, even computer programs which are reasoning they use randomness in the process. So if computer program has equal weight choices of going A or B, it will choose at random, and also computers can generate random numbers the way you can't predict them either.
From wikipedia:
Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[5][6] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems, that is, without changing something in a system. Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[7] It has since become clearer, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[8] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[9] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.
This means, that theoretically you cannot pinpoint anything or predict any outcome at atomic level.
Last edited by falsehope; 03-17-2018 at 04:29 PM.
lol that's what so funny is he's simply arguing determinism and I'm not sure he realizes it. its really nothing more than an ontological commitment to a deterministic model of reality grounded in a 17th century understanding. in other words, philosophically and scientifically and psychologically naive to the advancements of the 20th century. its sort of when people argue communism hand in hand with this sort of understanding, its like dude, you guys live in a prior psychological epoch--please join us in the present
Well, you didn't read my post properly. I've already stated that while things appear indeterministic from this universe, things are deterministic when seen from the perspective of the entire multiverse.
The "randomness" and the "uncertainty" of Quantum physics are quite often misunderstood. In real physics, there's no such thing as a fundamentally random variable. It's all following the same deterministic laws that govern the universe.
If things were truly random and non-deterministic, then there wouldn't be a universe that we have today, as things would just be random and chaotic that doesn't make any sense. There is a clear deterministic law that govern the universe. Also it's not the determinism or the indeterminism that decide time exist or doesn't exist, as I've already stated that having time and physical reality as separate and independent entities wouldn't make any sense.
So why all the "randomness" and the "uncertainty" that you hear from Quantum physics? It's only because it appears to be random when seen from our own perspective (i.e. in our own universe), but when seen from the entire multiverse, then it's all following the same deterministic laws.
Let's say that there is a set of two completely identical universes. They both have the exact same identical number of atoms in them, and they both follow the exact same deterministic laws. Let's call them Universe 1 and Universe 2. The law determines that an atom will appear in a specific location 50% of the time in one universe, which means that it will appear 50% of the time in the other universe. So this will cause the universes to "split" and they will no longer be identical universes, even though initially they were. It doesn't quite matter which universe is which, so the fact that there's Universe 1 and Universe 2 were actually irrelevant.
Now imagine that instead of having just 2 universes, there are infinite numbers of universes. When seen from the perspective of a single universe, it appears "random" and "uncertain" and purely probabilistic, but seen from the perspective of the entire multiverse, it's actually following the exact same deterministic laws.
I should warn that what I'm talking about is the Many-Worlds interpretation (the multiverse theory) of Quantum physics, and not the Copenhagen interpretation (the "observer effect" theory). Copenhagen interpretation says that it depends on who's observing it, while in Many-Worlds interpretation, it says that it's actually happening in the other universes. In Quantum physics, it's currently roughly split into two aforementioned camps. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is of the Copenhagen origin. In the Many-Worlds interpretation, there is no wave function collapse, and hence is completely deterministic. There is no Uncertainty Principle in the Many-Worlds interpretation. This is because the Many-Worlds interpretation allows for the perspective of the entire multiverse.
--
The "random number generators" actually pick from a finite set of numbers using an algorithm, which has a set of patterns and hence predictable. The number that it picks is based on its previous number. This is why it's called a "pseudo" random number generator. "Real" random number generators use atmospheric noise from the environment outside of the system, such as the noise of the fan, the time that it has passed since the user pressed a key or the movements of a mouse.
"Chaos theory" has to do with an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions in classical physics (pre-quantum). The idea is that even just slightly inaccurate data in the initial condition can make the error grow exponentially and chaotically over time in the predicted trajectory vs. real observed trajectory. But even then, the real reason for error is due to the fact that real life physics is following the laws of Quantum physics.
