[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 136 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (66).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15268409 No.15268409 [Reply] [Original]

while proving that reality and space-time do not exist but are merely projections, our bodies everything we perceive are "icons", he also aims to prove, mathematically, that an afterlife either exists or does not, and that psychotropics extend our faculties to higher dimensions.

What does /sci/ think about Hoffman? Psued or legit. He's been floating in the sci-circuit for several years, and fascinating ideas to ponder, and he is going an empirical route, not just spouting unprovable theories.

>> No.15268428

I get the impression that he is very smart. I also get the impression that he has his own set of agendas and biases and I don’t think he’s as skeptical as he pretends. I haven’t read his research but he seemed really confident about things he shouldn’t be. Let me go back and watch a few clips and I’ll see if I can remember what was bugging me about him.

Probably a grifter if I’m being honest

>> No.15268429 [DELETED] 
File: 49 KB, 500x323, muslim girls waiting for an uber.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15268429

another spam consciousness thread from the transhumantists

>> No.15268430

>>15268428
>grifter
nah. old men just want to push their ideas out there as much as they can so their ideas can survive after they die.
plenty of academics do this.

>> No.15268435

>>15268430
I’ll give anyone a chance, but even someone telling the truth can be a grifter. In fact a successful grift must contain SOME truth. What you said was pretty ignorant?

>> No.15268485

>>15268409
utter pseud. idealism will never produce anything of value in science.

>> No.15268495

>>15268409

He is on the right track. Materialism has failed to account for the only fact: consciousness.

His approach is to start at consciousness itself as fundamental, which avoids the hard problem. Idealism is his ontology, and he is building scientific models based on this ontology.

>> No.15268497

>>15268495
Bernardo Kastrup has provided the philosophical arguments for Idealism, Don is the leader on the modelling phase. Both are needed.

>> No.15268500

>>15268409
All idealists are only ever /x/ material schizo bait. Obviously pseud. Anyone going "baht muh subjective belief in muh speshul consciousness" can be safely disregarded as the religitard invalids they always are.

>> No.15268558

>>15268429
Agreed. Transhumanism is a terrible idea. Wanting a longer healthier life and better cognition is a stupid idea and is almost as big a threat to humanity as trannys are. We must stop evolving biologically to combat longer lives and increased brain power. I have been advocating for genetically editing our bodies to prevent any further changes from occurring because this arbitrary point in the evolutionary timeline is obviously the best

>> No.15268561

>>15268409
This isn't anything new, all our knowledge of the world is hinged on the logical presupposition of a knowing subject, consequently, the world is a representation and has no existence independent of a knowing subject.

>> No.15268568

>>15268409
Anyone who mentions consciousness is clearly a pseud grifter. What would he even know anyway, what an idiot. He's old too which is bad. You can tell if a pseud is a grifter because they're an old idiot. I'm so much better than he is

>> No.15268579

NO STOP POSTING IDEALIST SHIT HERE
IT IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE, NOT FUCKING SCIDNCE
AAAAUTGHYRGGGH
AAUHAGAHAUAAH
AAAAAAUGHAAA
NOT DI M DFIFIFUCKING DCIENVR

>> No.15268596

>>15268561
>if all life were extinguished, the universe would magically stop existing

>> No.15268617

>>15268495
Idealism denies the hard problem. Idealists are just Dennettians.

>> No.15268618

>>15268409
Things that are projected as well as the projection are "someting". They both exist. My vidya geames arent a space I can enter with my body, but they sure as hell are something existing withing this univese and observeable.

How can any scientific person with a straight face claim "Lol everythin is like a simulation man... Like its the matrix... Im a cosmic shadow and shit aint real I'm not even existing right know... LOOK MAN! LOOK! IM A SPACE GHOST!"

>> No.15268619

>>15268409
>What does /sci/ think about Hoffman?
A pop-soi dross writer. He was never a real scientist.

>> No.15268622

>>15268617
>Idealism denies the hard problem. Idealists are just Dennettians.
Profound mental illness.

>> No.15268626

>>15268622
Yes, idealism is profound mental illness.

>> No.15268628

>>15268626
Ok, but we're not talking about idealism. We're talking about your severe, recurring delusional episodes and how they've developed into a constant obsession.

>> No.15268629

>>15268628
I'm having fun BTFO'ing you in every thread.

>> No.15268634

>>15268629
All you do is devolve into a bot-like loop every time I recognize your mental illness. I've never actually had a discussion with you, nor am I planning to. Your likes aren't human.

>> No.15268636

>>15268634
Yet you keep replying and seething. Just admit you were wrong.

>> No.15268637

>>15268636
Wrong about what? You being mentally ill, or you getting stuck in a loop every time? I don't recall saying anything else to you. I'm hiding this thread now, but you will reply again, thus demonstrating that I was right. :^)

>> No.15268638

>>15268409
>Title: Reality does not exist
>"...he is going an empirical route...
You do know you can measure the components of reality, right?!

>> No.15268641

>>15268638
>You do know you can measure the components of reality, right?!
Wrong.

>> No.15268642

>>15268637
>Wrong about what?
About everything. You never said anything true.

>> No.15268644

>>15268641
So you can't determine models of predictability by measurement?
OK pseuder.

>> No.15268648

>>15268644
>determine models of predictability by measurement?
What does this schizophasic pseudbabble even mean?

>> No.15268659

>>15268648
>Schizobabble
You've never worked in a lab have you...
Let me explain science to you:
Scientists create models of predictability, it's their profession, its what they do for a living (that's what the math is for).
The simplest example would be the simple stuff you did at school involving dependent and independent variables. You determine those, change the independent variable and take measurements. The objective is to create a model that predicts for any change.
Read Heidegger's Basic assumptions. For this to work a stable reality must exist.

>> No.15268661

>>15268659
I work in a lab and I can confirm that Heidegger is completely irrelevant to our work.

>> No.15268669

>>15268659
>Scientists create models of predictability, it's their profession
No, they don't. This is schizophasic babble.

>> No.15268673

>>15268669
This.

Science isn't about models, science is about objective truth.

>> No.15268674

>>15268638
The question here is : "what is reality" ?

Hoffman uses the word "reality" because he realizes the word invokes thoughts of matter and particles inside 99% of peoples minds.

So yes, "reality" exist for everyone (including Hoffman), but the fundamental nature of "reality", and by extension everything else, is consciousness.

