/kc/ - Krautchan

diaspora of krautchan unite

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(23.21 KB 226x346 xlnezh.jpg)
Reality - the most important subject Bernd 02/28/2019 (Thu) 09:48:13 [Preview] No. 23481
Below you will find the extraction from the book of David Deutsch, "The fabric of Reality", which feels very appealing to my taste. What do you think about our ability to comprehend Reality in general, or about the book, if you've read it?

Now I return to the question I posed in the previous chapter, namely whether, if we had only a virtual-reality rendering based on the wrong laws of physics to learn from, we should expect to learn the wrong laws. The first thing to stress is that we *do* have only virtual reality based on the wrong laws to learn from! As I have said, all our external experiences are of virtual reality, generated by our own brains. And since our concepts and theories (whether inborn or learned) are never perfect, all our renderings are indeed inaccurate. That is to say, they give us the experience of an environment that is significantly different from the environment that we are really in. Mirages and other optical illusions are examples of this. Another is that we experience the Earth to be at rest beneath our feet, despite its rapid and complex motion in reality. Another is that we experience a single universe, and a single instance of our own conscious selves at a time, while in reality there are many. But these inaccurate and misleading experiences provide no argument against scientific reasoning. On the contrary, such deficiencies are its very starting-point.


Bernd 02/28/2019 (Thu) 13:56:39 [Preview] No.23484 del
(1.08 MB 1240x869 serveimage.png)
(3.06 KB 349x34 image.png)
say it loud


Bernd 02/28/2019 (Thu) 18:32:06 [Preview] No.23495 del
>>23481
>important
By how much? People lived just fine for thousands of years (hundreds of thousands of years) without a doubt the Earth is stationary. Maybe knowing the "real" laws only matters to some extent - for example to the level we could satisfy our basic needs - and beyond that it's just luxury. Also it probably matters to a certain level to make interactions between people easier, so they know they talk about the same things, and so on. But then, are we real? Ar other people real? Am I real? Can we be sure? This goes a long way.
Didn't read the book, generally I keep myself far from philosophical books. I learned some, have pals with such degree, and enjoy giving some thought to questions like how? or why? but beyond that, naw don't want to spend that much time with it.


Bernd 03/02/2019 (Sat) 07:39:49 [Preview] No.23509 del
What would be a man's worth? What is the measure of human worth? What makes someone more valuable than others? What makes less?


Bernd 03/03/2019 (Sun) 09:41:32 [Preview] No.23529 del
>>23495
>By how much?

I'd say it's the only thing that matters. Yes, people haven't known that the Earth is moving for a long time, but for that time they've been absorbing another kind of knowledge about the world. Knowledge is growing wider and deeper constantly, and it doesn't matter if we don't know something at the moment, what matters, is the tendency to learn about the outer world, about the inner world, about reality in general. Existence eagers to cognize itself.
I believe, no matter what kind of knowledge one gets, it's about reality, even if one doesn't realize it. In that sense, I agree, that "important" sounds incorrect here.


About free will Bernd 03/04/2019 (Mon) 04:30:38 [Preview] No.23553 del
(24.66 KB 590x228 p11-05.jpg)
Subjectively, the future of a given observer may be said to be "open from that observer's point of view" because one cannot measure or observe one's own future. But openness in that subjective sense does not allow choices. If you have a ticket for last week's lottery, but have not yet found out whether you have won, the outcome is still open from your point of view, even though objectively it is fixed. But, subjectively or objectively, you cannot change it. No causes which have not already affected it can do so any longer. The common-sense theory of free will says that last week, while you still had a choice whether to buy a ticket or not, the future was still objectively open, and you really could have chosen any of two or more options. But that is incompatible with spacetime. So according to spacetime physics, the openness of the future is an illusion, and therefore causation and free will can be no more than illusions as well. We need, and cling to, the belief that the future can be affected by present events, and especially by our choices; but perhaps that is just our way of coping with the fact that we do not know the future. In reality, we make no choices. Even as we think we are considering a choice, its outcome is already there, on the appropriate slice of spacetime, unchangeable like everything else in spacetime, and impervious to our deliberations. It seems that those deliberations themselves are unchangeable and already in existence at their allotted moments before we ever know of them.


Bernd 03/04/2019 (Mon) 06:40:35 [Preview] No.23555 del
>>23529
>Existence eagers to cognize itself.
Now this is an interesting thought. With a spin The Creation is God's self reflection.
Probably more later, back to reality. It's safe to say for up to this point whatever we think we know about reality it seems to be wrong and everything will turn out to be wrong. They are just temporary realities. Still what we do based on what we know seems to be working mostly. Maybe because this virtual-reality puffer.
Or do we shape reality? Since we are the perceivers there is no outside factor to tell us what is objective reality and what is our subjective one. Reality is what we think it is at that moment. So reality can change depending on us.
This may be leads to the question of truth and/or facts. Good scene in the tv-show Northern Exposure.


Bernd 03/04/2019 (Mon) 07:17:08 [Preview] No.23559 del
>23555
>It's safe to say for up to this point whatever we think we know about reality it seems to be wrong and everything will turn out to be wrong. They are just temporary realities.
Yes, there is a concept that knowledge is static by it's nature, when reality is fluent, inconstant, like a plant. Hence, knowledge always fails to graps reality, it just never keeps the pace. The same for the truth, it's eluding.
>Or do we shape reality?
I don't thing there is a difference between "us" and "reality". Reality embraces everything, even "unreal" things, it doesn't need to be real, to be real.
>Good scene in the tv-show Northern Exposure.
I didn't watch it, what scene?


Bernd 03/04/2019 (Mon) 09:00:06 [Preview] No.23560 del
>>23553
So if free will is only an illusion, then, if someone were to commit murder, it would not have been his choice. He was only doing what everyone else is, namely actualizing his predetermined outcome (though this is not an argument against locking him up). If everyone is fulfilling their own outcomes, is it unfair to praise the best of men while condemning the worst of men?


Bernd 03/04/2019 (Mon) 10:20:11 [Preview] No.23561 del
>>23560
>So if free will is only an illusion, then, if someone were to commit murder, it would not have been his choice. He was only doing what everyone else is, namely actualizing his predetermined outcome
Correct.
>though this is not an argument against locking him up
In that way "locking him up" is predetermined too.
>If everyone is fulfilling their own outcomes, is it unfair to praise the best of men while condemning the worst of men?
Praising, feeling of unfair, condemning - all of if is predefined too.

But I'd rather use "defined" than "predefined", because if every outcome already exists, it mean, there is no "pre-", everything just is as it is.


Bernd 03/04/2019 (Mon) 14:24:55 [Preview] No.23562 del
>>23509
The idea of human worth is something I've personally come to consider a selfish idea. What makes our lives worth more than the animals we kill for food, or the flies and spiders we casually kill around our houses? The typical argument would probably be because we are more intelligent, more sentient or something along those lines, but those concepts are only considered valuable by humans. Of course, the real reason we value ourselves above other animals is simply an instinctual desire to preserve our own species. Other animals also have this innate desire, and there is nothing wrong with it. But I think people would be better off simply accepting our own nature rather than trying to make excuses as to why we're somehow objectively more valuable than another species.