The cluelessness of @Bertrand is out of question.
you're just arguing for determinism in principle in the sense that since indeterminacy isn't completely random its in some sense determinable, but that mistake is facially obvious. things can be indeterminate without being completely random. to say that indeterminate states that are necessarily indeterminate as a property of quantum theory are no really indeterminate by some other metric is facially true, but it amounts to you saying "I reject a quantum model of causality and substitute my own assertion of causal determinancy"--its like okay, now go revolutionize science, genius
also RNGs don't channel the fundamental nature of reality, they do after all have to run on computers which are artificial constructs predicated on determinate modes of processing. but just because your computer isn't truly random, doesn't mean there aren't indeterminate by definition states of being at the quantum level. I mean the idea that you can't use quantitative measure for everything seems highly intuitive because the universe is greater than that which can be measured, not just at the micro level but at every level, so why wouldn't quantum indeterminancy be a thing. its nothing less than the precursor of free moral action, which is to say meaningful choices exist and can influence the world accordingly, which means in a way we cannot acount for before hand exceptin terms of brackets of quantum indeterminancy until the event occurs. even if you deny this you still act it out in what amounts to a continual and ongoing performative contradiction. it is in essence a lie to oneself
its this desire to lie to oneself in order to believe in orderliness of all things that is the fundamental constant... the reaching for fact and reason and when theyre not availing to invent a narrative rooted in a longing for order that characterizes the "determinancy" of all things. in other words the longing for order itself is what deterministic theorem finds rest in. it is a great circle rooted in human psychology that imposes itself on the universe, not a feature of reality. in other words, viewing the worldin such a way is to view the universe in terms of your personal desires not as it reallyis, but using language that supposes this is not the case. in that sense your deterministic model ofthe universe is just symptomatic of being trapped in your own mind, not something reflective of common reality
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-21-2018 at 06:09 PM.
I don't see logic between things being deterministic and existence of multi-verse. For me the logic is simple - if we observe random behaviour then it's random regardless whatever there's multiverse or not. What we observe is undoubtful and no theory can change it. It's random, we can measure it, period. If you say it's because of another universe and it's in fact deterministic it doesn't make smallest logical sense.
If we see things random, then in another universe the things would have to be also random, making our universe random and also other universe random. And therefore nondeterministic.
The thing that there's randomness doesn't mean that everything must be random and be in total chaos. Computer programs can use random numbers and do the work sometimes they need to use it, like in example, given choices A and B of equal weight it needs to use random number and it doesn't mean it cannot operate logically.
By the way modern computers use True Random Number Generator (TRNG) which is built into the TPM chip. Since its performance is low these true random numbers are only used as seed to Pseudo Random Number Generators, but even with this, it's impossible to predict the sequence since the initial random is truly random.
The best TRNGs are using the quantum phenomena to get the randomness. So whatever the computers are using truly random or not is really matter of implementation. Regardless that, even the pseudorandom sequence in modern operating systems is completely unpredictable to external observer, so from the sequence itself it's theoretically impossible to compute it since number of possible initial values (in case of 256bit key) nears the total number of atoms in universe and it's simply not possible to build computer of this computing power.
Last edited by falsehope; 03-21-2018 at 06:54 PM.
Just by viewing the theme how humans put themselves on pedestal I'm ready for this news and article:
New study shows that humans are full of sh*t.
[Geocentrism, neanderthals etc.]
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
.The book in which this chapter appears is mostly about the mechanics of hedonics -- what makes people happy. But this is only half the picture; the other half is whether people are aware of these mechanics and can apply them to their own lives. As Jim March (1978) noted in a seminal article, all decisions involve predictions of future tastes or feelings. Getting married involves a prediction of one's long term feelings towards one's spouse; returning to school for an advanced degree involves predictions about how it will feel to be a student as well as predictions of long-term career preferences; buying a car involves a prediction of how it would feel to drive around in different cars. In each of these examples, the quality of the decision depends critically on the accuracy of the prediction; errors in predicting feelings are measured in units of divorce,dropout, career burnout and consumer dissatisfaction.
The accuracy of people's predictions of their own feelings is important not only for individual well-being but, increasingly, also for public policy. Recent decades have seen an expansion of attempts to base public policies on measurements of public values. The best-known of such efforts is Oregon's experiment in health-care rationing, but attempts to base public policy on public values have been made in diverse areas, such as transportation safety and environmental policy Measurement of public values typically involves surveys in which respondents are asked to predict how they would feel if they were in health conditions or environmental states different from the ones they are in. The meaningfulness of the measured values, and the optimality of the policies based on them, therefore, depend, in part, on the accuracy of predictions of feelings.