>> No.15268675

>>15268673
Don't reply to my posts, cretin. Science is about nothing but models. That "models of predictability" is nonsensical schizobabble, and not real scientific terminology, is a separate issue.

>> No.15268676

>>15268673
>>15268669
OK, so what do they do?

>> No.15268678

>>15268676
We don't need to talk about what they do. We need to talk about the mental illness that causes you to literally invent moronic terminology on the spot and pretend it's something a scientist would say. It's normal if you're a literal child, but not when you're a fucking adult.

>> No.15268691
File: 46 KB, 625x351, 1678622500843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15268691

>>15268675
>>15268676
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
>Science produces accurate facts, scientific laws and theories.

>> No.15268692

>>15268691
Nothing to do with anything I posted but thanks for the (You).

>> No.15268699

>>15268678
You have no argument and only insults. Perhaps you're projecting?!
If you don't understand what model of predictability means then you have an issue understanding the English language. No model is 100% accurate, part of the process is determining it's predictive power or how accurate it can predict the outcome.

>> No.15268703

>>15268699
>You have no argument
What arguments do I need? "Model of predictability" is pseudointellectual schizobabble, not real scientific terminology. You won't find anything about "models of predictability" in scientific literature.

>> No.15268707

>>15268699
What relevance does the accuracy of a "model of predictability" have to the question of if what science fundamentally does is create "models of predictability"?

>> No.15268710

>>15268703
It's an accurate explanation of what a scientist does. Nothing I have said is wrong and it's not being challenged, even by you. All you have are insults.
>"Model of predictability" is pseudointellectual schizobabble
It's a very accurate and concise explanation of what scientists create. If it's incorrect then explain how.
As I said, no model is 100% accurate. A models predictive power determines how accurate it is, I cannot make it any more simple than that.

>> No.15268714

>>15268710
>It's a very accurate and concise explanation
It's pseudointellectual schizobabble. If you just wanted to say that scientists create models that help them predict things, you should have said that. The fact that you had to invent moronic terminology on the spot to try to sound more authoritative immediately tells me that you have no scientific education. "Models of predictability" is not real scientitic terminology and you won't find it in any credible scientific literature.

>> No.15268721

>>15268714
>is not real terminology
It's use of the English language to explain a concept in a concise manner. If you want a word salad trying to explain nuances of the scientific process go read an undergraduate thesis.
If you want to communicate using nothing but tag lines and buzzwords go back to "IFLscience".
The choice is yours.

>> No.15268723

>>15268721
You've been exposed and you are desperately trying to save face. Delicious stuff. Your rage is palpable. You will NEVER have a real education.

>> No.15268737

>>15268723
OK...

>> No.15268739

>>15268737
Ok. So now that we've established that you are not a scientist, and will never be one, what was your point? That scientists make models and use them to predict things? Ok. So what?

>> No.15268750

>>15268739
The OP suggested that reality does not exist.
I stated that you need a stable reality to make predictions on, which was why the need to explain predictability within the context of a model.
If you're going to take something that cannot be predicted for you would have to assume you already have all knowledge. You're now effectively filling in the gaps with 'consciousness' and it's effects on reality.

>> No.15268754

>>15268750
>The OP suggested that reality does not exist.
So your entire braindead argument is that you don't like the hyperbole of this popsoi title? Ok, but what does it have to do with our discussion? I'm not OP. Are you too severely retarded to even remember what we were talking about?

>> No.15268756

>>15268754
What have I not explained correctly?

>> No.15268759

>>15268756
I guess you truly are on the margins of sentience. Here's what you said:
>>15268638
> you can measure the components of reality
This is nonsense and the fact that scientists create models and predict things doesn't make it any more true.

>> No.15268775

>>15268759
The fact scientists create models depends on a stable reality. The measurements would have no meaning otherwise. Reality exists because we can measure it. We can measure mass, constitution, orientation, velocity, direction, what ever you like, of an object. If we both took measurements, independently of each other, we would get the same results. We can conclude that what ever we were measuring is real because we just measured it and got the same results. It's axiomatic. I would concede that measurements do get more abstract the smaller the scale. When we get to those scales we need to remember that we cannot know something has happened unless it has been observed. It is not something being observed makes something happen.

>> No.15268784

>>15268775
>we cannot know something has happened unless it has been observed
that's true at any scale

>> No.15268792

>>15268775
You can know many things have happened without observing them. For example, you know for a fact that your mother and father must've had intercourse in order to produce you, even if you didn't observe it. (Barring your adopted).

>> No.15268803

>>15268792
True. Going back to 'models that predict things' the only thing I can predict with 100% accuracy is that I exist.
Though that said, I'm pretty damn sure (99.99999%) I required a mother and father to perform intercourse. Hopefully, you didn't observe my conception either and we would both independently conclude the same result.

>> No.15268813

>>15268775
> models depends on a stable reality.
Cool vacuous babble. Nothing to do with the discussion.

> you can measure the components of reality
This is nonsense and the fact that scientists create models and predict things doesn't make it any more true.

>> No.15268833

>>15268813
I'm not sure what to make of this.
I've explained a way to determine if something is real based on empirical evidence and comparative, repeatable measurements.
You accuse me of being 'schizo', yet you're the one struggling with determining what is real or not.

>> No.15268834

>>15268833
> you can measure the components of reality
This is nonsense and the fact that scientists create models and predict things doesn't make it any more true.

>> No.15268842

>>15268834
So, something we can both observe and measure independently is not real?

>> No.15268846

>>15268842
> you can measure the components of reality
This is nonsense and the fact that scientists create models and predict things doesn't make it any more true. How do you know something is a "component" of reality? What does it even mean for something to be a "component" of reality, you braindamaged pseud?

>> No.15268869

>>15268846
Reality is a perception. A component of reality is anything we can measure, higher accuracy is achieved through repeated independent measurements from different people. That's the model I'm using to determine if something is real or not. You'll find it has very high accuracy in it's predictions.
If you want to call reality a lie agreed upon that's OK. There is room for discussion there.
If you want to say anything real cannot be determined to be real were going to end up in a long circular argument resulting in pure solipsism.

>> No.15268878

>>15268869
>A component of reality is anything we can measure
Where did you get this pants-on-head-retarded idea? I can measure the number of people that love you (zero). Is that somehow integral to reality?

>> No.15268881

>>15268869
"A component of reality is anything we can measure"

That's the issue, you can't measure anything below the planck-scale.

Moreover, quantum theory tells us that a measuring device is a quantum system, subject to quantum uncertainties. Therefore a more precise measurement requires a device with more degrees of freedom, and thus more mass. So, as I upgrade my lab to make my device more precise, its mass grows to the point where gravity again creates a black hole, destroying my lab and measurement.

So, by your definition, "reality" at its most fundamental actually isn't reality.

>> No.15268885

>>15268881
Fuck off, retard.

>> No.15268889

One of his core arguments is that he has proven that mathematically that evolution is guided by fitness payoffs rather than reality, and that the chance of our perception representing reality is precisely 0%.

I don't know how one would calculate these things, or what it even means. I don't think there is any novelity in the statement that our perception doesn't represent reality, that is pretty much the core understanding everyone arrives at. The leap from that to the idea that perception is completely disonnected from physical reality seems silly.

>> No.15268893

>>15268659
this. idiots below cant move beyond basic naive scientism2hnjh

>> No.15268894

>>15268889
>I don't know how one would calculate these things
He's a """cognitive psychologist""". That's the extent of his education. That should tell you all you need to know about your mathematical abilities and expertise in evolution.

>> No.15268897

>>15268894
his mathematical abilities*

>> No.15268906

>>15268878
Yes...

>>15268881
I never said reality has been or even could be fully measured, as I said in an earlier post abstraction will always be an issue.
Your prediction seems pretty good, you've determined logically a limitation and predicted what would happen under a given situation. The thing is, we know the black hole will happen. We also know what caused it. We also know that knowledge at the quantum level is far from complete.

>> No.15268909

>>15268906
>Yes...
You are genuinely mentally ill.

>> No.15268913

>>15268909
OK...

>> No.15268917

>>15268913
Ok. Since we both agree that you have no scientific education and no grasp on "reality", maybe you should stop posting.

>> No.15268920

>>15268889
what would be the 'true' representation of reality?

>> No.15268921

>>15268917
No...

>> No.15268940

>>15268921
Yes... you shouldn't be posting here if you're both clinically retarded and so delusional that you think the measurement of zero people loving you has some explanatory value for the fundamental workings of "reality".

>> No.15268955

>>15268691
>>15268673
>literally everything wrong with the pseudoreligious bullshit that is modern "science"

>> No.15268963

>>15268906
> I never said reality has been or even could be fully measured.

So you've invalidated your previous claim.

Remember, you said "reality is anything we can measure". So your claim that reality can't be fully measured necessitates that the stuff which can't be measured not be reality, and that which can't be measured definitely exist, according to your own statement, yet we just can't measure it.

So even though it exist, it's not reality per (you).

You've contradicted yourself with this illogical statement.

> The thing is, we know the black hole will happen. We also know what caused it.

Your claim of what reality is has nothing to do with causes, or what will happen.

> We also know that knowledge at the quantum level is far from complete.

Aside from this being an assertion, it again has nothing to do with the qualifier you've proposed to demarcate reality from not reality.

>> No.15269003

>>15268878
If you can measure it then it is reality. Are you stupid? Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question. You are stupid.

>> No.15269006

>>15268955
How about you learn epistemology, retard? Both of those posts are factually true.

>> No.15269010

>>15269003
>If you can measure it then it is reality.
Only in the sense that it reflects some aspect of a state of affairs that no one has any direct access to. What does it have to do with your claim about measuring "components of reality", cretin? I can circle an arbitrary blob in a picture. Is that "component of the picture" in any useful or meaningful sense?

>> No.15269039

>>15269010
I did not make any claim. I'm not that poster. I'm only here to point out that you're a pseud and a retard who doesn't know shit about science. Observable reality exists and you cannot argue against this fact.

>Only in the sense that it reflects some aspect of a state of affairs that no one has any direct access to
Absolutely cringe and peak midwit. Unwarranted philosobabble without any depth and without any information content. Please choke on your onions milk.

>> No.15269044

>>15269039
>Observable reality exists
I don't know what this babble is supposed to mean. I was merely calling him out on this retarded statement about measuring "components of reality". To call something a "component" of something else is to imply that the latter can be decomposed into the former. Decomposing your measurements into some "components" is not equivalent to decomposing "reality" itself, and either way, the statement that everything that can be measured is a component of reality is braindead.

>> No.15269050

>>15269039

> Observable reality exists and you cannot argue against this fact.

Again, what is reality?

Also, are you not the anon who previously claimed that reality is "anything we can measure? I'm not sure why you would rebuttal my response as if you were if you are in fact not.

>> No.15269055

>>15269044
>everything that can be measured is a component of reality
how is that a controversial statement? i sort of get your criticism of the usage of the word 'component', although it's a bit pedantic. if we ignore that, it seems like just a true statement. how could something be measurable, yet not be a part of reality?

>> No.15269058

>>15269055
>i sort of get your criticism of the usage of the word 'component'
Ok. Then what don't you get?

>how could something be measurable, yet not be a part of reality?
If by "reality" you simply mean "whatever there truly is", no strings attached (in terms of implicit metaphysical assumptions), and by "part of" you mean "corresponds to something in some way", then sure. A completely vacuous and perfectly true statement that doesn't collide with Hoffman's claims.

>> No.15269060

>>15269044
You're too autistic to understand natural language. First you got confused by "models of predictability", now you're confused by "components of reality". Dude, you have some serious disability making it impossible for you to maintain a conversation with non-disabled people.

>> No.15269061

>>15269060
You are a nonhuman element.

>> No.15269062

>>15269006
Are you projecting? Have you actually studied epistemology or philosophy yourself?
Philosophers tend to epistemologically define science as "objective truth" or reality to make a functional distinction between nomos (human experience, metaphysics) and physis (nature, physics) for the sake of unhindered philosophical discourse. A convention used for simplifying philosophical discussion doesn't make the claim "science = objective truth" factual. Furthermore, the scientific process - the process by which we create idealized models that vaguely represent reality based on our understanding of our subjective observations - only produces facts, laws, and theories insofar as they confirm our observations, which can't be objective unless you're able to completely eliminate any and all bias from the observer. To claim any human observer is capable of unbiased observation is either naïve, arrogant, or both.

>> No.15269064

>>15269061
>autistic screeching

>> No.15269066

>>15269064
Crawl back to your hole, cretin. I'm bored with you and there are other people here more interesting than you.

>> No.15269067

>>15269055

>How is that a controversial statement?

Aside from the fact that this is a mere assertion as to what reality is, there are things we objectively can't measure.

> How could something be measurable, yet not be a part of reality?

How can something that objectively exist yet simultaneously not be measured considered not reality?

Secondly, this claim doesn't define what reality is.

You are merely saying "everything that can be measured is a component of reality"

Yet, you are not actually making a claim of what reality is. Your merely saying that anything which can be measured is a component of "reality".

Which again, you've never defined.

So if you can't define reality how do you know that that which can be measured is a component of the "reality" you've failed to define?

>> No.15269074

>>15269050
>Again, what is reality?
Read Langan's CTMU if you want to know.
>Also, are you not the anon who previously claimed that reality is
I'm not.

>> No.15269076

>>15269066
You are upset because I said the truth.

>> No.15269079

>>15269076
I'm bored because I BTFO you here >>15269044 and you can't respond beyond crying and whinging that I'm a silly meanie who dun you a baddie.

>> No.15269080

>>15269067
>there are things we objectively can't measure
yes, but the statement "everything that can be measured is a component of reality" doesn't deny that.

>How can something that objectively exist yet simultaneously not be measured considered not reality?
if X is not measurable in any sense, then X cannot reasonably be considered real. can you provide an example of something that you think exists, yet is completely unmeasurable?

>> No.15269085

>>15269079
Your inability to understand simple sentences is not my problem.

>> No.15269086

>>15269074
there is nothing to learn from langan the pseud fraud

>> No.15269088

>>15269080
>the statement "everything that can be measured is a component of reality" doesn't deny that.
The only interpretation of that statement that can be said to be correct is one that's basically equivalent to "it is what it is". Sure, someone having measured someone is part of the extant state of affairs. This doesn't contradict Hoffman.

>> No.15269089

>>15269086
You will never understand reality. Have fun staying ignorant.

>> No.15269090

>>15269085
Your clinical subhumanity is not my problem. Cry harder. My point stands completely undisputed.

>> No.15269092

>>15269089
you will never be free! haha!

>> No.15269094

>>15269090
Cope

>> No.15269095

>>15268409
If my body is just an icon how can I get everyone to perceive me as looking like John Hamm?

>> No.15269097

>>15269092
Neither will you. You will eat the bugz and live the pod.

>> No.15269098

>>15268894
Yes, but I don't think his claims would stand up to scrutiny even if he was a mathematician claiming these things. They are simply far beyond math and science at a fundamental level, this is purely in the realm of speculative philsophy. And this is what I have a problem with, because these ideas he has are not novel in philosophy, he just has wild conclusions and claims about it.

What annoys me in his interviews is the arrogance more so than his theories, he is extremely confident in his views for unexplainable reasons other than psychotic narcissism.

>>15268920
I don't think it makes sense to take reality and assume there is a 'true representation'.

>> No.15269099

>>15269097
to clarify, your will will never be free. as in, you don't have free will. haha

>> No.15269101

>>15269098
>I don't think it makes sense to take reality and assume there is a 'true representation'.
such a thing is implied when one asserts that us humans are not perceiving reality "as it truly is"

>> No.15269102

>>15269098
>I don't think his claims would stand up to scrutiny even if he was a mathematician claiming these things.
As far as reminding you that your synthesized "reality" is not real in any meaningful sense goes, he's still right. Too bad he then goes into pseudbabble about evolution in a desperate bid to sound "scientific".

>> No.15269104

>>15269101
Well, no, retard. It could also imply that representations of reality are not reality itself -- a simple point NPCs can't fathom for some reason.

>> No.15269105

>>15268409
All reality-deniers are welcome to walk off my roof, I'll even pay you $20

>> No.15269108

>>15269104
that's just a rephrasing of the same thing. both distinguish an ontology from an epistemology

>> No.15269109

>>15269099
Your eleutherophobic drivel doesn't affect my free will.

>> No.15269113

>>15269108
>that's just a rephrasing of the same thing.
Are you literally retarded? To maintain that no representation is a true representation, because a representation is never the thing it represents, is not to maintain that there is a true representation.

>> No.15269114

>>15269080
> yes, but the statement "everything that can be measured is a component of reality" doesn't deny that.

Doesn't deny what? That there are things that we objectively can't measure?

Ok, I agree with that, but that's not the point of the debate, nor does it define / demarcate reality.

And secondly, you are shifting the goalpost from the previous claim of "anything that can be measured is reality".

> If X is not measurable in any sense, then X cannot reasonably be considered real. can you provide an example of something that you think exists, yet is completely unmeasurable?

Anything below the planck scale.

Likewise, we can not accurately measure every parameter of a subatomic particle.

So you need to define "completely unmeasurable", what is "completely"?

If completely means every parameter of a particle then look no further than quantum mechanics.

>> No.15269115
File: 749 KB, 1151x1149, determinists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15269115

>>15269099
here is a comic about you

>> No.15269116

>>15269088
hoffman's theory, as with all other idealist theories, are only falsifiable after death. so it will just linger around forever, being neither proven or disproven. what i can guarantee, is that no idealist theory will ever advance or benefit humanity in any practical manner whatsoever. no new technology will ever come out of an idealist theory. although, it's a mentally comforting idea for some people, i suppose that's some kind of a benefit.

>> No.15269118

>>15269113
yes it is.

>> No.15269119

>>15269118
You are mentally ill.

>> No.15269120

>>15269062
>Are you projecting?
No.
>Have you actually studied epistemology or philosophy yourself?
Yes.
>only produces facts, laws, and theories insofar as they confirm our observations
Or refute them. Those are the most valuable factual observations.
>which can't be objective unless you're able to completely eliminate any and all bias from the observer. To claim any human observer is capable of unbiased observation is either naïve, arrogant, or both.
That's why we use measuring devices. Those are objective and unbiased.

>> No.15269122

>>15269116
>hoffman's theory, as with all other idealist theories
Stopped reading. You are clearly mentally ill and my point stands completely undisputed. Ignoring all further posts from you.

>> No.15269123

>>15269115
>he thinks that because we believe everything is determined, that we're automatically content with every outcome

>> No.15269130

>>15269123
>scenario 1: you willingly give bike to a somebody
>scenario 2: some minority takes your bike
The outcome of both scenarios is the same, you have no bike, yet scenario 2 will make you much more upset than scenario 1. Why?

>> No.15269136

>>15269118
no, it isn't. "reality" has to interact with itself to create any kind of "representation" through measurement. this can never give you a complete picture. the eyes can't see themselves, the tongue can't taste itself, so to speak

>> No.15269139

>>15269114
>Doesn't deny what? That there are things that we objectively can't measure?
yes
>Anything below the planck scale.
we don't know if such a thing exists. it's wise to doubt the existence of such a thing until or unless it can be observed.
>So you need to define "completely unmeasurable", what is "completely"?
i was just using the term loosely. i prefer 'observed' rather than 'measured'

we could be "but we could all be brains in vats!" level of skeptical every time we observe something, but that doesn't really help anyone. it's impossible to test whether you're a brain in vat. you can believe that you are, but i'm not sure why you would want to really.

>> No.15269145

>>15269130
because i wanted to keep my bike in scenario 2

>> No.15269147

>>15268409
I hate this clickbaity language. It doesn't mean reality doesn't exist, it means it exists in a way different than originally imagined.

>> No.15269150

>>15269147
It means reality, as anything concrete and determinate that humans can comprehend, doesn't exist.

>> No.15269158

>>15269145
Is there a difference in the two outcomes though?

>> No.15269159

>>15269136
>this can never give you a complete picture
that doesn't follow
> the eyes can't see themselves, the tongue can't taste itself
they can. it seems you think the 'truth' needs to be somehow 'interaction-free', but i'm not sure why. seeing and tasting are processes which necessarily entail interactions. something being 'interaction-free' doesn't mean it has ontological privilege because of that. interaction =/= deception

>> No.15269162

>>15269158
most likely. and?

>> No.15269163 [DELETED] 

>>15269159
absolute zero comprehension. lol

>> No.15269167

>>15269162
what's the difference?

>> No.15269170

>>15269167
in one i'm happy and a friend has my bike, in another i'm angry and a stranger has it

>> No.15269175

>>15269159
a "true" representation is not a representation but a perfect duplicate of the thing itself, retard. do i really need to explain why it's absurd to assume reality can contain its own duplicate?

>> No.15269177

>>15269170
Why are you angry?

>> No.15269180

>>15269170
I didn't say friend, I said "somebody". Presumably if you gave it to a Goodwill you would still be happier than if it just got stolen
(the actual answer of course is that in scenario 1 you lost your bike in accordance with your own will and in scenario 2 you didn't)

>> No.15269183

>>15269175
> do i really need to explain why it's absurd to assume reality can contain its own duplicate?
The interval (0,1) has the same cardinality as the set of all real numbers. I do not want your explanation because I already proved you wrong.

>> No.15269186

>>15269175
>a "true" representation is not a representation but a perfect duplicate of the thing itself
a perfect duplicate can reasonably be called a representation, by any reasonable judgement.

>> No.15269187

>>15269175
the phrase "14 0's" seems like a true representation of "00000000000000" to me

>> No.15269189

>>15269183
>>15269186
>>15269187
holy shit, you are legitimately disabled

>> No.15269190

>>15269177
>>15269145

>> No.15269191

>>15269180
i'm glad you said will, and not free will. that was crucial. we are thus in complete agreement.

>> No.15269195

>>15269191
What is the difference between will and free will?

>> No.15269197

>>15269195
will = i desired X
free will = i desired X, but i could have desired Y, Z, etc... instead

>> No.15269198

>>15269197
> i could have desired Y, Z, etc
what does that mean?

>> No.15269200

>>15269195
The difference between NPC cattle and true humans.

>> No.15269201

>>15269198
what it sounds like. the idea that things could have been different than they actually were (a completely unjustified assumption).

>> No.15269203

>>15269159
You seem to think that the sun shines before you were born and after you die. I'm not disputing that the sun is something that exists independent from you, but you don't know what that thing is, only how it appears to you and others who agree with your model of whatever independent reality is.

You see, when scientists say ''objective/independent from the observer'', they falsely pretend to speak of something ''interaction-free''. Scientists need to drop that pretense and stop misleading the public. Like that self-contradicting pretentious Lawrence Krauss says: if current scientific knowledge is lost, then future scientists will come to the wrong conclusion that our galaxy is the only one, because other galaxies will be too far gone to observe. A pretentious scientist like him doesn't seem to be aware how ironic his statement is.

>> No.15269204

>>15269203
Why are do you write cretinous replies on other posters' behalf?

>> No.15269205

>>15269201
What do you mean by "could have" though?

>> No.15269206

>>15269203
>You seem to think that the sun shines before you were born and after you die
of course it does. when you die, the sun will keep shining on the faces of others. denying that is bizarre.

>when scientists say ''objective/independent from the observer'', they falsely pretend to speak of something ''interaction-free''
false. scientists know what ontology is vs what epistemology is.

krauss is lame (because he believes quantum mechanics is fundamental)

>> No.15269208

>>15269203
Pseud post. No relevant content.

>> No.15269209

>>15269208
You probably wrote it yourself after getting completely BTFO.

>> No.15269214

>>15269206
Quantum mechanics + consciousness is fundamental though.

>> No.15269227

>>15269197
literally nobody defines free will this way

>> No.15269228

>>15269206
>>15269208
Name-calling is not an argument. You don't seem to want to build a shared understanding. You seem only interested in repeating your own perspective and ridiculing others. What kind of person does that and what are you hoping to achieve with that attitude?

>> No.15269229

>>15269228
>You seem only interested in repeating your own perspective and ridiculing others. What kind of person does that
Not those retards, but... just how new are you?

>> No.15269243

>>15269139
> yes
Ok.
> we don't know if such a thing exists. it's wise to doubt the existence of such a thing until or unless it can be observed.
Space is continuous, so there must be something below the Planck scale.
> i was just using the term loosely. i prefer 'observed' rather than 'measured'.
Tomato / tomato
>we could be "but we could all be brains in vats!" level of skeptical every time we observe something, but that doesn't really help anyone. it's impossible to test whether you're a brain in vat. you can believe that you are, but i'm not sure why you would want to really.

I'm not being "brains in a vat" level of skeptical at all, in fact, I think I'm applying a relatively conservative amount of skepticism to the claim that "reality is anything that can be measured".

And again, there are things which we know objectively exist that can not be observed.

>> No.15269252

>>15269101
No, not at all. A representation is the model of something in your mind. To assume there exists a universal frame of reference for this goes beyond even philosophy, it is entering religious territory.

>>15269102
I don't think he is right even with that basic premise, it assumes idealism to be true.

>> No.15269253

>>15269252
>I don't think he is right even with that basic premise, it assumes idealism to be true.
You're absolutely deranged.

>> No.15269265

>>15269253
Not an argument, sweaty.

>> No.15269267

>>15269265
"X is wrong because idealists live rent-free in my head" is not an argument, either. lol

>> No.15269270

>>15268409
>Stupid bait picture
check
>Stupid bait theory
check

thread is on the same level as simulation theories, doesnt change jack shit

>> No.15269294

>>15269205
the idea that if we were to somehow rewind time, that it could have happened that way instead.

>> No.15269298

>>15269214
no sir

>>15269227
they do, it's the libertarian definition, arguably the most popular definition of free will. ergardless of popularity though, that is the only definition of free will i personally care about

>> No.15269300

>>15269243
>Space is continuous, so there must be something below the Planck scale.
how does the continuity of space entail sub-planckian structures?

>> No.15269302

>>15269252
there must be universal truth, a dogma that binds us all, because we are all existing in the same reality.

>> No.15269311

>>15269302
>his point
>...
>...
>...
>...
>your head

>> No.15269318

>>15269298
>they do, it's the libertarian definition, arguably the most popular definition of free will
surely you can cite an example of this definition in the wild

>> No.15269319

>>15269294
you're still using the phrase "could have" in your circular definition

>> No.15269322

>>15269318
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/otherwise.html

>> No.15269327

>>15269319
i don't know how else to say it. i don't care if you want to attack free will anyway, because i don't believe in it, and enjoy attacking it myself.

>> No.15269333

>>15269327
On some level you must think the notion of "could have" has meaning since you are using it repeatedly

>> No.15269340

>>15269333
of course, it's pretty easy to understand what is meant, i'm not sure why you're not understanding it. they think that for any decision made, they didn't have to make that decision.

>> No.15269346

>>15269340
do you disagree with the notion of possibility period? Like if you're about to flip a coin, it is not the case that it could be heads and it could be tails?

>> No.15269348

>>15269228
this. Reading most of this thread made me cringe so hard. Instead of providing anything of value or adressing points this dude just throws just around phrases like 'schizo-babble' and 'pseud-babble' without providing any usefull information.

IMO this board has lower quality discussions then /fit or /pol. Just a bunch of seething know it alls.

>> No.15269352

>>15269322
acknowledged, thangs

>> No.15269358

>>15269346
yes.

>> No.15269365

>>15269358
Do you agree with "it is either definitely going to be heads, or it is either definitely going to be tails, but it's impossible to know which one"?

>> No.15269367

>>15269365
yes.

>> No.15269371

>>15269367
Can you explain the difference between the two perspectives without invoking time travel?

>> No.15269417

>>15269371
yes. for example "i am now choosing chocolate over strawberry, but i don't have to" vs "i'm choosing chocolate over strawberry, and i have to"

>> No.15269438

>>15268409

I do research in visual perception and this are my thoughts on the points mentioned in his wikipedia entry:

1: IMO it is almost certain that the perception all living things possess is shaped by maxxing a fitness function. For instance, imagine you could see sound or electro magnetic waves in addition to your normal perception. Perceiving this does not add any value for your survival and only adds noise which will finding food harder.
However, I don't see how this is related to consciousness at all.

2: I also don't think that the reality we perceive is absolute. Meaning, that object properties which can be perceived by our senses are not necessarily all properties of the object (for example radiation). Hence, it is possible that some objects have properties that we can not perceive and haven't thought about measuring yet.

I think the reality which we perceive is a model of a more complex environment in which we exist. However, our model is still reality and not only a projection of our
consciousness , since we can interact with objects.
For example, if I move an object (a rock for instance) from the coordinates x,y,z to x',y',z'. You can confirm that the new coordinates without seeing me moving it.

Not sure how his ideas are remotely close to solving the hard problem.

>> No.15269444

>>15269417
I'm talking about the coin scenario specifically. You do not believe in >>15269346 but you do believe in >>15269365. I'm asking you what the difference is between the two scenarios in a way which doesn't invoke time travel -- so as to avoid this >>15269294 position, which is self-defeating

>> No.15269453

>>15269444
>which is self-defeating
how is it so? again, that's the position of free will defenders

>> No.15269454

>>15269453
>again, that's the position of free will defenders
It's your position.

>> No.15269457

>>15269454
no, i don't believe that we would do any differently if time were rewound, they do.

>> No.15269482

>>15269453
The stated difference between the two scenarios is that (WLOG) in Scenario A, "IF YOU COULD somehow rewind time, the coin could have flipped heads" but in Scenario B, "IF YOU COULD somehow rewind time, the coin would always flip tails". But there is no such thing as "could rewind time". Either somebody will eventually rewind time and re-inspect my coin flip, or they will not. Are you postulating that somebody in the future will rewind time and re-inspect my coin flip?

>> No.15269484

>>15269482
>Are you postulating that somebody in the future will rewind time and re-inspect my coin flip?
no, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a fact of the matter as to whether events are necessary or not. there has to be a fact of the matter.

>> No.15269488

>>15269457
You're the one creating this scenario in the first place. It's your argument.

>> No.15269494

>>15269484
So -- to be clear -- you would disagree with the statement "somebody will rewind time and re-inspect my coin flip", and by your personal conception of could, this means you disagree with the statement "if somebody could rewind time and re-inspect my coin flip". Then the definition of possibility in >>15269294 is vacuously true, since the antecedent is false.
Or, if you don't accept that kind of logical implication, there's still the problem that the only distinction between Scenarios A and B is an additional impossible hypothetical -- which does not to me seem to be a distinction at all.
That's what I meant by self-defeating. I have no idea what this "fact of the matter" business you're on about is.

>> No.15269504

>>15269488
nope. it's strange how you think you can call me out on something like this. there is a fact of the matter irrespective of how weird you think it is.

>>15269494
i reject this faulty line of reasoning. you're inventing a new argument which isn't mine.

>I have no idea what this "fact of the matter" business you're on about is.
everything that happens, had to happen in the way that it happened. this has to be either true or false. it's not very hard to understand.

>> No.15269512

>>15269504
>there is a fact of the matter irrespective of how weird you think it is.
>everything that happens, had to happen in the way that it happened. this has to be either true or false. it's not very hard to understand.
This is actually the most braindead argument for your position possible. You're essentially saying that what you believe is unscientific and can't be proved, because you're afraid to acknowledge the experiments that disproved determinism physically by proving the indeterminate nature of future events.

>> No.15269514

>>15269512
i already told you that determinism can't be proven or disproven.

>experiments that disproved determinism
no such thing. not possible.

>> No.15269518

>>15269504
>i reject this faulty line of reasoning.
What part specifically do you reject?

>> No.15269525

>>15269514
>no such thing. not possible.
Your mind is feeble and your cope is as well. A deterministic universe would require that quantum mechanics never violates Bell's Inequality, yet it does.

>> No.15269531

>>15269525
>A deterministic universe would require that quantum mechanics never violates Bell's Inequality
completely false.

"It has since been repeatedly demonstrated that it requires only minute violations of Statistical Independence to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics locally and deterministically"

>> No.15269533

>>15269531
>we only have to slightly play pretend to believe what we want
Yeah ok anon, cope some more if you like. You're still going to have to take responsibility for your place in life.

>> No.15269539

>>15269533
definitely not. we don't control anything, ultimately.

>> No.15269543

>>15269539
It always comes back to this loser mentality. You believe in determinism because you're afraid to admit your life could have been different if you were stronger.

>> No.15269557

>>15269543
it's the realist mentality. not wandering off into fairy tale land fantasising about other imaginary worlds, instead sticking with the one real world we have. besides, i would guess that determinists such as sabine and sam harris have more celebrity and money than you have, so your argument about success fails anyway, aside from being irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

>> No.15269563
File: 89 KB, 490x586, 1600746756820.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15269563

>it's the realist mentality. not wandering off into fairy tale land fantasising about other imaginary worlds, instead sticking with the one real world we have. besides, i would guess that determinists such as sabine and sam harris have more celebrity and money than you have, so your argument about success fails anyway, aside from being irrelevant to the truth of the argument.
Imagine wasting time arguing with these creatures.

>> No.15269610

>>15269539
still waiting for you to answer >>15269518 buddy

>> No.15269753

>>15268409
This guy is kinda right but he's full of copium and is a bit of an idiot.
>so Hoffman if consciousness is fundamental why in the fuck would it choose to experience getting burned alive for eternity what possible valuable lesson could it learn from this?
>hmm you see it's like a child at a candy store it wants to know everything thats why.

>> No.15269771

>>15268561
Then where does the subject come from?

>> No.15269776

>>15269771
>his point
>...
>...
>...
>...
>...
>your head

>> No.15269784

>>15269776
where do I come from? why do I exist? "im fundamental" isn't an answer.

>> No.15269791

>>15269784
See >>15269776. Your braindead response has no bearing on the truth of what he said.

>> No.15269800

>>15269753
>This guy is kinda right
Any idea that is fundamentally unfalsifiable is about as "kinda right" as pure coincidence. Which, for epistemology, means "100% wrong".

>> No.15269805

>>15269800
sure there is no evidence, but assuming consciousness is fundamental, what the fuck that really means, he doesn't seem to comprehend what this means, that this unified conscious thing (deliberately?) chooses to experience suffering.

>> No.15269806
File: 55 KB, 640x729, 352433252.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15269806

>Any idea that is fundamentally unfalsifiable is about as "kinda right" as pure coincidence. Which, for epistemology, means "100% wrong".
deformed

>> No.15269824 [DELETED] 

>>15268409
>jews shilling jewish shills
>every single day
>24 hours a day
>for years on end

>> No.15269850

>>15269791
>my skin is blue, why? because I fundamentally look blue.

>> No.15269859

>>15269806
wojack posters should be banned 4ever from this time-space dimension.

>> No.15269865

>>15269850
What does your schizophrenic reply even have to do with what I said?

>> No.15269874

>>15269865
I'm sorry maybe I misunderstood something.
anon here >>15268561 is saying that reality is a product of our mind/s right? so it's the good old muh consciousness is fundamental bullcrap

>> No.15269881
File: 28 KB, 640x516, 1678661524131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15269881

>>15269859
Based.

>> No.15269882

>>15269874
>anon here >>15268561 is saying that reality is a product of our mind/s right?
He is saying that nothing you can know of, can conceive of, can reason about, can talk about, is independent from your mind.

>> No.15269893

>>15269882
bad wording on anon then. the second sentence doesn't make sense given the first one. it implies idealism not "but you cant experience reality if you can't simulate it in your head"

>> No.15269896

>>15269893
Your language model is broken.

>> No.15269901

>>15269896
maybe or maybe anon has a stick up the representation of his ass about the way he chooses to grammatically verbalize his thoughts.

>> No.15269906

>>15269901
Or maybe you're a poorly programmed bot. He correctly points out that there is no reality to speak of that is independent from the mind. It's a completely vacuous hypothetical.

>> No.15269910

someone should get him on a podcast with Chris Langan

>> No.15269911

>>15269906
doesn't matter, if you failed to communicate effectively that's on you.
here is another anon that also understood it the same way I did >>15268596
its not just me

>> No.15269915

>>15269911
If he failed, how come I understood what he said while you consistently spout retarded nonsquiturs no matter who you reply to?

>> No.15269923

>>15269915
im not saying that I don't have poor reading comprehension. but if anon fails to communicate in a clear manner that's less vague and less likely to be interpreted incorrectly then that's on the communicator not the reader/listener since the listener with poor hearing/reading is going to fuck up but the communicator has a choice, so its on him.

>> No.15269927

>>15269923
See? No matter how basic a post is, your primitive language processor can't grok it and your predictive model can't shit out even a GPT-2 level response. Dumbest bot ITT.

>> No.15269928

>>15269910
that would be too much idiocy in one place

>> No.15269932

>>15269927
you keep saying that and keep getting frustrated at why people don't understand you. maybe if you changed the way you talked people would misunderstand you less. but no! they need to get on my level!

>> No.15269933

>>15269932
You're so excruciatingly dumb you apparently can't tell apart different posters even when it's made explicit.

>> No.15269937

>>15269933
im talking in general, too lazy to distinguish, the message is clear, communicate effectively. for whom ever is reading.

>> No.15269941

>>15269937
Let's play a game: I'll link to a sample of the lowest IQ posts ITT and you tell me how many of them are (You).

>>15269080
>>15269099
>>15269108
>>15269136
>>15269191
>>15269340
>>15269484
>>15269805

At least 90% of these are you, aren't they? I literally just picked the dumbest ones. What does that tell you?

>> No.15269943

>>15269805
>sure there is no evidence, but assuming consciousness is fundamental, what the fuck that really means, he doesn't seem to comprehend what this means, that this unified conscious thing (deliberately?) chooses to experience suffering.
I get that you're trying to highlight an internal inconsistency but I'm telling you that it does not matter due to ad hoc rescue devices. Similar to the principle of explosion. Every argument ever proposed that begins with "I'm right cuz I say so" is a falsehood, and therefore anything can follow from it. That is why, upon examination, no idea with that premise ever makes sense unless you assume first by faith the premise of the idea is correct merely due to being stated. Any sense in it is ad hoc by definition.

So it does not matter if any given speaker proposing the idea makes sense to you, because ANY internal contradiction can be "explained away" on an ad hoc basis as there are infinitely many equally nonsensical explanations that can all follow from "I assume I'm right therefore" due to the principle of explosion. Since it is premised on a contradiction with reality in the first place, yet claims to argue about reality, it is perfectly consistent with that inconsistency for said consciousness to "choose to experience suffering". Because it's an ad-hoc choose your own adventure. Hopefully you understand, now, why any "internal critique" of any system from nonsense is a fools errand. There can't be an internal critique of a system premised on incoherence.

>> No.15269958
File: 39 KB, 729x259, Screenshot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15269958

>>15269941
lol you're just a paranoid schizo aren't you?
as for the comment anyways yea im generally lazy and don't usually communicate properly arguably way worse than this retard >>15268561

>> No.15269960

>>15269958
LOL @ you editing it in Paint. You're even dumber than I imagined.

>> No.15269971

>>15269958
>tard thinks people edit fake screenshots in paint instead of changing the text directly
at least accuse me with changing the text elements you dumb cunt. but no you won't do that won't you? you'll just keep at your paranoid delusions.

>> No.15269973

>>15269971
>at least accuse me with changing the text elements
You weren't smart enough for that which is obvious from your poorly edited screenshot.

>> No.15269975

>>15269958
Reading that post you're calling retarded I genuinely cannot figure out why he thinks that, since the brute fact of self experience is not a presupposition. One does not "assume" one's experience is in fact being experienced as one is experiencing it in that instant. One may classify that the experience other people have can be made into a presupposition but that is not necessary either (as it may be inferred).

I can only imagine he got that from religious "presuppositionalists" like Van Til or some other group of people motivated to try and make their beliefs sound justified by making every belief sound equally hollow.

>> No.15269977

>>15269973
joke's on you, dumbass. i actually did change the text elements

>> No.15269983
File: 14 KB, 464x401, cringe12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15269983

>>15269977
Uh huh. The joke sure is on me.

>> No.15269984

>>15269973
Yes clearly I'm the one who wouldn't know how to do that. keep at your paranoia, must be a tiring miserable life.

>> No.15269987

>>15269977
>>15269984
>the absolute state of your schizophrenia
You even changed the way you write between the posts. Seriously unhinged.

>> No.15269988

>>15269977
fuck off troll

>> No.15269989

>>15269977
This literally wasn't me

>> No.15269996

>>15269987
im gonna stop replying to you after this, as much as I like to interact with schizos so I could marvel at their obscene ability to distort reality it gets tiring like super quick. but I do worry anon so please do make sure to take your meds daily.

>> No.15270002

>>15269996
Why did you admit to something and immediately contradict yourself?
>inb4 it wasn't me
Ok. Why is the post where you contradict yourself the only time when you capitalize and use apostrophes where they belong? Or is this (>>15269984) not you, either? LOL. I'm seriously concerned about you.

>> No.15270006 [DELETED] 

>>15269996
What an embarrassing concession you made.

>> No.15271530

>>15268485
What successful scientists weren't either idealists or mentally disturbed?

>> No.15271533

>>15271530
Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

>> No.15271538

>>15271533
>not an idealist
The man likely listens to Lennon's Imagine ten times a day.

>> No.15271592

>>15269195
There is no way anyone has come up with to differentiate acting as if free will were real versus an illusion. All your thoughts, decisions, and actions are going to happen one way. To you it seems like everything you did was a matter of your freely made choices. And, they were in a way, but those free choices are only going to turn out one way that was determined by initial conditions.

>> No.15271615

>>15269346
> it is not the case that it could be heads and it could be tails?
No. That particular flip was always going to be the result you observed.

>> No.15274583

>>15268409
Anytime I hear reality isn't there I get very suspicious. Like its a sign that guy wants that "wooow!" factor to me and honestly, it really doesnt matter to if reality is projection, process on someones pc or hologram on my ass, it still dictates everything for us. I think there is just something degenerate about these types of ideas.

>> No.15274598

>>15274583
As you should. You're quite right of course, the ontological assertions people make are completely irrelevant unless and until they can be demonstrated to be true. These people just get upset and perform mental backflips the second they're challenged to do so, and invariably adopt any/all schemes or methods to claim they are somehow exempt. Don't know how more clear anyone could signal "I'm a snake oil salesman" than that.

>> No.15276754

>>15268596
and?

>> No.15277008

>>15268497
Hoffman is a pseud and Retardo Kastrup is a wannabe cult leader who hangs out with Deepak Chopra

>> No.15277657

>>15276754
pathetically stupid idea.

>> No.15277661

>>15271530
most of them.

>> No.15277664

>>15271615
Do you agree that the probability of getting heads is roughly equal to the probability of getting tails and much bigger than the probability of landing on its side?

>> No.15277670

>>15268963
>So you've invalidated your previous claim. Remember, you said "reality is anything we can measure".
Yes and this remains true.
I never said we've measured everything or discovered everything we can measure. We couldn't measure atoms at one point, they still existed and it is possible to measure them.
Remember what I said before about 'you cant know something has happened unless it has been observed. Being observed does not make something happen.