/lit/ - Literature

you (or I) are living in a predisgned simulated reality where you are the only conscious being in existence. Since the only time you have ever experienced is your own time, you cannot be sure that any previous time has ever existed at all. Also, you are the messiah

-AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA 2015

>>7064405
bundle theory
muh fork
morality is like a good wine, you need to have the taste for it ;)

>>7064419
>Matrix Theory
Except any simulation would need infinite space and energy to continuously process irrational functions of math, according to the Beckenstein limit. It would also still not work because that information could not be processed or distributed at the Speed of Light, which light already IS.

>>7064440
You can't use the physics that confine the matrix to determine a matrix is impossible, that's counter-intuitive.

For all you know you could be living in a reality that has an entirerly different system of "physics" if you can even call it that.

>>7064405
i ama robot alien zombie vampire werewolf lion bear fox tiger shark empire being-raped-in-the-ass by authentically indestructible dicks in a recursive war between order and chaos. i ama jew baby death eater of hindu mexican german french italian anglo zoarastrian mohommed greek chinese buddhist russian brazilian ancestry orchestrating a suicide bombing of all the major dialectical world banks, spirits, horcruxes, dragons, and the contradictory shapes of time, space, and kim kardashian - and i fucking hate pickles!!!! XO

>"we are god's way of killing himself"

Stupid fucking idea and I hate how that shitty story gets so much credit.

try out "we are God's way of understanding his own reason for being" instead

>>7064499
same

Mereological Nihilism

>>7064532
What does nihilism has to do with the weather?

>>7064574

What does weather have to do with mereology

whats the "god's way of killing himself" thing that sounds batshit and stupid and funny

>>7064636
God made humans who have inherent evil inside of them. Same reason why people killed Jesus, even though he never said anything wrong besides telling people to love each other. Basically, it means we are living in Gods masochistic universe.

>>7064674

>>7064678

>>7064405
Human progress is to replace God, like a macrocosm of a cell splitting on a universal scale we are all part of the whole, our journey will not stop at the stars.

We will learn all there is to know, see all there is to see, and in the end we will have consumed all that this universe has to offer, including all knowledge and information.

We will then collapse on ourselves(in whatever form we will have taken eons from now) and allow ourselves to be the fuel for a new universe to be created.

We will then come full circle and finally fulfill our role in the now dark and empty void; and let there be light.

>>7064681

2deep4me

http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/

>>7064683
>the fucking nightmare that is the first sentence
Go back to tumblr.

>>7064683
thanks asimov

Max Tegmark's "the universe is literally a mathematical structure" is pretty weird

>>7064709
Didn't type it to win any fucking awards, dipshit. Just trying to quickly type a theory that I like.

If you spent less time criticising and more time trying to help maybe your mother would have loved you.

>>7064514
Could you elaborate on that statement, sounds interesting.

>>7064405
American evangelical Christianity.

Roman Catholicism

Kabbalism

>>7064723
>"Muh MUH"

>>7064725
You realize, neck beard, I would punch your teeth down into your cake hole if you dared to speak to me like that in person? You have huge balls online; however, my guess is your "real life" persona lacks the lustre you try to broadcast on 4chan. The shock when people find out you survive on stolen wi-fi and you live in your mom's basement. How sad.

>>7064405
God gave men penises to remind them they don't control themselves.

>>7064436
>Hume's fork
>bad

Are you that same faggot who's been shitposting this for years on /lit/?

Hume's fork makes perfect sense to anyone who's not a fucking retarded

Modern liberalism.

>>7064740
Actually I'm sitting in work. Also, irony.

But you're just Trolling me aren't you anon? An intelligent person like you on a literature board, please don't be mean. It hurts my feelings.

>>7064740
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals.

>>7064419

>>7064740

Fresh off the boat, from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You got no reputation here, you got no name, you got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long on 4chan by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is 4chan. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to imgur, you daily show watching son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the light of internet pop culture reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a judge.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it...

>>7064740
What was that? Oh right, it's the voice of Sir Warcrap, Lord of His Parent's Basement. I bet you haven't seen the sun in a month. So acclimated to BO that you actually get sick if you leave. Yeah, the cum tissues built up under the desk, evolving a new strain of Ebola, yeah I know. 34 tabs of Boku no Pico? Fucking freak weeb loser cunt.

>>7064768
Fuggin lol, whats this from?

>>7064768
Let me preface this by saying that I've been a memer since they first appeared on 4chan circa 2006 (ages ago in internet time). I remember refreshing /b/ all afternoon with the hope that someone would make a new meme. I was a memer back when Advice Dog was the only one and I still upvote every Advice Dog meme I see becasue of the fond rush of nostalgia it brings me. Nowadays, there are many thousand on quickmeme and other meme websites. I was a memer back before memegenerator was created (the first meme website) and I had to make them with MS Powerpoint or Paint. Speaking of meme websites, I was one of the first submitters to memebase.com and still have one of the top accounts there despite having migrated to reddit nearly 2 years ago. It was on 4chan and memebase where I cut my teeth creating memes, way before I had a reddit account and way before /r/adviceanimals was created in late 2010. Back before I could get any sort of points or even username recognition, I was creating memes as a clever and easily digestible way to reflect on society, relate some story to my audience, or just be funny. Do you remember rich raven? No? I do. You probably don't remember depression dog, crazy girlfriend praying mantis, introspective pug, or friendzone Johnny either. I remember all of them. In fact, you have only submitted two posts to adviceanimals garnering a total of just 4 points and have not commented there any time recently. So please, respect my judgement regarding the direction of the board and the integrity of posts I have held dear to my heart for nearly 7 years but you have no strong feelings for. Thanks.

>>7064782
>In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any weeb loser cunt's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

>>7064674
>>7064678
>>7064681
>>7064684

I'd suggest you watch these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omr0JNyDBI0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwRLIt6jgdM

Honestly it baffles me that you spent so much time and effort trying to explain a phenomena which is already explained by empirical science

>>7064808

Are you literally retarded? First off it isn't about that and until you have a firm grasp on the noumenal I would refrain from even posting lest you want to further this embarrassment.

2. There is no "you" here which I think is more baffling than your bafflement*

>>7064808
I could swear to Krishna that was all an elaborate and clearly drug induced troll.

>>7064836
>>7064840
You are saying that something doesn't exist BECAUSE it is behind glass, no? Don't get so defensive if you think im wrong

>>7064808
>why is glass transparent? youtube clip

see this begs the question that glass is in fact transparent, which I am trying to explain is wrong, it is not transparent

this isn't science btw, this is philosophy. light waves, atoms, etc, has nothing to with the phenomenology of viewing glass.

>>7064840
it's not.

see how you've not actually addressed anything I've said. you've not shown why it is wrong or why it's a troll. you've just dismissed it, ad homenin

>>7064877
>>7064882
What the fuck is going on?

If I wanted this madness I would have gone to /x/

>>7064743
that's beautiful

>>7064748
conservatism is more bizarrely inconsistent

>>7064920
shut up
SHUT UP
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH
YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE WRONG

>>7064882
Ok, I think I understand you slightly better after reading more of what you wrote. Based on your position, why is anything seen "real"? Even the lenses of the everyone's eyes are different, so everyone sees a different image, right? Therefore, it strikes me as absurd that an image of an object is somehow made "unreal" or even outside the realm of phenomena because of distortion; if one were to get the necessary information about the nature of the light, wheel, window, etc. one could determine every single detail about the image without having to resort to non-scientific methods.

Feel free to tell me if you think im retarded.

>>7064877

Once again retarded as fuk or maybe I'm getting trolld

Is this your first time on an image board? Because tbh just so you know not all images are oc. This picture for example isn't my library

>>7064747
oh really? can you make it not be self refuting while making it keep it's metaphysical bite, and make it account for other kinds of knowledge like math and logic?

We are actually living in the newest version of the "Sims." All of the "Sims" games we have been playing up to this point have been unlockable retro mini-games.

>>7064727
kabbalism is p based tbh and strangely intuitive once you get the hang of it

>>7064681
>>7064678
>>7064674
horse shit

everything you see is already an approximation of the "real" thing you are looking at. You are never seeing objects, you are detecting the light that comes from them. The glass is just arranging those photons again and your brain is filling in the gaps.

>>7064456
aaaaand now we have a tautology

>>7065164
kabbalah makes intuitive sense to western people because its just esoteric extrapolation from the system of belief at the roof of all western worldviews anyways. because christian mystic theology is pretty much dead or at the very least, way out of fashion the kabbalah is the first/only experience white people can really have of the "aha moment" that comes from realizing a mystic tradition emanating from their own culture and not another.

>>7065204
agreed. i have found kabbalah to be a very profound and beautiful system that has made a practical difference in my life.

>>7064405
"everything was created a few seconds ago, always"

>>7064642
thats not as batshit or stupid or funny as i was hoping for

>>7065248

Descartes actually argued for something like this - he said that the same power that created the universe needs to continually sustain it in being, though he wouldn't have said that your memories are a fabrication or anything - and I think that line of thinking is what partially inspired occasionalists like Malebranche to argue that one natural object never technically causes an effect in another natural object, but God directly causes each event, moment to moment, in such a way that we perceive a law-like continuity.

>>7064405

The ultimate goal of the universe was the creation of cute girls doing cute things

>>7065636
>tfw no blushing wifu who does silly cute things

>>7064405
>>inb4 the "we are god's way of killing himself" guy
Good call, posting him anyway for the other lads tbh.

>>7065608

It goes ( at least) back to the Medievals. For them God was a constant sustaining cause of everything that exists because each moment of existence requires an explanation of why it still exists instead of going out of existence, given that the thing is contingent of course. The lines between conservation and creation were seen as somewhat blurry. Scotus claimed that the the distinction was only one "by reason" rather than anything substantial, insofar as creation is the imparting of being in relation to the consideration of the thing involved not existing before the moment, where conservation was that same imparting of being in relation to the consideration of the thing involved having already existed the moment before.

The Occasionalist's arguments are pretty interesting. One notable one from Malebranche is that all causes must be so that the effect necessarily follows the cause ( this condition being that which sets it apart from mere successive conjunction)- and given that God is omnipotent- only those cause/effect relations which God wills could be necessary- as anything going up against his will would be superseded by his power. He differs from say Aquinas or Scotus in that they allowed that God can be causing/sustaining the world at each moment through intermediaries. In Scotus' case God does this by actively upholding beings' power to act and cause effects according to their own natures( whether their natures are free or not) where Malebranche claims that there are no intermediaries what so ever in the production of effects- God is directly causing all the effects themselves as the sustainer and creator of the world.

The need for constant sustenance was never really dealt with or superseded, rather people stopped asking the question and took the contingent fact of sustenance as an explanatory basic. Newton's inertial laws seem to be that which caused the major shift, though Ockham had something close to this view.

Funny thing about Descartes and the memories issue is that when asked if one can trust their memories given that one should take up radical skepticism before presuming to know anything- he simply replied that if one felt that their memories could not be trusted they should keep a notebook handy to write things down with. Descartes was an awesome troll when he wanted to be.

>>7064405
If God isn't real, the universe was an accident, the way we evolved into humans was an accident, our thoughts are accidents, and why should we trust in accidents to explain the way an accident was formed?

>>7065699

Very interesting - and it makes sense, given the prevalence of Aristotelian thought in medieval philosophy, that they'd tend to adopt the view (as Aquinas famously did in the first of his five ways) that the universe requires an uncaused cause at every moment to ground the finit strata of natural causes, even if the universe were temporally infinite into the past. Though this stratification implies a mediation of causality, which you're saying that Malebranche rejected; I'll take your word for it, since I've never read his original works.

One more example of Descartes' scholastic baggage, despite his reputation for breaking away from the medieval tradition to initiate modern philosophy.

Life is like this number: 12021390212312312323490234

Or rather the 123123123 part. It's just random numbers, but if you isolate those repeating digits you get the illusion of order, purpose, and predictability. This might be true for some time, but eventually it will break down into chaos again.

>>7065170
lol indirect realist fags

god you're an idiot

>>7064930
just forget all that

the major point is, what's seen in (or thought of as 'through'), that is when you look at glass, what you see is not the same thing as what exists beyond the pane

so you see a dog on the deck with the glass door open, you see the dog. now you close the door and think you are seeing the exact same dog, but actually you are looking at something different, and the real dog is behind the glass, which you can't see because there's a scene with a dog in it getting in the way

>>7064499
Is this not but truth? #notfunny #endmemesnow
>lets be serious?

>>7064740
wrong idiot. Think again (#notfunny)

>>7065636
everyone knows this is actually true

mckenna's ideas are pretty wild, and usually you can't prove he's wrong

>>7064405
We are all exactly the same human being, just in a different base suit of genetics, with different cultural inputs. ''I'' won't die as long as humanity lives. ''I'' have been living for thousands of years, and will continue to do so in everyone that will be born. I will have no physical awareness of this whatsoever. I suppose that kind of sounds like atheist Hinduism, but I like it.

>>7065756
>>7064882
>>7064836
>>7064684
>>7064681
>>7064678
>>7064674

I've come across these kinds of posts before, and if you're truly the author, I wonder if you've read the Critique of Pure Reason.

Because these posts seem to be unintentionally abusing the concepts of phenomena and noumena as Kant originally described them. The philosophy of these posts is stuck in the domain of phenomena, of what physics can describe, despite the author's phenomenological claims to the contrary.

In order to strengthen these claims (which I think will involve significantly changing them) the author will have to understand Kant's distinction between empirical realism and transcendental idealism.

>>7065756
Are you trying to use the perception argument here?

>look at a table
>move a foot any direction
>look again
>it's not the same table

2spoopy4me

Other than that explanation(which ok, I'll give you) I would say you are pushing the boat out.

Maybe the glass just reflects it a billion times and we have unknowingly perfected omnidirectional holograms in the pane.

Now, wheres my crack pipe?

>>7065785
>The philosophy of these posts is stuck in the domain of phenomena, of what physics can describe, despite the author's phenomenological claims to the contrary.

How? How can physics account for the actual felt sensation of seeing a road through the windscreen?

yes I've read copr

>>7064514
>we are God's way of understanding his own reason for being

>>7065808

Physics, despite its (probably perpetual) incompleteness, describes how photons reflect off off objects, pass through transparent media like glass, strike the retina, and are registered in the nervous system as visual stimuli. The same physical model that describes this process describes the visual perception of objects that are not obstructed by glass.

But even if we were to reject the above, and agree that we don't perceive photons passing through glass, but rather see an LCD-like surface of the glass that only duplicates the object behind it, it's STILL misleading to call the object behind the glass "noumena," because whatever is behind the glass still exists within space; you admit that there are objects "on the other side beyond the glass" - and this claim uses spatial concepts, implying that the objects are still phenomenal, since space and time do not apply to noumena. Even if we can't directly perceive the objects behind the glass (since we're granting your claim for the sake of argument) those objects are still known to exist, because they are bound up with the sense data and laws of experience, as is stated by Kan't second postulate of empirical thinking.

>>7065841
so the noumena is the platonic form ?
what distinguishes plato form kant ?

>>7064681
>>7064678
>>7064674
Is this /sci/ trollposting?

>>7064747
Read Quine you philistine.

>>7065902
Quine is literally the most pathetic system that there is to date.

>>7065738

Well he stole cogito ergo sum from Augustine as well. The early modern Philosophers like Descartes and Leibniz, and the silver era scholastics of the late 16th and early 17th century like Suarez shared allot . After all that was the stuff that Descartes learnt in his university days, and people always tend to exaggerate their own originality. Rarely is there some sudden revolution in the history of thought. Galileo and Copernicus were adopting theorems and ideas from 14th century Scholastics who were rejecting Aristotelian Philosophy themselves, pushing the envelope just that much further.

fuck off with the glass bullshit you retards, learn2optics ffs

Lets talk about MUH instead, what do you think of it? Is tegmark pop-sci book worth reading or not?

>>7065841
>and are registered in the nervous system as visual stimuli

nope. physics stops at 'registered in the nervous system'. This isn't even an argument it's a fact. Look up the hard problem of consciousness. Educate yourself.

you know people can use words like 'noumena' in it's more common sense ("the external world", "mind-independent reality",etc). when someone says 'noumena' they aren't commited to using the word exactly in the same technical manner in which kant used the term

stop thinking of philosophy as the study of published authors/books.

there's this philosophical concept called charity. look it up.

look what's happened. we've gone down a boring sidetreet, nobody cares

what do you want to argue? you're an idealist? an indirect realist? physicalist? what are you arguing for?

I make a claim about the phenomenology of glass and you turn the argument into you correcting my use of words. get a clue

you're beneath me, dont respond

>>7065937
lol at that pic

>>7065937
>>Lets talk about MUH instead,
I think that he must tell us why his constructive mathematics which constitute the universe are only a branch of our mathematics so far

>>7065951
you are a pure empiricist ?
are you a realist ?

>>7065937
>le universe is made of numbers
philosophy for people who've never been to a particle accelerator but like to read popsci magazines a lot

>>7065969
get off my board you fucking frog

>>7065937
What's MUH?

>>7066019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

>>7066017
強い日本

>>7066014
But Tegmark isn't a philosopher, you mong.

>>7064419
>>7064436
>>7064440
>>7064456
>>7064499
>>7064514
>>7064520
>>7064532
>>7064574
>>7064628
>>7064636
>>7064642
>>7064674
>>7064678
>>7064681
>>7064683
>>7064684
>>7064689
>>7064709
>>7064712
>>7064723
>>7064725
>>7064726
>>7064727
>>7064735
>>7064740
>>7064743
>>7064747
>>7064748
>>7064759
>>7064760
>>7064764
>>7064768
>>7064782
>>7064785
>>7064795
>>7064803
>>7064808
>>7064836
>>7064840
>>7064877
>>7064882
>>7064909
>>7064911 hi bush
>>7064920
>>7064929
>>7064930
>>7064935
>>7064963
>>7065133
>>7065164
>>7065170
>>7065178
>>7065204
>>7065214
>>7065248
>>7065271
>>7065608
>>7065623
>>7065636
>>7065648
>>7065656
>>7065699
>>7065706
>>7065738
>>7065742
>>7065743
>>7065756
>>7065759
>>7065770
>>7065774
>>7065784
>>7065785
>>7065792
>>7065808
>>7065811
>>7065841
>>7065874
>>7065887
>>7065902
>>7065906
>>7065927
>>7065937
>>7065951
>>7065954
>>7065958
>>7065969
>>7066014
>>7066017
>>7066019
>>7066019
>>7066032
>>7066037
>>7066039
Nice opinion.

>>7066093
Nice opinion.

>>7066100
VERY Nice opinion.

>>7064405
We're the consciousness of an unconscious god