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/doc...ntItBeNice.pdf
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
wtf academia. If you guys don't like your jobs, just maybe it's because you thought you had to try to predict your feelings (lol) rather than just do what you wanted.
I ignore almost everything you say because it's too long even when I am on the site but I'm going to just love your posting in general just for this. Also, time is obviously not a point in space. If time is like the point on a bar underneath the YouTube video, what the heck is that moving in? Time and space are related, but time is still real. If you deny time is real, you're going to be in a passive mindset, because you can't believe anything does anything, and unconsciously, you won't do anything either. Most physicists are in a passive mindset and that's why they try to rationalize time as not being real.
yeah totes
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/25...e-of-the-left/
Barack Obama’s new era of civility was over before it began. You wouldn’t know it from reading The New York Times, watching Katie Couric or listening to the Democratic manners police. But America has been overrun by foul-mouthed, fist-clenching wildebeests.
Yes, the tea party movement is responsible — for sending these liberal goons into an insane rage, that is. After enduring two years of false smears as sexist, racist, homophobic barbarians, it is grassroots conservatives and taxpayer advocates who have been ceaselessly subjected to rhetorical projectile vomit. It is Obama’s rank-and-file “community organizers” on the streets fomenting the hate against their political enemies. Not the other way around.
The trendy new epithet among Big Labor organizers who’ve been camping out at the Madison, Wis., Capitol building for more than a week to block GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s budget reform bill:“Koch whore.” Classy, huh? It’s a reference to the reviled Koch brothers, David and Charles, who have used their energy-industry wealth to support limited-government activism. A left-wing agitator based in Buffalo who impersonated Koch in a prank phone call this week used the slur to headline his “gonzo journalism” report. (If a right-leaning activist had perpetrated such a stunt, he’d be labeled a radical, stalking fraudster. But that’s par for the media’s double-standards course.)
The 20-minute phone call undermined the grand Koch conspiracy by exposing that Walker didn’t know Koch at all. No matter. “Koch whore” is the new “Halliburton whore.” The Captains of Civility are sticking to it. And the sanctimonious “No Labels” crowd is missing in action — just like Wisconsin’s Fleebagger Democrats.
Sexual vulgarity is a common theme in the left’s self-styled “solidarity” movement. Among the Madison pro-union signs the national media chose not to show you: “Buttholes for Billionaires” (complete with a photo of Walker’s head placed in the middle of a graphic photo of someone’s posterior) and “If teabaggers are as hot as their Fox News anchors, then I’m here for the gang bang!!!”
Last month, GOP Lieutenant Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch was subjected to similar misogyny for her outreach efforts to private businesses. Liberal WTDY radio host John “Sly” Sylvester accused her of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for group sex).
At an AFSCME rally in Providence, R.I., on Tuesday, an unhinged pro-union supporter picked an unprovoked fight with a citizen journalist taping the event for public access TV. His eyes bulging, the brawler yelled: “I’ll f**k you in the a**, you fagg*t!” After several unsuccessful minutes of trying to calm their furious ally down, the solidarity mob finally started chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, union-busting’s got to go” to drown out his intimidating vow to follow the cameraman outside the building. Criminal charges are now pending against him. None of the local media who covered the event thought to mention the disruption in their coverage.
In Columbus, Ohio, supporters of GOP Gov. John Kasich’s fiscal reforms were confronted with a fulminating union demonstrator who railed: “The tea party is a bunch of d**k-sucking corporate butt-lickers who want to crush the working people of this country.”
In Denver, Colo., Leland Robinson, a gay black tea party activist and entrepreneur who criticized teachers unions at a Capitol rally, was told by white labor supporters to “get behind that fence where you belong.”
They called the 52-year-old limousine driver “son” and subjected him to this ugly, racially charged taunt: “Do you have any children? That you claim?”
Tea party favorite and former Godfather’s Pizza President Herman Cain is another outspoken black conservative businessman who has earned the civility mob’s lash. Two weeks ago, a cowardly liberal writer derided Cain as a “monkey in the window,” a “garbage pail kid” and a “minstrel” who performs for his “masters.”