Bernd 03/04/2019 (Mon) 17:33:41 [Preview] No.23568 del
>>23562
The definition of worth, within that context, is pretty fluid. Most humans see other humans as worth more than animals because they can empathize more with a similar being. But a solitary human might value their pets more than most humans because of their emotional value. Or someone in a specific field might see certain rare animals as more valuable than the 7 billion strong species that inhabits every continent. People determine worth by placing it on top of an idealized standard. Worth matches their view of a better world, or at least one that makes sense.

People's definition of worth seems to imply a certain goal that they would like to reach to along with a certain personal philosophy/ideology. Issues arise when said philosophy inevitably undergoes revision or outright replacement. When that happens a person starts to see their past progress towards earning "worth" as null and then their shit gets messy. They cling to ideas that are contradictory towards their new perspective, or they start to view their environment and relationships with a disdain that didn't exist before despite acting the same, or they don't see the rationality in their own feelings, or they hate their older selves and try to overcompensate for "lost progress", etc.


Bernd 03/05/2019 (Tue) 06:53:43 [Preview] No.23590 del
>>23559
>I didn't watch it, what scene?
Well the villagers gathers to talk about "Russian flu" which plagued the settlement and they ended up in serious discussion with the doctor about the difference between truth and facts. Which is eternal which is changeable and such.
Good show. Worth watching the first few seasons. It went on Hungarian tv great many years ago and dl'd it once too.


Bernd 03/05/2019 (Tue) 07:16:07 [Preview] No.23592 del
>>23590
I see, thanks.


Bernd 03/05/2019 (Tue) 17:50:41 [Preview] No.23595 del
>>23553
>according to spacetime physics
Well, call me when they prove they are right by predicting the future.
This is my opinion: if we look forward to the future we see possibilities, if we look back to the past we see determinism. Sometimes I also joke that an event (like the odds of the result of a dice roll) is 100% we just don't know about it yet. Otherwise I always considered this question a pointless one, unworthy of debating. I think it's better to believe we have free will, from a societal viewpoint absolutely.

>>23562
>>23568
I can agree with these. How about introducing such concepts as vices and virtues, basically classical étalons?


Bernd 03/05/2019 (Tue) 21:10:54 [Preview] No.23598 del
(1.64 MB 694x1417 kot-blini-real.png)
It all ends with the question "what is reality?". Can anyone answer to this without using another axiomatic term? It is also intermixed with concept of existence that couldn't be described too.

And also imagine that someone experiencing himself as a live person while being a product of someone's dream (or computer simulation, or whatever) - what will be called "reality" for him?

>Another is that we experience the Earth to be at rest beneath our feet, despite its rapid and complex motion in reality.

But Earth is resting beneath our feet. At least my feet, when I'm standing still. Fully stationary Earth and universe moving around it is valid scientific concept that doesn't contradict any law of physics. Just put point of origin onto Earth and everything is ok. Only question is why put it there but not on Sun or center of galaxy or some other distant thing. But why not? These positions are equivalent, at least in terms of modern physics.

Or it is universe (including Earth) is moving around me. Or around you, if you like that. It doesn't matter.

>>23562
>worth

Discussion about worthiness could only exist when some goal exists. Or some absolute thing that can be used for measuring (like concept of god or some ultimate entity).


Bernd 03/06/2019 (Wed) 06:40:07 [Preview] No.23599 del
(1.51 MB 1280x533 JS5rXZRv.webm)
>>23598
>What is reality?

Look at this question, it means there is you (subject), asking (process) about reality (object).

How about this kind of answer, reality is totality of all subjects, processes and objects? Which means, when you're asking about reality you implying you're out of it, because reality can't ask about reality itself, as it doesn't "know" anything at all. If it knew something about reality, it would mean there was something else besides reality, but that's a contradiction, because reality embraces everything without exception. Actually, I'm committing the same crime along these lines, as you can see.

The conclusion is, we can't talk about reality without being contradicting. I don't think it's a bad thing, but rather demonstrates we can't be logical, discussing reality.

>But Earth is resting beneath our feet. At least my feet, when I'm standing still.
Sure, that's another very interesting question of choosing a reference point. So, why should we prefer one reference point over another? The answer the book gives, is simplicity. If we chose the model where the Sun was stationary and the planets were moving around it, that would give us a more simple theory to explain the observations.
You may be asking, "but why should we prefer more simple and elegant model over another one?" The only (and a very unsatisfying) argument I can see here is it is more practical.


Bernd 03/10/2019 (Sun) 09:42:17 [Preview] No.23659 del
(136.26 KB 723x525 putin-sun.jpg)
>>23599
>How about this kind of answer, reality is totality of all subjects, processes and objects? Which means, when you're asking about reality you implying you're out of it, because reality can't ask about reality itself, as it doesn't "know" anything at all. If it knew something about reality, it would mean there was something else besides reality, but that's a contradiction, because reality embraces everything without exception. Actually, I'm committing the same crime along these lines, as you can see.

Hmm, yes, you are right here.

But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly? I don't know.

>So, why should we prefer one reference point over another?
>If we chose the model where the Sun was stationary and the planets were moving around it, that would give us a more simple theory to explain the observations.
>You may be asking, "but why should we prefer more simple and elegant model over another one?" The only (and a very unsatisfying) argument I can see here is it is more practical.

Having Earth as reference point is much more practical for many things, from navigation to human interactions. Stationary Sun model is less practical I guess, although it has some advantages over Earth model. But people still love it, mostly for historical reasons, and because when that model was created, Sun was considered stationary (and still stays like this in mind of masses).


Bernd 03/10/2019 (Sun) 17:10:18 [Preview] No.23663 del
>>23659
>But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly? I don't know.
This is the main problem with philosophy. It always ends in this.


Bernd 03/13/2019 (Wed) 07:28:08 [Preview] No.23697 del
(38.91 KB 600x603 x.png)
>>23659
>But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly?
Philosophy has been looking for the answers to the very same questions for ages now, and the final answer has been never found. The same applies to physics, the deeper physicists go, the more discouraging answers they find. So, should we stop? I don't think so, for some reason the problem of reality seems to be very attractive, and even we're sure there is no obtainable answer, it's fun to ponder about it. At the end, this kind of activity is as pointless as any other one.

>Stationary Sun model is less practical I guess, although it has some advantages over Earth model.
Sure, if we considering only interaction of the Earth and the Sun, it doesn't matter which is moving and which is not (actually, it would be impossible to determine). But since there are other celestial bodies moving around, the more elegant theory to explain than movement is the one with stationary Sun. Of course, that kind of knowledge is totally irrelevant if you're just traveling from one city to another. If your journey is relatively short, you don't even need to consider the shape of the Earth, you can assume it's flat.

>>23663
>This is the main problem with philosophy. It always ends in this.
True. But there is a small detail. Unable to find the answer, a philosopher obtains some side-answer (which seems to be negligible at the first glance).
I know that I know nothing, but the others do not even know that.


Bernd 03/13/2019 (Wed) 16:26:02 [Preview] No.23698 del
>>23697
>At the end, this kind of activity is as pointless as any other one.
You are very persuasive, I'm convinced.


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 09:36:25 [Preview] No.23871 del
(18.94 KB 500x500 4472a8c75691dc.png)
Every existing object has a cause. If we try to unwind this sequence of causes, we'll get to the beginning of the Universe. But what was the cause of that beginning?
If we accept the Big Bang theory, that means we agree that space-time, nonexistent previously, started to exist. The problem here, as you can see, we can't tell neither where that happened (there wasn't space before), nor when it happened (there wasn't time either).
So we've got an interesting problem here, existence have to have a cause (because existence exists), but the cause can't be found within existence itself (because as we demonstrated above, the cause of existence is out of space-time). Hmm...
What could be the source of existence? As you can see, that was non-existence. Because, when there is existence, it means there is no non-existence. And vice versa. I can't tell these two are reasons of each other, but rather one leads to another. Both make the sequence, which embraces everything that can and can't be thought of, but what about thinker? Is he within the sequence, or out of it?


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 11:53:11 [Preview] No.23873 del
>>23871
>What could be the source of existence? As you can see, that was non-existence.

"We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

And although you weren't implying this, I would like to add that the Big Bang Theory is in no way a refutation against God, in fact, it was formulated by a Catholic priest: Georges Lemaître.


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 13:18:20 [Preview] No.23877 del
>>23873
>We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.
I see a problem here, look. An object can only exist, because if it doesn't exist, there is no object we could perceive directly. This misunderstanding arises from our believe into equality of object and our recollection of that object.

That's also the way we misunderstand Time. Because of memory we think there is Past. We extrapolate Past into the other way and that way we invent Future. But what if we stick to Now only? Then an object exists (if it's perceived), or doesn't exist, (if it isn't perceived). And if we can't perceive an object which we don't have recollection of, there is essentially no object to speak about. In that case we don't even know that we don't know about some object.

>that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing
What is an object? Would you agree that it's some amount of matter configured in some specific way? Thus, we can tell two objects are differ if they have different configuration of matter. Talking about existence I meant rather that matter than fleeting objects formed with it. And of course, once matter exists, it configuration is constantly changes, that's why we experience causality of events. But what about the matter itself? Where it came from?

>Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
I don't think God is being, because "to be" means "to exist", which means to obey the causality principle. But what if God is another name for non-existence?


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 19:40:18 [Preview] No.23883 del
>>23871
Well that's the good old "nothing is nothing, not even nothing" problem. Quite exciting.
There was God who emanated so make it possible for self-reflection.


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 19:47:15 [Preview] No.23885 del
>>23883
Eh I made a mistake. It's: "nothing isn't nothing, not even nothing". In English it sounds weird.


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 19:56:19 [Preview] No.23886 del
>>23885
>nothing isn't nothing, not even nothing
Sounds good!


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 20:00:11 [Preview] No.23887 del
>>23886
It's a semmi sem semmi, még a semmi sem in Hungarian.
Also I think mathematics differentiate between 0 and nothing.


Bernd 03/19/2019 (Tue) 23:13:23 [Preview] No.23903 del
>>23877
>I see a problem here, look. An object can only exist, because if it doesn't exist, there is no object we could perceive directly. This misunderstanding arises from our believe into equality of object and our recollection of that object.
If existence requires perception, what about that which is perceived yet does not exist (I'm thinking of illusions, hallucinations, or even phantom limb syndrome because the brain registers a limb but reality doesn't)?

>What is an object? Would you agree that it's some amount of matter configured in some specific way? Thus, we can tell two objects are differ if they have different configuration of matter. Talking about existence I meant rather that matter than fleeting objects formed with it. And of course, once matter exists, it configuration is constantly changes, that's why we experience causality of events. But what about the matter itself? Where it came from?
Note that in the argument the word used was things not objects. The definition of object as some amount of matter configured in some specific way could be debated, but this is avoided here since "things" generally encompasses more than what is material. The argument implies that everything, except God, is contingent; this includes matter, energy, and even abstract things like truth, beauty, value. "God does not depend on anything, but everything other than Him depends on Him." And God's existence is an integral part of the casuality principle. Casuality requires a first mover, a cause which is "put in motion by no other", otherwise we would have a infinite regress of causes:

"It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

Sidenote: Motion as understood in this argument means any kind of change (motion), not just material change.


Bernd 03/20/2019 (Wed) 06:47:52 [Preview] No.23913 del
(49.96 MB 1280x720 1st_tier_knowledge.mp4)
(15.04 MB 720x720 2nd_tier_knowledge.mp4)
>>23887
>mathematics differentiate between 0 and nothing
That's interesting, I didn't know that.

>>23903
>If existence requires perception, what about that which is perceived yet does not exist
Great question! And may I assure you, there is no way to find out whether the object exists or not, without us conducting some experiments and perceiving the results of it. It's easy to demonstrate with a phantom limb. Yes, one feels a limb is there, but when he looks at it, he sees nothing. When he touches it with his arm, he feels nothing. So, the man thinks, "OK, one of my senses tells me the limb is there, but many other sense tell me the limb is not there. I assume, the first one sense tricks me."
A similar investigation will be conducted in case of illusion, or hallucination. And if I don't know whether the object I see is real, or not, I will ask others about it. And if they say that can see it too, I'll assume it is there.

So, there are generally two ways to obtain knowledge:
1. We perceive objects with our own senses.
2. We believe in concepts which we receive from others.

Pt. 2 seems to be a second hand tier knowledge, but even the pt. 1 bears its flaws. We know that perception is unreliable, and our trust in feels is just practical and can't be used to find out the truth. And the most depressing thing is, there is no other channel of information about the outer world for us.

>>Causality requires a first mover, a cause which is "put in motion by no other", otherwise we would have a infinite regress of causes
Exactly! That's why the "first mover" can't be found within existence. If "the first mover" was there, that would imply he had to have a cause too, agree?
And non-existence to the rescue here, because unlike any existing object, non-existence does not require any cause for itself to exist, simply because it does not exist. And if we accept that non-existence and God are synonyms, wouldn't that make God even greater in our eyes? Look:
- God is the only source of all ever existed thing.
- God doesn't exist so, God can be own cause, and outcome, own alpha and omega.
- God doesn't need to exist, yet God makes it possible for everything to exist. And God absorbs everything at the end.
- God can't be comprehended.
- God is constant, it doesn't change.
- God is more than eternal, because God is the source of space and time.

And look, one doesn't have to be a religious man to proclaim all that points, those are sequential to the pondering about non-existence.


Bernd 03/20/2019 (Wed) 22:25:19 [Preview] No.23930 del
>>23553
>But that is incompatible with spacetime. So according to spacetime physics, the openness of the future is an illusion, and therefore causation and free will can be no more than illusions as well.

It is debatable. Mainstream interpretation of quantum effects explains some of these effects by using truly undetermined and random values. So, if physics are right here (there are plenty of oppose views though), we can have real unpredictability in universe. And if these micro-scale effects can influence our consciousness (also debatable though), we have free will. Penrose supports this, for example, although quantum effects may be too small to change the way how neurons work etc.


Bernd 03/20/2019 (Wed) 22:49:46 [Preview] No.23931 del
>>23873
>that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist;
>But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not.

Aquinas may be wrong here. We think that everything must need a cause, and with that axiom everything ends in some primordial and/or absolute being, that may be called god.

But is there are requirement for reason and cause? What prevents something to occur without cause? We have empiric knowledge that this couldn't happen (i.e. we just never seen thing that have no cause), and some shady mathematics that says that conservation law works and you can't get anything from nothing. All these things are made in our universe using our concepts of space and time. But you can't fully describe system while being part of that system. Things outside of the system may have different concepts that allow events to happen without cause, because it is related only for our concept of time that may not exist "outside".

In other words: something may just occur from nothing spontaneously and it is ok, although completely impossible from our point of view.


Bernd 03/21/2019 (Thu) 00:57:56 [Preview] No.23932 del
>>23913
>That's why the "first mover" can't be found within existence. If "the first mover" was there, that would imply he had to have a cause too, agree?
Well, "in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence." Non-existence, by its nature, can not be this being because it is nothing; it can't "contain within itself the reason for its own existence" because it does not exist. God, in comparison, is pure actuality and is therefore non-contingent.

>There is no way to find out whether the object exists or not, without us conducting some experiments and perceiving the results of it.
To go back to the question of does existence require perception: if I a saw a lone man, I would know that he has a mother and a father, and I would further know that his mother and his father both have parents and so on for their parents. Once we affirm the existence of something by directly perceiving it, if we obey casuality, we can know the existence of further thing(s), those being the thing(s) which caused the original thing to exist. Doesn't this bring us back to the argument of contingency?


Bernd 03/21/2019 (Thu) 01:02:03 [Preview] No.23933 del
>>23931
I didn't see this reply as I was finishing my other reply. I'll respond to this tomorrow.


Bernd 03/21/2019 (Thu) 05:23:10 [Preview] No.23935 del
>>23932
>in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence
Yeah, that's the main point we're arguing about. You think there is a special case, when the cause can dwell within its reason (God), when I think the reason must always be out of the result. Frankly, I can't prove one of these. Maybe you just pick one and see where it leads you.

>Doesn't this bring us back to the argument of contingency?
Tough question.


Bernd 03/21/2019 (Thu) 14:17:12 [Preview] No.23940 del
>>23931
>Things outside of the system may have different concepts that allow events to happen without cause, because it is related only for our concept of time that may not exist "outside".
This is a concept I've thought about in the past. Aquinas makes a convincing argument if we view it from the laws of our own universe, but what about from the views of a different one? Maybe our universe was created by another universe with different laws of logic, where there was no "beginning" and the law of causality doesn't exist? Many people believe we were created by ayylmaos or that we're living in a computer simulation etc., so maybe that this could work as an argument for those ideas.


Bernd 03/21/2019 (Thu) 18:44:44 [Preview] No.23953 del
(791.28 KB 1280x533 lb.webm)
Do you remember when you realized you exists for the very first time?


Bernd 03/21/2019 (Thu) 19:20:25 [Preview] No.23960 del
>>23953
I'm not even sure I do.


Bernd 03/21/2019 (Thu) 23:16:08 [Preview] No.23969 del
(25.49 MB 640x360 .mp4)
>>23935
>Yeah, that's the main point we're arguing about.
I was trying to make clear why I don't think God is a synonym for non-existence.

>Frankly, I can't prove one of these. Maybe you just pick one and see where it leads you.
Yes, it's not in the realm of science to prove because it isn't within the universe; all we can do is juxtapose the positions and see which seems about right.

>>23931
>Something may just occur from nothing spontaneously.
I'm familiar with this argument, and as said above, this isn't in the realm of science to disprove. Why I favor the existence of a God as to not is because I think it takes greater faith to believe that from nothing came something than that from something came something (video partially related).


Bernd 03/22/2019 (Fri) 04:59:42 [Preview] No.23971 del
(1.18 MB 640x360 stuvq.mp4)
>>23969
>I was trying to make clear why I don't think God is a synonym for non-existence.
Well, at least, that would be boring if we agreed on everything.

>that video
I extracted a part of it from the very beginning (attached). I think, the priest is wrong there, because what both science and religion are trying to do, is to explain the world. Philosophy is reaching for the same fruit too. But those disciplines are differ in methods.

Religion: Here is the ultimate explanation, some great people have produced already, you just trust, take and use it as is. Do not think, just believe.
Science: The world is unknown, but we can make theories about its qualities and conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theories. We don't think the theories represent the ultimate truth, they just explain the world as best as it possible at the moment.
Philosophy: The world is unknown, but we can try to explain it, using mind. Since our senses are unreliable, mind is the only tool we have.

Sometimes the verge between those is vague, like with Buddhism, where part of the knowledge is given as is (sutras — mediate knowledge), but some of it an adept should get for himself (meditation — direct knowledge).

Why do we have all three methods (religion, science, philosophy), instead of just one? Because none of those works for everyone. And it's not about people who inherited their views from parents or surrounding, but about those who is sincerely trying to understand, what's "life", "me", and "why I'm here". There are people, who try to find the answers with science, and being unsatisfied, turn away to religion. There are opposite examples too.


Bernd 03/22/2019 (Fri) 05:56:54 [Preview] No.23972 del
>>23960
You're not sure you exist? That implies existence of someone who is unsure, right?


Bernd 03/22/2019 (Fri) 06:26:09 [Preview] No.23973 del
>>23969
>I was trying to make clear why I don't think God is a synonym for non-existence.
How about "unknown" then? But not like something that unknown just now and can be revealed in future, but absolutely, fundamentally "unknown"? Unknown to that extent that it's even impossible to say whether this "unknown" exists or not?

Now, be careful to disagree, because that would imply your intent to make God cognizable.


Bernd 03/22/2019 (Fri) 06:38:20 [Preview] No.23974 del
>>23972
>You're not sure you exist?
How can you? There are so many possible explanations philosophers and fiction writers can come up why our existence is questionable it's not even funny.
>That implies existence of someone who is unsure, right?
No that implies the nonexistence of existence.


Bernd 03/22/2019 (Fri) 11:15:29 [Preview] No.23978 del
23974
>No that implies the nonexistence of existence.
But existence can only exist, otherwise that's not existence. The same way non-existence can't exist by definition.
But what about the one who ponders about both existence and non-existence? To know existence he should be non-existent, and to know non-existence, he should exist.
Ergo, one must neither exist, nor non-exist, right?


Bernd 03/22/2019 (Fri) 17:36:58 [Preview] No.23986 del
>>23978
No those are just human concepts. Without us none of it matters as it didn't matter before us and won't after us. So in a way not existence nor nonexistence exists not neither.
Thread theme band:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=-5ODYjt_5-k [Embed]


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 04:26:09 [Preview] No.23989 del
>>23986
It means humans are a concept too. In your opinion, is there anything that is not a concept?


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 09:39:09 [Preview] No.23992 del
The truth is that all of these philosophies are false and only serve to weaken your mind and bring misanthropy.
The only truth is in the Holy Bible.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 09:40:18 [Preview] No.23993 del
>>23913
By the way, the entire "sheeple" meme is only to attack those who believe in God, referred to lamb or sheep. What we should use is GOAT.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 10:20:51 [Preview] No.23994 del
>>23989
I have no opinion. For me this topic has very marginal importance and I think I could easily agree or reject any kind of ideas about it. I don't feel bound by my own previous statements neither (this doesn't mean much anyway, anybody can change his mind for whatever reason).
I'd rather throw in something from the "practical" side of the question of reality and existence.
Let's say there is this person, Joe Smith, he did deeds which might classify as interesting or real achievement for the general opinion, something which raise him above the great grey average. He meets Peter Jones who doesn't know his deeds, and gains and impression of him.
First impressions are very important they can decide how we view a person for a long time and only repeated witnessing of the other's deeds can destroy this picture we created - some are less prone to create these boxes to fit in other people (or these boxes are more elastic or changeable), some more, but we all do.
So Peter Jones will think that our Joe is something, he will have a verdict on him, and he might think he isn't capable of doing those things he did. Then later they talk and Joe says he did this thing, and Peter won't believe him, he would think he is lying and bragging about nothing, trying to build a reputation he does not deserve. Maybe those things Joe did cannot be proven easily or at all. There's no documents or witnesses about it or very hard to find. Were those things real? Were those things real only for him? For Peter they sure aren't. And won't be until he witnesses the capabilities of Joe.
Some people say they don't care what others think about them. Opinions of others don't matter. Let's say James Taylor is such a person. He also has achievements others might be jealous of. And Peter says he doesn't believe him, or he's a liar. But James go on with his life without wanting to prove anything. But Peter doesn't stop poking at him and starts to interrogate him why he doesn't reply, why he doesn't prove his words are true (now let's not judge Peter's overinflated self-importance). What would James do? If he really is indifferent about Peter's opinion he isn't obligated to talk about his motivation of ignoring his demands. Most people, who has this claim and loud about it, adopted this attitude to stop people criticizing them, to stop hearing negative feedback. However those who really don't care will let praise too fly by their ears. They are confident in their own reality and doesn't feel the need to conform to what others try to build.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 10:25:06 [Preview] No.23995 del
>>23993
I don't think so. While priests can be seen as herders and the followers as herd this metaphor isn't specific enough to claim it's just for them. Priests are also compared to fishermen why noone memes with "fishle"?


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 10:47:51 [Preview] No.23997 del
>>23995
It specifically refers to all Christians, priests or ordinary followers. There's no hierarchy (sheeps, herders, lords, etc.) here.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 10:48:49 [Preview] No.23998 del
>>23997
(also, why do I have a Spanish flag now?)


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 10:56:09 [Preview] No.23999 del
>>23997
Nope. Sheeple is about those people who can be told what to think, who follow the "herders" mindlessly. Usually used in politics.

>>23998
Posting on endchan.org goes through cloudflare. Use .xyz and you get your flag correctly. Mostly. If you don't use proxy or VPN.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 11:00:15 [Preview] No.24000 del
>>23999
>Sheeple is about those people who can be told what to think
Which is why I say it's a mockery of Christianity. Specifically using the term "sheep" rather than "goat".


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 11:55:33 [Preview] No.24001 del
>>24000
Cattle is also used. Especially when referring to the elite living off the people. This nothing has to do with Christianity either. Just like sheeple.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 11:57:09 [Preview] No.24002 del
>>24001
I know. I'm specifically referring to the use of "sheeple" in that manner.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 13:08:09 [Preview] No.24005 del
>>23992
C'mon dude, that's not the way one makes a serious statement.

>>23994
>They are confident in their own reality and doesn't feel the need to conform to what others try to build.
Sounds wonderfull, thanks for the answer.

>>24000
>goat
Then Satanists can feel offended instead. It's hard to please every creed.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 14:07:44 [Preview] No.24006 del
>>24005
>C'mon dude, that's not the way one makes a serious statement.
<serious statement
<C'mon dude
Dropped.
>Then Satanists can feel offended instead. It's hard to please every creed.
Please not the Satanists. If anything, we should do everything to DISPLEASE them.


Bernd 03/23/2019 (Sat) 21:41:19 [Preview] No.24009 del
>>24006
Your behaviour isn't very Christian you know. You write all haughty when you should be humble. You show the arrogance of Pride when you should be tolerant out of Patience.
On the other hand, appealing to authority, like how you did it with the Bible, is very Christian. And Communist (muh Das Kapital, muh Little Red Book of Mao). And Nazi (muh Mein Kampf). And Muslim (muh Koran). And all the other book cults.


Bernd 03/31/2019 (Sun) 05:30:43 [Preview] No.24123 del
(103.01 KB 520x800 img.jpg)
Whether a mathematical proposition is true or not is indeed independent of physics. But the proof of such a proposition is a matter of physics only. There is no such thing as abstractly proving something, just as there is no such thing as abstractly knowing something. Mathematical truth is absolutely necessary and transcendent, but all knowledge is generated by physical processes, and its scope and limitations are conditioned by the laws of nature. One can define a class of abstract entities and call them "proofs" (or computations), just as one can define abstract entities and call them triangles and have them obey Euclidean geometry. But you cannot infer anything from that theory of ‘triangles’ about what angle you will turn through if you walk around a closed path consisting of three straight lines. Nor can those "proofs" do the job of verifying mathematical statements. A mathematical "theory of proofs" has no bearing on which truths can or cannot be proved in reality, or be known in reality; and similarly a theory of abstract "computation" has no bearing on what can or cannot be computed in reality.

So, a computation or a proof is a physical process in which objects such as computers or brains physically model or instantiate abstract entities like numbers or equations, and mimic their properties. It is our window on the abstract. It works because we use such entities only in situations where we have good explanations saying that the relevant physical variables in those objects do indeed instantiate those abstract properties.

Consequently, the reliability of our knowledge of mathematics remains for ever subsidiary to that of our knowledge of physical reality. Every mathematical proof depends absolutely for its validity on our being right about the rules that govern the behaviour of some physical objects, like computers, or ink and paper, or brains. So, contrary to what Hilbert thought, and contrary to what most mathematicians since antiquity have believed and believe to this day, proof theory can never be made into a branch of mathematics. Proof theory is a science: specifically, it is computer science.


Bernd 04/02/2019 (Tue) 19:22:47 [Preview] No.24229 del
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5PgX8l9AgzE [Embed]


Bernd 04/02/2019 (Tue) 19:24:00 [Preview] No.24230 del
most people dont live in reality


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 10:44:18 [Preview] No.24240 del
(237.40 KB 1116x479 G53qfK0N.jpg)
(12.67 MB 640x360 3408172.mp4)
(117.05 KB 720x990 2f5a0b7129.jpg)
>>24229
That was interesting, thank you.

>The key is meant to open something that is locked
Sometimes if feels like a mockery.
If there is a key, that implies there should be the lock somewhere, right? But what if there is not? What if that's the Greatest Joke?

Why are people are made to be after all kinds of meaning? Life has to be dedicated to something: Money, Family, God, Truth, Peace, Love, Power — you name it. Every kind of meaning is advertised on every corner. Meanings, meanings, meanings, we are blinded with it. But why is it so dangerous to get rid of meanings?

>>24230
What if the "revealed reality" is just another layer of illusion?


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 12:32:24 [Preview] No.24243 del
>>24240
>But why is it so dangerous to get rid of meanings?

thats against crab/NPC programs
tho they can be reprogrammed


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 12:54:35 [Preview] No.24245 del
>>24243
>thats against crab/NPC programs
Maybe, but why?


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 13:04:28 [Preview] No.24246 del
>>24245
because normies want to be "cool"


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 13:20:47 [Preview] No.24247 del
>>24246
Why "normies" what don't want to be "cool" are dangerous/unwanted?


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 13:36:09 [Preview] No.24248 del
>>24247
tribalism

mess with the best or die like the rest -- normie proverb


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 13:40:38 [Preview] No.24249 del
>>24248
>mess with the best
It reads like, defy the greatest authority. Doesn't strike like a normie motto at all.


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 13:49:23 [Preview] No.24250 del
>>24249
maybe
i don't understand half of proverbs anyway


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 14:26:18 [Preview] No.24252 del
(122.02 KB 1280x720 293156.jpg)
>>24230
What do you think did he mean by that?


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 15:00:12 [Preview] No.24253 del
>>24240
Through all my research (thats a fascinating word in itself, re-search) ive come to the conclusion to use your own mind. We all are born to listen to our parents, then teachers, media, friends etc. Does it make sense? Is it logical? We are born to this world and think everything is normal because everyone else think so. And our parents this its normal because their parents did it to.

Your picture of the dollar bill is a good example. Money is really the biggest religion there is. Money is a belief system. Its based on faith (trust).

Your question about meaning and life is poignant because we arent really allowed to discover our true selves in this world. We exist to produce and consume. I've read accounts on native populations where they could sit and look at a lake for hours. The modern man would think, whats the purpose of that? Whats the meaning? Does it have to have a meaning? We are so blinded by our profit system.

This video is a bit more factual and less hippy

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XzBAFoCqtRc [Embed]


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 15:00:53 [Preview] No.24254 del
To the mods I would like a hat please thank you


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 15:01:21 [Preview] No.24255 del
preferably a sombrero


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 15:04:17 [Preview] No.24256 del
>>24252
Maybe he is eluding to reincarnation I dont know. Im very skeptical about reincarnation because its based on a slave system, the hindu religion and later other religions said that the upper classes deserved to be that way because they were good people and the slaves deserved it. Its a load of bollocks imo.


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 16:21:47 [Preview] No.24260 del
>>24253
>We all are born to listen to our parents, then teachers, media, friends etc. Does it make sense? Is it logical? We are born to this world and think everything is normal because everyone else think so. And our parents this its normal because their parents did it to.
Yes, we don't investigate for ourselves, but use that second-hand knowledge for granted.

>we arent really allowed to discover our true selves in this world
>allowed
But are we capable of? That looks suspicious too. Maybe the call to find out who you are is another trick, to inspire an illusion of meaning? "I'm not the body" solves easy, because body is perceived, thus there are two: the perceiver and the body. But when the perceiver tries to perceive the perceiver, what should be perceived?

>I've read accounts on native populations where they could sit and look at a lake for hours. The modern man would think, whats the purpose of that? Whats the meaning? Does it have to have a meaning? We are so blinded by our profit system.
Sounds great!

>https://youtube.com/watch?v=XzBAFoCqtRc
Thank you, I'm going to watch all those through.

>>24256
>Im very sceptical about reincarnation because its based on a slave system
There is a way to see life as a game (Lila), which turns both Karma and Nirvana into a joke.

>the hindu religion and later other religions said that the upper classes deserved to be that way because they were good people and the slaves deserved it. Its a load of bollocks imo.
Yes, that sounds like a way to justify the inequality. But what if one be born as a miserable in one life, a king in another, a sage then, a tree, and so on infinitely? Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you, remember? Would that explain (and reconcile) the whole thing?


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 19:27:23 [Preview] No.24270 del
>>24229
Looked into that video, but I won't watch it. Some stuff sounds cool but then there are stuff like him >>24240 cut from it and makes no sense or wrong, or even malicious fallaciousness.
This "trader is traitor" thing is so horribly wrong. Even the first sentence that when we buy and sell things we are traitors of humanity. How else would things get to their place of use if we wouldn't do that? Even if we would just put everything in a big pile from entirely altruistic reasons for others to take what they need in the end we would also gain something out of it since we also need things (items or services) that we can't provide to ourselves. And even we would profit from it because the worth of stuff can be a slippery thing to define, so maybe we would need goods which longer or harder to make what we produce, wouldn't we gain with such indirect exchange?
If we are living on an economical level which is bigger than a few households traders are goddamn essential. They are the ones who bring the goods from their production site to the place where they are put in use. If the producers would do that they wouldn't have time to produce. And basically everyone else is part of the production: some make sure the necessary skills are passed on, some make it possible for people to be able to work (help them to move their workplace or keep them healthy), some ensure they do it safely, etc. It can be argued how much traders should get for their service but it's sure they aren't traitors but necessary cogs in the wheel.
And billionaires aren't make people starve, on the contrary they allow many people to make more than enough to live. We are passed the times when capitalists kept the workforce just at the threshold of starvation, people are making several times of subsistence. There are some obvious exceptions, probably in China or Africa, but those also could be remedied I guess it would take more of political actions and corrections than economical. And again it also can be argued if billionaires should have all those wealth they don't really need but condemning them just like that is simply isn't correct.
Also someone who knows economy better would also argue: economy isn't a zero-sum game.


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 20:00:08 [Preview] No.24272 del
>>24270
The extracted video is about stock traders, which are utter parasites.
When one trades stocks and earns, that means someone else looses.
Trader-billionaire = common trader * K (where K is some big number).
And so on.


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 20:21:24 [Preview] No.24273 del
>>24272
>The extracted video is about stock traders
Not really no. They are part of it but the whole thing isn't about them.
This is the premise:
>When we buy and sell things we are traders of humanity because we are traitors.
He speaks not about stock brokers but about "we". Maybe my English isn't impeccable but I can understand it this much.
And even later in that piece he talks about general things and not specifically about stock broker related stuff.


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 21:00:08 [Preview] No.24276 del
>>24260
>Yes, we don't investigate for ourselves, but use that second-hand knowledge for granted.

There is also a big gap between the generations of people. Its easy to glorify the past. It was truly a horror show alot of the times. But you had a link, a connection with your parents, grandparents etc. Nowadays everyone gets their opinion from state sanctioned approved media that is telling them what to think, what to say. Pretty much everything that people think and say and act is implanted in their heads. There is very little original thought out there.
>>24260
>But are we capable of? That looks suspicious too. Maybe the call to find out who you are is another trick, to inspire an illusion of meaning? "I'm not the body" solves easy, because body is perceived, thus there are two: the perceiver and the body. But when the perceiver tries to perceive the perceiver, what should be perceived?
The question isn't if we are capable of it. Its about freedom, real freedom in your mind. About being sentient.

Reincarnation can mean alot of things really. It can simply mean to pass your genes off to your children. Then you (your genes) live again.


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 21:03:00 [Preview] No.24277 del
>>24270
Im not here to defend his videos. It was just an example out of many to widen the mind. What is language? Its just sounds we make, that we then have an image in our head about. Venetian Phonetician sound very similar doesnt it.

Once you really dive into the rabbit hole there is no way out of it.


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 21:04:24 [Preview] No.24278 del
>>24277
>Phonetician
phonecian


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 21:06:52 [Preview] No.24280 del
>>24276
one of the reasons normies were allowed to get ""education"" is bacause it was easier to brainwash them

you can't really brainwash someone who can't read


Bernd 04/03/2019 (Wed) 21:08:45 [Preview] No.24281 del
>>24280
Indeed and the bloody prussians are one of the culprits of the weapons of massinstruction


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 04:55:31 [Preview] No.24286 del
>>24276
>Pretty much everything that people think and say and act is implanted in their heads.
Can you see your own statement as an implanted knowledge too? Not only common people are brainwashed, but those from opposition too. That's where the real horror show reveals itself.

>There is very little original thought out there.
U.G. Krishnamurti used to give talks on the topic a lot. He claimed thought to be a destructive parasite of the body, sustaining own existence at any price. His teaching is known for its nonconformism, it's quite refreshing.

>Its about freedom, real freedom in your mind.
Tough topic. What if mind is a prison itself?

>Reincarnation can mean alot of things really. It can simply mean to pass your genes off to your children.
The whole Buddhism is build around the problem of escaping the reincarnation. If it was just about genes, I bet they would castrate every man whom could reach to already.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 05:43:15 [Preview] No.24287 del
>>24277
>Im not here to defend his videos.
Obviously, that would be the job of the videos' creator.
I's like to point out however one more problem with that particular video. All in all these are just wordplays. If this kind of "analysis" of the words would be true then why not picking a whole sentence and go through every word in it? Because he can't only a selected few words are eligible for this treatment, these are just wordplays, most of them aren't even mean anything.
>definition
>deaf Phoenician
See? Doesn't mean anything. Why not say "the finition" it's French for finishing.? Or "dolphinition" and claim the dolphins are manipulating our language So long and thanks for all the fish.

>>24280
I disagree. Manipulation (like brainwashing) works best with sounds and images, because it is more like the alteration of emotions, since humans are emotional beings, most people's most decision's based on emotions. Every good propagandist knows this. The Christian churches know (well, all Abrahamic religions), Hitler knew.

>>24276
>Reincarnation [...] simply mean to pass your genes off to your children.
That's quite a materialistic view on reincarnation.
A better one: you die and microbes makes your body into microbepoo which then plants use to build their own body and you become a tree.

>>24286
>Krishnamurti [...] claimed thought to be a destructive parasite of the body, sustaining own existence at any price.
He gave a lot of thoughts to this. Sounds like an expert.
The real knower of sins are sinners.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 07:24:33 [Preview] No.24291 del
>>24287
>All in all these are just wordplays.
Agree, but I think there is more to it. On the surface we can see the author makes some distinct propositions, but what is happening underneath? My guess is he's shaking the structure of common knowledge, showing people unknown/forgotten sides of objects that have become boring and well known. (The same thing happens when a wife surprises the husband with larping a maid, to make him again curious about her well known body).
I think that "flat earth" theory (which is ridiculous by itself), serves the same purpose, to "shake the boat", to make people question everything, even the basics.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 10:24:29 [Preview] No.24295 del
>>24286
>Can you see your own statement as an implanted knowledge too? Not only common people are brainwashed, but those from opposition too. That's where the real horror show reveals itself.
As lenin said the best way to control the opposition is to lead it. Thats why groups as so easily lead, just control the leader and you control the group.

"he was brought up by his maternal grandfather, a wealthy Brahmin lawyer, who was also involved in the Theosophical Society. Krishnamurti also became a member of the Theosophical Society during his teenage years and mentions having "inherited" his association with the Theosophical Society from his grandfather"

big fat red flag there


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 10:27:08 [Preview] No.24296 del
>>24287
My point was that Venetian and Phoenician is the same people.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 10:28:03 [Preview] No.24297 del


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 11:06:37 [Preview] No.24300 del
>>24295
>big fat red flag there
No-no, that's just a biographical fact. He broke up with them at some moment and had bashed them (and all the other gurus) for the rest of the life. Here are some samples:

>Society has put before you the ideal of a "perfect man". No matter in which culture you were born, you have scriptural doctrines and traditions handed down to you to tell you how to behave. You are told that through due practice you can even eventually come into the state attained by the sages, saints and saviors of mankind. And so you try to control your behavior, to control your thoughts, to be something unnatural.

>All your experiences, all your meditations, all your prayer, all that you do, is self-centred. It is strengthening the self, adding momentum, gathering momentum, so it is taking you in the opposite direction. Whatever you do to be free from the self also is a self-centred activity.

>I have searched everywhere to find an answer to my question, "Is there enlightenment?" but have never questioned the search itself. Because I have assumed that goal of enlightenment exists, I have had to search. It is the search itself which has been choking me and keeping me out of my natural state. There is no such thing as spiritual or psychological enlightenment because there is no such thing as spirit or psyche at all. I have been a damn fool all my life, searching for something which does not exist. My search is at an end.

>This question haunted me all my life and suddenly it hit me: "There is no self to realize. What the hell have I been doing all this time?" You see, that hits you like lightning. Once that hits you, the whole mechanism of the body that is controlled by this thought is shattered. What is left is the tremendous living organism with an intelligence of its own. What you are left with is the pulse, the beat and the throb of life.

>You are not ready to accept the fact that you have to give up. A complete and total "surrender". It is a state of hopelessness which says that there is no way out. Any movement in any direction, on any dimension, at any level, is taking you away from yourself.

>The plain fact is that if you don't have a problem, you create one. If you don't have a problem you don't feel that you are living.

>It is fear that makes you believe that you are living and that you will be dead. What we do not want is the fear to come to an end. That is why we have invented all these new minds, new sciences,new talks, therapies, choiceless awareness and various other gimmicks.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 12:33:51 [Preview] No.24302 del
>>24295
Theosophy is basically the Hindu/European version of masonry.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 15:34:58 [Preview] No.24313 del
>>24302
This is why you should never trust a dane


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 16:06:10 [Preview] No.24317 del
>>24296
I got that your point was that and it was a mistake but I decided to refer to something else, from the very beginning of the video.

>>24291
Some Hungarian hobby-linguists plays with these things - in Hungarian ofc - I find the idea of "word-bushes" - as they call it - appealing but it sounds somewhat better founded then this "sold is soul-ed" thingy, maybe I'll write about it the little I know of this in the language threda.
Btw why didn't he call sold "Saul-ed"? picrel

>>24313
Get a hat!
Will get to it sometimes.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 17:33:26 [Preview] No.24321 del
>>24317
The english language is easier since its so masonic. Francis bacon wrote about (500 years ago) that english would be the universal language of the future.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 17:36:39 [Preview] No.24322 del
>>24291
My underlining point is that the elite or whatever you want to call them fear the individuals. Thats why they always want to put us in groups.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 19:48:45 [Preview] No.24332 del
(116.31 KB 495x560 Danetrust.png)
>>24313
Pic related.
>>24321
I heard before that English was specifically edited by people like Bacon so that it'd be hard to properly express certain concepts, which is why after America became a superpower, they basically Anglified most continental languages.
It all ties into the Georgia Guidestones.
>Unite humanity with a living new language


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 20:06:35 [Preview] No.24335 del
>>24332
phonecians (and venice) did the same thing before britain, standardizing everything from currency to language.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 20:14:54 [Preview] No.24336 del
>>24335
The Phoenician language? It wasn't even widespread. Aramaic and Greek (and Latin) became more widespread than Phoenician.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 20:23:02 [Preview] No.24337 del
>>24336
B-but Phoenicians are very evil for making order in things, also almost Jews and Venetians are literally Jews!


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 20:32:23 [Preview] No.24339 del
>>24337
Technically some of the Phoenicians were Israelites from the tribes Naphtali and Asher (though then again Israelite =/= jew), and Venice/Lombardy in general ferried a lot of crypto-jews.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 20:50:53 [Preview] No.24342 del
>>24336
language is more than just words. think outside the box a bit.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 20:52:49 [Preview] No.24344 del
>>24339
they were Canaanites


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 20:58:49 [Preview] No.24345 del
(219.37 KB 800x1218 kingdomofisrael.png)
>>24344
In the south, some of them were Israelite. Pic related.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 21:09:19 [Preview] No.24349 del
>>24336
quoting straight from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia#Foreign_relations

The spread of the alphabet throughout the Mediterranean extended literacy beyond a narrow caste of hierarchical priests.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 21:12:37 [Preview] No.24352 del
>>24349
Ah, alphabet, then yes, the Phoenicians played a huge role in that.


Bernd 04/04/2019 (Thu) 21:15:03 [Preview] No.24353 del
>>24345
I have books on this very subject I can bring out but im too tired for any serious discussions


Bernd 04/06/2019 (Sat) 14:12:27 [Preview] No.24418 del
life imitates art


Bernd 04/06/2019 (Sat) 14:30:42 [Preview] No.24423 del
>>24418
reality is often more ridiculous than imagination


Bernd 04/07/2019 (Sun) 15:41:59 [Preview] No.24496 del
i find it delightfully fitting that a thread started with a reference to that layman preacher deutsch devolves into such idiotic metaphysical blathering (redundant, i know), fluffy teleological retorts, pointless semantic arguments, straight-faced berkelian idealism, etc. by laymen for whom physics stopped at 18th century determinism, infinite regress constitutes the utmost stretch of their intellectual skills, and poe's is (apparently) a natural, not ironic, law.
in short: kek

94b6f9f24899a8840a825c2de49950e19bb20ec8


Bernd 04/22/2019 (Mon) 11:26:36 [Preview] No.25046 del
good soldier svejk is very funny and very well written. I suspect reading it in czech is better since its such good prose.

I purchased 1491 (history book about native america) it had good reviews and I want to learn more about south and north america


Bernd 04/22/2019 (Mon) 12:36:55 [Preview] No.25052 del
>>24496
What is your opinion on reality?


Bernd 04/22/2019 (Mon) 16:26:12 [Preview] No.25055 del
>>25052
Don't ask because he's gonna shame us with his intellectual height and the depth of his knowledge.


Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 03:53:10 [Preview] No.25064 del
>>25055
No-no, it's ok. However one tried to be smart, the topic itself guarantee the impossibility of being smart about it.


Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 05:11:14 [Preview] No.25065 del
what if I tell you guys reality is a scam


Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 05:21:58 [Preview] No.25067 del
>>25065
Sounds sound.


Bernd 04/23/2019 (Tue) 07:03:15 [Preview] No.25072 del
>>25067
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4bmTnRj3fMI [Embed]

your onions


Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 05:47:05 [Preview] No.25106 del
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mP5ZVPwP7bg [Embed]

really great video about this thing we call reality

there is cameras everywhere, your phone tracks everything you do, your computer, there is cctv camera all over and yet people freak out when someone take video of them


Bernd 04/24/2019 (Wed) 16:10:03 [Preview] No.25124 del
>>25106
>about this thing we call reality
It's rather about the thing we call society, which is paltry part of reality. But that was interesting indeed.


Bernd 04/26/2019 (Fri) 09:54:45 [Preview] No.25229 del
>>25124
society is reality for most people


Bernd 05/05/2019 (Sun) 10:55:39 [Preview] No.25571 del
>>23595
I have to correct myself. That particular scene isn't in the episode with the Russian flu - which is in the first season. Season 3 episode 6 is it's place, when they find Pierre a pal of Napoleon, both of whom arrived to Alaska and founded a tribe with some native broads there, then Napoleon left and Pierre froze to death and was conserved by the ice. Then they have the discussion about reality and facts, since this detour of Napoleon alters history as we know it.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 04:37:26 [Preview] No.27408 del
(24.35 KB 261x380 suji.jpg)
Is there another copy of you reading this book, deciding to put it aside without finishing this sentence, while you’re reading on? A person living on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with seven other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect—until now, that is, when your decision to read on signals that your two lives are diverging.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 04:43:00 [Preview] No.27409 del
You probably find this idea strange and implausible, and I must confess that this is my gut reaction, too. Yet it looks like we might just have to live with it, since the simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that this person actually exists in a galaxy about 10^10^29^^ meters from here. This proposition doesn’t even assume speculative modern physics, but merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter. Your alter ego is simply a prediction of eternal inflation, which, as we’ve seen in the last chapter, agrees with all current observational evidence and is implicitly used as the basis for most calculations and simulations presented at cosmology conferences.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 04:45:17 [Preview] No.27410 del
It feels extremely unlikely that your life turned out exactly as it did, since it required so many things to happen: Earth had to form, life had to evolve, the dinosaurs had to go extinct, your parents had to meet, you had to get the idea to read this book, etc. But the probability of all these outcomes happening clearly isn’t zero, since it in fact happened right here in our Universe. And if you roll the dice enough times, even the most unlikely things are guaranteed to happen. With infinitely many Level I parallel universes created by inflation, quantum fluctuations effectively rolled the dice infinitely many times, guaranteeing with 100% certainty that your life would occur in one of them. Indeed, in infinitely many of them, since even a tiny fraction of an infinite number is still an infinite number.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 04:47:57 [Preview] No.27411 del
And an infinite space doesn’t contain only exact copies of you. It contains many more people who are almost like you, yet slightly different. So if you were able to go meet the closest person out there in space who looked like your spitting image, this person would probably speak an alien language you couldn’t understand and would have experienced a life quite different from yours. But out of all your infinitely many look-alikes out there on other planets, there’s also one who speaks English, lives on a planet identical to Earth, and has experienced a life completely indistinguishable from yours in all ways. This person subjectively feels exactly like you feel. Yet there may be some very minor difference in how the particles move in your alter ego’s brain that’s too subtle to make a perceptible difference now, but which in a few seconds will make your alter ego put this book aside while you read on, causing your two lives to start diverging.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 04:50:45 [Preview] No.27412 del
In summary, in an infinite space created by inflation, everything that can happen according to the laws of physics does happen. And it happens an infinite number of times. This means that there are parallel universes where you never get a parking ticket, where you have a different name, where you’ve won a million-dollar lottery, where Germany won World War II, where dinosaurs still roam Earth, and where Earth never formed in the first place. Although each of these outcomes occur in an infinite number of universes, some occur in a larger fraction than others, and making sense of this raises a host of intriguing issues.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 05:14:28 [Preview] No.27414 del
>>27408
So it's about parallel universes? I'll read the other posts later.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 05:15:29 [Preview] No.27415 del
>>27414
Yep.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 05:18:14 [Preview] No.27416 del
>>27415
But not only. The main theme is, Universe is a mathematical object, literally.


Bernd 06/19/2019 (Wed) 18:04:12 [Preview] No.27443 del
All right. So I've some problems. Or him.
It seems the author uses the term galaxy and universe interchangeable and not at the same time. He says the universe is infinite and in a galaxy far far away there's another me (and in other galaxies other mes), but next he call that place as a parallel universe.
And what's parallel about it? It's just another place some further away. It's liek I would call the next town a parallel town. And the next me isn't even me just an alien, a xenomorph, a ufo or whatever.
Also I remember the universe isn't infinite, it's expanding continuously for now but definitely has an end. For human scale and mind it can be as if it was but in fact it isn't.
So maybe these really low-level thoughts about this but these are my problems. For now I'm sure I wouldn't be fan of the book.


Bernd 06/21/2019 (Fri) 03:11:32 [Preview] No.27459 del
(102.44 KB 539x329 85241.png)
>>27443
Yes, he operates many layers there. Universes are combined into a Multiverse, but even there are different kinds of Multiverses.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply