/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16327480]

Can he be stopped? Are you ready to admit the -supposed - reality that you see is just an interface?

[Anonymous No.16327485]

>>16327480
>Are you ready to admit the -supposed - reality that you see is just an interface?
if it is, what does that change?

[Anonymous No.16327537]

>>16327485
According to Donnie Hoffman this means spacetime is doomed

[Anonymous No.16327567]

>>16327537
I mean... cool.
It is anyway. Entropy, and all that. And we're going to die. So... nothing changes.

[Anonymous No.16327573]

>the reality you see is just an interface
yeah, never heard that before.

[Anonymous No.16327581]

>>16327480
can someone quick run down the actual argument for inebriated smoothbrains?

[Anonymous No.16327590]

>>16327573
>the reality you see is just an interface
yeah, never heard that before.

[Anonymous No.16327594]

>>16327480
I've actually been having nightmares like this for a while.
Realizing that what I'm seeing and feeling and doing aren't real. That my body could be doing anything, and I wouldn't know.

I was cursed by a demon in my first one, and he'd make me see terrible shit- my teeth shattering, and I'd cup my hands to my chin and collect the shards- blood pooling out from under the carpets, lapping at my feet, at my hands as I tried to soak it up. I didn't know what my body was doing. I huddled in my shower, hoping that by doing nothing, my body would, at least, stay were it was, and not hurt or kill my friends without my input, reacting to something completely different than what I was experiencing.

fucking harrowing. do not recommend.

[Anonymous No.16327628]

>>16327573
>>16327590
Yes, but here there's math to back it up

[Anonymous No.16327832]

>>16327480
Am I ready? Bitch I was born and bred into subjectivity and am now a spiritualist schizo with solipsistic tendencies OF COURSE I'M FUCKING READY

[Anonymous No.16327837]

>>16327594
Is that really more terrible than terror management theory? After all, why would you give a fuck that you don't know what your body is "actually" doing if literally nothing changes in your perception of physicality other than your mood?

[Anonymous No.16328085]

>>16327837
because my body could be hurting other people. I don't want to hurt other people.

[Anonymous No.16328106]

>>16328085
Grow some balls anon, please. You're hurting yourself when you're acting like that without any tangible gain, and in turn you're hurting those around you. Now go and call me a faggot!

[Anonymous No.16328119]

>>16327628
What math?

[Anonymous No.16328120]

>>16328106
what are you trying to say to me?

[Anonymous No.16328139]

>>16328120
That life contains so much pain and suffering that it doesn't serve you or anyone else to be wracked by nonsensical doubts like 'I could be hurting someone'. Yes, you could. But are you really creating more good, diminishing suffering by letting yourself suffer from the stuff that you described in your post?

I'm telling you to grow thicker skin. Kind people need it more than most others.

[Anonymous No.16328142]

>>16327480
Are there legit Academic PhDs who argue for this, because it sounds pretty schizo

[Anonymous No.16328144]

>>16327628
OMG EPIC MATH IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HECKIN EPIC ARBITRARY LOGICAL SYSTEMS CLEARLY PROVE THE TRUTH OF SOMETHING!!!!!

[Anonymous No.16328167]

>>16328139
>'I could be hurting someone'.
anon... I don't know how to tell you this, but I was talking about a hypothetical situation in which my mind and body are completely divorced from each other, and I have no control over the actions of my body.

I don't want to hurt people if I can help it. That doesn't mean that I'm somehow crippled by the idea that my existence hurts others directly or indirectly. Those were nightmares I had- I don't actually believe that my body exists separate from my mind.

[Anonymous No.16328209]

>>16328142
High level physicists in academia have been retarded and disgusting for the past 70 years since they stopped trying to create a physical description and model that physical description with math and started taking their physical descriptions from the math, creating some of the most stupid ideas that have ever been thought, which makes even early pantheism or Christianity seem genius and coherent in comparison. So, for instance, they have confused they have projected the probabilistic success of their equations into the real world, saying the real world is probabilistic, forgetting the little utopian fact that probability cannot exist in the real world. Physicists believe that a cat in a box with a 50% chance of dying is both alive and dead, for instance. But this is nonsense, since the physicist is just projecting their uncertainty about the outcome onto reality, thinking reality, too, can be uncertain about an outcome. The thought experiment proposed by schrodinger was actually supposed to be an argument against superposition, not a description of superposition, which it turned into by idiot physicists. Even worse, string theory, where everything is made out of one dimensional strings, forgetting the little fact that a physical object with extension only in one dimension wouldn't exist, since the other two dimensions wouldn't have extension. Not to mention embarrassments like time travel, reverse causality, parallel universes, the universe as an open system (which is literally just religion), etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.16328220]

>>16328167
Good

[Anonymous No.16328223]

>>16327480
Is that Dennis Cooper?

[Anonymous No.16328226]

>>16328223
the guy that jumped out of the plane and disappeared?

[Anonymous No.16328255]

>>16328209
Early pantheism and Christianity couldn't do shit. Physics can make atomic bombs and the computer you used to write that retard rant. If the equations don't match your intuition the equations have experimental proof behind them. Intuitions are like butt cracks everyone has one

[Anonymous No.16328258]

>>16327567
What does the second law of thermodynamics have to say about gravity? Would the distributive ability of entropy be counteracted by the attractive ability of gravity? If we assume the engineers are right, that entropy always increases, then we can simply show that the world has always existed, and that there has been an infinite amount of time, and for every amount of time passed entropy must increase, therefore the amount of entropy must be exorbitant. But we do not see this as being true. Therefore, something else must be happening that we are not accounting for. This something else, I'm assuming, is gravity. This is how Nietzsche refutes the thermodynamicists in The Will to Power.

[Anonymous No.16328283]

>>16328258
Fucking /lit/ physicist right here. Shit like this makes me doubt everything else posted

[Anonymous No.16328286]

>>16328258
My guy. The metaphysics of the universe are ultimately irrelevant. "Truth" at that level means absolutely nothing. It's like saying, "what if the sky was it's just hypothetical and day-dreams.
The universe is going to die, we're going to die. It is what it is.

[Anonymous No.16328285]

>>16328255
Hilarious how people who have never engaged with physics assume it is just one theory. I am obviously critiquing the physics of the late 20th century and not the respectable physics of Einstein or Newton, which had very real empirical evidence and was very useful. You of course ignore this so you can add in your useless two cents.

[Anonymous No.16328296]

>>16328209
>High level physicists in academia have been retarded and disgusting for the past 70 years
No they haven't
>So, for instance, they have confused they have projected the probabilistic success of their equations into the real world, saying the real world is probabilistic, forgetting the little utopian fact that probability cannot exist in the real world.
This is not an argument, you are begging the question. They are plenty of philosophers who think that probability can be objective. What is your argument here?
>Physicists believe that a cat in a box with a 50% chance of dying is both alive and dead, for instance.
No they don't, indeterminism only applies to microscopic phenomena, and not even all physicists accept indeterminism, there are indeterminist as well as determinist interpretations of quantum mechanics
>Even worse, string theory, where everything is made out of one dimensional strings, forgetting the little fact that a physical object with extension only in one dimension wouldn't exist, since the other two dimensions wouldn't have extension. Not to mention embarrassments like time travel, reverse causality, parallel universes, the universe as an open system (which is literally just religion), etc. etc.
None of these are a priori impossible, and if you think they are you need to provide actual arguments against them, calling them embarrassments only shows that they go against your preconceived notions about how reality operates

[Anonymous No.16328300]

>>16328283
Modern scientists are retarded. Don't forget this is a group of people who still think the purpose of physics is to find the "truth" and have wasted their whole lives trying to get it.

[Anonymous No.16328312]

>>16328285
You're talking about quantum mechanics with your stupid probability rant. Quantum tunneling is the way your SSD works

[Anonymous No.16328339]

>>16328296
>They are plenty of philosophers who think that probability can be objective.
And they are retarded.
Everything that happens has a 100% chance to happen. This is tautological. The universes "guess" is always right, since this is the event that takes place. Let's say we have some event. This event will give way to a necessary event after that it changes into. This event has to necessarily transform into this next event. There can be no probability in this transformation, since in order for there to be some probability, there has to be more than one possibility. But there is only one universe. Therefore, there is no probability.

"But, what about a dice roll!"

It is in constant transformation that ends with a certain side face up. These transformations happen according to the universe they happen in. There is no chance. Any type of objective chance would need to somehow have universe-switching. But any such universes in universe-switching would not be universes anymore, since they would be parts of a universe that contains both. Probability still wouldn't exist, since universe-switching would happen according to this universe necessarily.

Hence, multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every action has another universe in which another was done in it's place, to make up for their faulty theories necessitating chance.
>No they don't, indeterminism only applies to microscopic phenomena, and not even all physicists accept indeterminism, there are indeterminist as well as determinist interpretations of quantum mechanics
It doesn't matter. Chains of causality would cause this microscopic indeterminism to effect macrocosmic objects. Hence schrodingers thought experiment, which does exactly that. Though, I respect the physicists who are trying to find a determinist quantum theory, and I am not writing against them, as should be clear.
>None of these are a priori impossible, and if you think they are you need to provide actual arguments against them, calling them embarrassments only shows that they go against your preconceived notions about how reality operates
I could refute every single one of them, and already have in my notes, but I have a life to live.

[Anonymous No.16328357]

>>16328312
Some of the math is useful, yes. I am not arguing against the math, though I am sure there are problems there, too. It is the interpretations of that math which is then projected onto reality that is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.16328369]

>>16328357
Again physics gives correct working answers. All you give is your worthless intuitions. My intuition is that you're full of shit

[Anonymous No.16328373]

>>16328312
And, note, I am only referring to certain quantum theories, not all of them. I am not against describing the mechanics of quanta.

[Anonymous No.16328384]

>>16328369
You seem to be confusing a useful answer for a correct one, like all idiot physicists. But there goes my inuition again!

[Anonymous No.16328397]

>>16328286
Then what about the "Truth" of the second law of thermodynamics?

[Anonymous No.16328411]

>>16328397
my guy, I'm not a physicist. I don't know what you want from me. Are you trying to catch me out in a lie? I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.16328413]

>>16328384
If by useful answers you mean experimentally verified results that leads to working technology that functions according to the discovered physics. In that case yes useful means correct

[Anonymous No.16328506]

>>16328144
>EPIC ARBITRARY LOGICAL SYSTEMS
Yet you concede 1+1=2.

[Anonymous No.16328544]

>>16328339
>I could refute every single one of them, and already have in my notes, but I have a life to live.
So let's just focus on indeterminism for a moment
>Everything that happens has a 100% chance to happen. This is tautological.
This is plainly false, full stop. There is no tautology here. Moreover, there is no logical contradiction in the notion of indeterministic causation. Try to find it, it doesn't exist.
>This event will give way to a necessary event after that it changes into. This event has to necessarily transform into this next event. There can be no probability in this transformation, since in order for there to be some probability, there has to be more than one possibility. But there is only one universe. Therefore, there is no probability.
Again this is begging the question. Whether every event is always necessarily followed by another event is the very thing an issue.

But I think I can see what is the intuition behind your denial of objective probability. It is very hard to get a clear understanding of what an objective probability would "look like", the concept seems very obscure and elusive. But it can be made clear, as I will now try to explain.

Let's say that I have a bag that contains 99 black balls and 1 green ball. If I put my hand inside without looking and take a ball randomly , it will (likely) be a black ball. If I continue enacting the experiment, I will see that I end up taking a black ball way more often than a green ball. It seems that when I say that there is a higher chance that I am going to get a black ball is not simply an expression of my subjective certainty, it does in fact corresponds to the rate that I get black balls, and so it has to be "objective" in some sense, however is that to be understood. Now I think that the best way to understand this phenomenon is to say that the probabilistic talk we employ describes the frequency of the occurence. A frequency is of course a mathematical relation, in no way mysterious, which deals with your concern that concepts of objective probability seem obscure and unclear. Now I have yet to make the extrapolation and explain how the concept I just developed may help us understand indeterministic causation, but I will pause here to see if we agree so far or if you want to raise any objections.

[Anonymous No.16328597]

>>16328226
You tell me.

[Anonymous No.16329508]

>>16328544
It is tautological because of the reasons I gave prior. There is one universe, and therefore one set of laws that change happens according to. If you deny there are laws, that the laws are constantly changing, or switching, this changing of laws will have to change according to a set of laws. Determinism is inescapable. In order to say there are multiple possibilities, you have to say there are multiple sets of laws that can be possibly actualized. But this actualization will happen according to a law. Therefore, there is only one possibility. One possibility means 100% probability. Probability as a concept only makes sense with ignorance of the outcome, because when predicting, you can project more than one model of what could happen. It is a massive mistake to project that ignorance on to nature itself, an ignorance of the highest order. This is what you do in your example of a nature functioning with probability, where you project likelihood onto nature, likelihood being only viable when you can create multiple mental models and project them onto the outcome.

[Anonymous No.16329603]

>>16328544
>>Everything that happens has a 100% chance to happen. This is tautological.
>This is plainly false
Nigger, it happened, therefore it is a certainty that it happened. A certainty is a 100% probability. Therefore, you dumb.

[Anonymous No.16329974]

>>16329508
>It is a massive mistake to project that ignorance on to nature itself, an ignorance of the highest order.
To clear up what I am saying here evn more, I will describe the transformation that happened in your head in the transformation of a mathematical model to a law. First, probability as a mathematical model is the projection of chance on the outcomes of a selection based on the unknown of the medium used. So, for instance, the medium of the coin, when used for probability, utilizes the unknown confusing flips and turns. A computer as a medium usually uses a small value from the current time, along with manipulations of that number, which is unknown. Now, when projecting probability as a law, as an essence which events are ordered by and follow, this medium is lost, and we arrive at, using your terminology, what you call frequency. Now, the unknown of the medium is converted, in this switch, to nothingness. Probability as a law, then, is the instantiation of necessities according to a selection based on nothing. In the law of probability, then, here nothing would effect something, so if there are two identical states of the world, it doesnt follow that the next states are equivalent. Now, the farce is revealed here, since nothing cannot effect something. Nothing does not exist, and therefore cannot effect something. Therefore, a law of probability cannot exist. I could have expressed this much shorter, but I made sure to be thorough so there would be no problems understanding.

[Anonymous No.16329989]

>>16327573
>>16327590
kek exactly
>>16327628
computer nerds think world is a computer... im shocked

[Anonymous No.16330094]

>>16328258
Entropy has been increasing since the big bang.
There is nothing that can be called before the big bang in any real sense, but if there was a time of reverse entropy we wouldn't be able to reverse back to that.

In other words your comment doesn't apply to the world we live in.
For the last 13.4 billion years and for the foreseeable future entropy has been constantly increasing and it will continue to do so.

[Anonymous No.16330108]

ITT: People who don't know anything about physics trying to btfo physics

[Anonymous No.16330440]

>>16328300
>Modern scientists are retarded. Don't forget this is a group of people who still think the purpose of physics is to find the "truth" and have wasted their whole lives trying to get it.