Monkey. Parrot. Puppet. Lawn jockey. Uncle Tom. Aunt Thomasina. Oreo. Coconut. Banana. We minority conservatives have heard it all.
In Washington, D.C., a multi-union protest at the offices of conservative activist group FreedomWorks resulted in one young female employee, Tabitha Hale, getting smacked with a sign by a barbarian wearing a Communications Workers of America T-shirt — and another FreedomWorks employee getting yelled at as a “bad Jew” for opposing public union monopolies and reckless spending.
https://archive2.mrc.org/node/39334
Hate and Bile: Left-Wing Attacks on Women Get Little Press
Violent, sexual language, crude epithets, even death wishes – conservative women get the worst in liberals.
Nietzsche in the afterlife?
"What Teenagers Are Learning From Online Porn" by Maggie Jones
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/m...education.html
. . . you don’t have to believe that porn leads to sexual assault or that it’s creating a generation of brutal men to wonder how it helps shape how teenagers talk and think about sex and, by extension, their ideas about masculinity, femininity, intimacy and power. . .
In a 2014 British study about anal sex and teenagers, girls expressed a similar lack of sexual agency and experienced physical pain. In the survey, of 130 heterosexual teenagers age 16 to 18, teenagers often said they believed porn was a motivating factor for why males wanted anal sex. And among the guys who reported trying it, many said friends encouraged them, or they felt competitive with other guys to do it. At the same time, a majority of girls who had tried anal sex said they didn’t actually want to; their partners persuaded or coerced them. Some males took a “try it and see” approach, as researchers called it, attempting to put their finger or penis in a girl’s anus and hoping she didn’t stop them. Sometimes, one teenager reported, you “just keep going till they just get fed up and let you do it anyway.” Both boys and girls blamed the girls for pain they felt during anal sex and some told researchers the girls needed to “relax” more or “get used to it.” Only one girl said she enjoyed it, and only a few boys did. Teenagers may not know that even while porn makes it seem commonplace, in the 2009 national survey of American sex habits, most men and women who tried anal sex didn’t make it a regular part of their sex lives. And in another study, by Indiana University’s Debby Herbenick and others in 2015, about 70 percent of women who had anal sex said they experienced pain.
Last edited by HERO; 01-14-2019 at 01:15 PM.
Kitsch art: love it or loathe it?
Fixed that for you.Brilliant. Explained a word I thought I knew from the professional point of view, best thing Ive read from an art critic ever. Hope none of the above article ends up in Pseuds Corner.
The French Don't Shower That Much. And Neither Do I.
So yeah, I’m not as into bathing as I apparently once was. But I don't feel like I’m dirty, per se. And anyway, I love everything else about the French, like their champagne, pastries, style, and butter, so why not emulate their bathing habits?
That's actually a nice explanation. Imagine if you had said, "You're a neo-Nazi because of Se, you're neo-Nazi because you're Beta", etc.
We're all Neo-Nazis because we're SLE. But, when we reach the highest evolution level, we become the wisest and strongest overman oversouls. No one who cannot fall to our depths can possibly rise to our heights, or even fathom it. Be content with your essence-degrading consistency, inferior Se-PoLR LII. The scorpion becomes the phoenix.
"Where there is much light, the shadow is deep" — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
You can tell I'm right because I got post #666. It's a synchronicity. You are not capable of such feats by your nature.
When you join the gang of Socionics, you are told that everything that is wrong with your life is due to other quadras and your conflictors and bad ITR:
5 Things I Learned as a Neo-NaziAt that point, other people's race was still an afterthought -- I'd never even met a Jew before, let alone developed a deep-seated resentment of their control of Hollywood. It wasn't until I was already in that they explained to me that the reason for everything wrong with my life was other races and Jews, and it suddenly seemed like a good explanation. After all, the only thing I'd ever heard about Jews was my older brother saying "He Jewed me!" after he got ripped off by someone. So it made sense. After all, why would so many people say that if it wasn't true?
Not really. My socionics gang was basically half beta and half delta from the start with a couple of gammas and one alpha. Sorry if your socionics gang said that. My skinhead gang wasn't racist. We just thought shaved heads and socionics looked really cool (well, they do.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote