Quote: (03-16-2019 01:16 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Quote: (03-15-2019 11:04 PM)Valentine Wrote:  

you're asking this universal database for some data about what you should be seeing and it pops out some matter and light infront of your eyes just like loading a website.

I think thats why time slows when you move (relativity). Its the system loading the new area youre in like a video game. Like buffering.

That's a cracker. I'm a miserable bastard, but even I couldn't suppress a chuckle at that.

This is probably totally retarded, but try this:

1) Find your way to a hot beach in summer

2) Lay down on your towel on the sand

3) Order a drink

4) Wait for the sun to get out of your eyes

5) open your eyes

6) see and feel the heat

7 ( Do NOT proclaim Venus your woman or goddess! *
* Zeus will laugh and kick your ass if you try ;-)

8) Have an enlightenment

7 is the hard part ;-)

Quote: (03-17-2019 12:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Imagine if humanity took the time to figure out the rest of the paradoxes discovered by Kant, who knows what is possible? Time travel, direct communion with dead souls or even God is not outside the realm of possibility once we escape the prison of our mind (The Matrix is more or less a complete rip-off of Kantian metaphysics).

In regards to time travel alone. If God allowed it. That key circumstances cannot be changed due to divine power?

To fulfill the all the words spoken in the scripture.

But that there can be endless variations and timelines that nonetheless travel in his desired direction?

And that divine providence have accounted for it all and necessary decisions already made or are in the process of making that ensure that our timelines do not "go off the rails?"

Because we can do many things in many ways due to our free will. And time travel will spawn many many more different variations.

Quote: (03-17-2019 04:32 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Quote: (03-17-2019 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Kant is still way ahead of all of these people and has already answered your objection.

Kant would just point out that math itself does not exist in the world, therefore any mathematical model or equation is based on concepts supplied by the cognition. This is to say, math is utterly trapped in the world of the phenomena.

Trying to use math to describe the noumena is like using your naked eye to describe a dark planet 10+ million light years away.

Math is the language of physics. If math is feeble, than a natural language is even more feeble, and we can't know anything completely. The equations reliably predict what will happen when we probe nature in certain ways of how our mind works. So to that extent we seem to have obtained valid knowledge of a behavior of the noumena.

Added some bold text to show where Kant would correct you.

And yes, Kant would agree that our minds are based on SOMETHING real, and the phenomenal world must contain at least some truth of the noumena, or else humanity would not be able to function and survive. Math is but one of the key ways we can be precise with our minds to describe the noumena.

However, an entire branch of philosophy that produced Hegel, Marx, Sarte, Feminism, Deconstructionism, and Cultural-Marxism, all stemmed with the beginning of Hegel's rejection of the noumena. They all claimed that our 'mind' is all there was, everything beyond that was mere illusion, and therefore reality is what our minds said it is. Hence the idea of Marx that production just happens, or that gender is a social construct, etc. etc.

Kant was so influential he actually created the left-wing schools of thought by accident, because they took Kant's philosophy and just rejected the noumena. The results were predicted back then by many men, such as Schopenhauer (who wrote the excellent On Women), but apparently Satan won anyways and people believed in total lies resulting in untold death and misery.

Quote: (03-18-2019 03:08 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-17-2019 12:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Imagine if humanity took the time to figure out the rest of the paradoxes discovered by Kant, who knows what is possible? Time travel, direct communion with dead souls or even God is not outside the realm of possibility once we escape the prison of our mind (The Matrix is more or less a complete rip-off of Kantian metaphysics).

In regards to time travel alone. If God allowed it. That key circumstances cannot be changed due to divine power?

To fulfill the all the words spoken in the scripture.

But that there can be endless variations and timelines that nonetheless travel in his desired direction?

And that divine providence have accounted for it all and necessary decisions already made or are in the process of making that ensure that our timelines do not "go off the rails?"

Because we can do many things in many ways due to our free will. And time travel will spawn many many more different variations.

I don't think time travel would look like that.

One of the major discussions of Kant is on the nature of time. What is time? Everyone knows what time is until you ask what time is.

And the answer Kant arrived at: Time does not exist outside of our minds, and yet, time is a fundamental component of our cognition that intuits the sense-data collected by our perception.

Therefore, time is subjectively objective, a process rooted in the subject's mind to create objective reality (most likely for the purpose of humans to communicate - without time order nothing is possible). So, time travel in the noumena is most likely something no one even conceives, not like some silly movie, but more like being able to reverse entropy at will. It would not be like undoing "events" and going back into the "past," because stuff like events and the past aren't real and only exist in our minds as concepts of cognition necessary to generate experience.

I think real time travel would be the ability to recreate a person, or animal, that once existed in the "past," immediately in the "present." In other words, reverse entropy.

In theory, it could be possible to rearrange matter such that an entire civilization is immediately recreated, a whole Roman empire born instantly for our evaluation. That's what perfect knowledge would look like to us from the perspective of our minds - I think...

We are discussing the absolute limits of human epistemology and metaphysics right now - your guess is as good as mine

But I think Kant is by far and away the most correct on these issues. Time is indeed a function of our imagination the mind uses to process sense-data into an ordered understanding.

^
Cause when you think about time travel as it is usually presented in a movie.
That type of time travel would require a rearrangement of every atom, photon, energy wave etc. in the entire universe, back to the configuration of that particular past time.

Quite the feat...

Quote: (03-18-2019 07:45 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

^
Cause when you think about time travel as it is usually presented in a movie.
That type of time travel would require a rearrangement of every atom, photon, energy wave etc. in the entire universe, back to the configuration of that particular past time.

Quite the feat...

Yeah, I arrived to this conclusion.

Time is just change. You can not go back to something that does not exists anymore.

Past and future does not exist, only the present.

You can "send" something to the future, in a sense it is durable enough to survive entropy.

Quote: (03-18-2019 05:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (03-17-2019 04:32 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Quote: (03-17-2019 01:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Kant is still way ahead of all of these people and has already answered your objection.

Kant would just point out that math itself does not exist in the world, therefore any mathematical model or equation is based on concepts supplied by the cognition. This is to say, math is utterly trapped in the world of the phenomena.

Trying to use math to describe the noumena is like using your naked eye to describe a dark planet 10+ million light years away.

Math is the language of physics. If math is feeble, than a natural language is even more feeble, and we can't know anything completely. The equations reliably predict what will happen when we probe nature in certain ways of how our mind works. So to that extent we seem to have obtained valid knowledge of a behavior of the noumena.

Added some bold text to show where Kant would correct you.

And yes, Kant would agree that our minds are based on SOMETHING real, and the phenomenal world must contain at least some truth of the noumena, or else humanity would not be able to function and survive. Math is but one of the key ways we can be precise with our minds to describe the noumena.

However, an entire branch of philosophy that produced Hegel, Marx, Sarte, Feminism, Deconstructionism, and Cultural-Marxism, all stemmed with the beginning of Hegel's rejection of the noumena. They all claimed that our 'mind' is all there was, everything beyond that was mere illusion, and therefore reality is what our minds said it is. Hence the idea of Marx that production just happens, or that gender is a social construct, etc. etc.

Kant was so influential he actually created the left-wing schools of thought by accident, because they took Kant's philosophy and just rejected the noumena. The results were predicted back then by many men, such as Schopenhauer (who wrote the excellent On Women), but apparently Satan won anyways and people believed in total lies resulting in untold death and misery.

My argument assumed that there is a noumena. Kant was up to date on the science of his generation, the 18th century. But, the Quantum mechanic phenomena of the observer influencing the results of an experimentation is a surprising new result that he couldn't have anticipated. Also, nobody even today understands it. Einstein was a follower of Kant and he could never accept the results of his own experimentation. It took Schrodinger, who studied Hindu Philosophy , to make the breakthrough and put Quantum Mechanics on a solid mathematical foundation.

Quote: (03-16-2019 10:29 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

I'm starting to notice a rise in people wanting to believe that reality is a "simulation". When you don't understand reality, and are disconnected from it, the simulation theory is what you grasp towards in order to match how you feel about your existence (i.e. that your life is just a series of pixels like the entertainment you consume).

Right. Why bother with simulation? Internal emigration, escapism, political acedia it is.
Otherwise known as social decline.

Quote: (03-18-2019 05:24 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (03-18-2019 03:08 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-17-2019 12:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Imagine if humanity took the time to figure out the rest of the paradoxes discovered by Kant, who knows what is possible? Time travel, direct communion with dead souls or even God is not outside the realm of possibility once we escape the prison of our mind (The Matrix is more or less a complete rip-off of Kantian metaphysics).

In regards to time travel alone. If God allowed it. That key circumstances cannot be changed due to divine power?

To fulfill the all the words spoken in the scripture.

But that there can be endless variations and timelines that nonetheless travel in his desired direction?

And that divine providence have accounted for it all and necessary decisions already made or are in the process of making that ensure that our timelines do not "go off the rails?"

Because we can do many things in many ways due to our free will. And time travel will spawn many many more different variations.

I don't think time travel would look like that.

One of the major discussions of Kant is on the nature of time. What is time? Everyone knows what time is until you ask what time is.

And the answer Kant arrived at: Time does not exist outside of our minds, and yet, time is a fundamental component of our cognition that intuits the sense-data collected by our perception.

Therefore, time is subjectively objective, a process rooted in the subject's mind to create objective reality (most likely for the purpose of humans to communicate - without time order nothing is possible). So, time travel in the noumena is most likely something no one even conceives, not like some silly movie, but more like being able to reverse entropy at will. It would not be like undoing "events" and going back into the "past," because stuff like events and the past aren't real and only exist in our minds as concepts of cognition necessary to generate experience.

I think real time travel would be the ability to recreate a person, or animal, that once existed in the "past," immediately in the "present." In other words, reverse entropy.

In theory, it could be possible to rearrange matter such that an entire civilization is immediately recreated, a whole Roman empire born instantly for our evaluation. That's what perfect knowledge would look like to us from the perspective of our minds - I think...

We are discussing the absolute limits of human epistemology and metaphysics right now - your guess is as good as mine

But I think Kant is by far and away the most correct on these issues. Time is indeed a function of our imagination the mind uses to process sense-data into an ordered understanding.

Just read an article with a similar take on quantum physics. They created a quantum computer that could sort of rewind reality a couple seconds to recreate previous structures in atmos or electrons, like rewinding a game of pool to reform all the balls to where they were before the break

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...chine.html

I don't know that simulation theory is cognitive dissonance or black pill give up thinking.

Simulations (Monte Carlo) are used in financial and other statistical modeling. It's not a stretch to say a civilization only slightly more advanced could create such a simulation. We do it now on a slightly limited basis to make predictions or for entertainment.

Also, with AI and quantum computing there is some increased attention to these paradoxes or anamolies. Einstein noted similar ones 100 years ago with his theory of relativity. These are just funkier versions of Einstein's.

Up until then it seemed the universe acted in predictable ways that could be discovered, whether as a result of Intelligent design or evolutionary chance. But the observational anomalies in quantum physics are difficult to explain except with the simulation hypothesis. There is not a good alternative explanation.

I won't pretend I understand these. I grappled with them when I first studied physics and gave up.

Quote: (03-19-2019 03:45 PM)Hypno Wrote:  

I don't know that simulation theory is cognitive dissonance or black pill give up thinking.

Simulations (Monte Carlo) are used in financial and other statistical modeling. It's not a stretch to say a civilization only slightly more advanced could create such a simulation. We do it now on a slightly limited basis to make predictions or for entertainment.

Also, with AI and quantum computing there is some increased attention to these paradoxes or anamolies. Einstein noted similar ones 100 years ago with his theory of relativity. These are just funkier versions of Einstein's.

Up until then it seemed the universe acted in predictable ways that could be discovered, whether as a result of Intelligent design or evolutionary chance. But the observational anomalies in quantum physics are difficult to explain except with the simulation hypothesis. There is not a good alternative explanation.

I won't pretend I understand these. I grappled with them when I first studied physics and gave up.

Anomalies are sure signs that our theory is not correct.

I think that maybe too much enchanted by so called 'beauty' of mathematics we missed some important part of physics, probably in the direction of electromagnetic theory, which is not so elegant in terms of mathematic description. Mathematics can be treacherous, too - sometimes mathematical truths are located on the level of sets, being the outcome of many operations, as in probability theory. So in the way a 'truth' can depend on its own reality, how large this reality is. And how large is the reality of Earth? The point being that we developed our physics believing it is universal, but we forgot that we developed it on a very unique planet - Earth (unique as unique life is). Maybe the Earth physics is just a special case of an Universe physics (probably something based on plasma and electromagnetism much more than on gravity), in the way Newtonian descirption is a special case of relativity theory.

Whatever, I do not believe in time reversal, maybe some kind of oscillation, but not time reversal. I do not take seriously 'time reversal' claims when talking about minute particles with few possible states as those changes can be very well seen as forms of oscillation.

Quote: (03-19-2019 03:44 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

Just read an article with a similar take on quantum physics. They created a quantum computer that could sort of rewind reality a couple seconds to recreate previous structures in atmos or electrons, like rewinding a game of pool to reform all the balls to where they were before the break

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...chine.html

I alluded to that very experiment at the beginning of my overly long 'essay' and I did in fact link to it at the very end, tying up the conclusions, in my understanding.

Retro-causality is key. I did cover it quite a bit so won't go over it again, it's there if you want to take another peak. It was dense and it was ad-hoc, but I took several hours to get the fundamentals right.

The experiment that you have linked to here, which I linked to earlier, while actually being a 'similar take' as you put it, is in fact the polar opposite of the findings of the experiment that OP Valentine posted and that I 'backed up' with a recent similar experiment which came to the same conclusion.

It's an easy mistake to think they are saying the same thing. I did, in fact, at first glance, but they could not be more different in their outcome.

This Russian experiment breaks Time's Arrow. It says that the second law of thermodynamics is not sound and entropy as we know it is wrong. They may be right. I am not saying they are not.

But if they are right, then the experiment that Valentine posted and the one I posted must be wrong. You can't have it both ways.

This is what is so exciting about these recent developments. They seem to be really boiling stuff down to 'shit or get off the pot' physics. Enough fucking about. Either time can travel backwards (as in the Russian experiment you posted) or it can not (as in the experiments both I and Valentine posted).

And with the greater implication that there can or there can not be an objective reality as we humans would currently define it. The two conclusions are inextricably linked and mutually exclusive.

The implications of either outcome are astounding, none the less. And I don't think any one here is saying "I have found the TRUTH". But I took the time to write what I did because it so closely corresponded to a very similar but yet very disparate experiment that Valentine posted.

We are now reaching the point in technology where things are 'good enough' to finally get some answers. It's been an onward progression since the end of the last century, and it's getting better all the time.

The fact this Russian experiment shows contradicting results just makes it more fascinating.

I see quantum physics as yin and yang. Two halves that are polar opposites but yet with a small component of their exact opposite inextricably nested in their core being. That is why just when you think you have found 'it' - the whole thing collapses and you have to go back to square one to try to understand again.

This is why I wrote all that "GOTCHA" stuff as I was coming to terms with nonlocality and phenomenology - I was struggling because just as it all made sense, it then just made absolutely no sense at all. I was worried that I was giving out wrong information. I had to seriously pause for hours to get it right.

Welcome to the world of Quantum physics!


Valentine posted this video:






I'd come across that in my travels as well in the past year or two.

It's worth a watch, because it does explain a lot of stuff.


No one knows what is really going on. But it's fun to watch all these experts fight among themselves and start to begin to come to some conclusions at least.

This is a relatively new field, but a century old, but it has yielded real world results, not least the atomic bomb! Here we are almost a century later, still dancing around the garden, arguing the finer points.

Quantum physics is not just counter-intuitive. It is contradictory and paradoxical. And that's why dumb motherfuckers like me can at least have a go at understanding it. If you have consciousness (are alive) then you have a ready built in quantum computer which is your brain. It's the most efficient quantum computer known to man, in aggregate. It's pretty ropey and inefficient compared to a 'real' quantum computer, but it's the best we have. It would have great difficulty in working out the classical Traveling Salesman Problem, but then again, it's got things like 'consciousness' going for it. The ability to perceive light in all its waveforms and to process that information in a way that is not only meaningful, and which can lead to survival, but can also be 'beautiful' as well.

I'm getting mixed up here. Don't listen to me. Just musing.

You need a certain level of IQ to understand this stuff, but more than that, you need to put the hours in, as I already said, to really get to the bottom of it. Also to keep up with latest research, as both you, me, and Valentine have done, DC.

I just watched a lecture by John Carmack last night who was the main developer of Doom (the graphics engine). He touched upon Quantum stuff as well but explained it wasn't necessary. But it did touch on it. Interesting as from a viewpoint of how to recreate reality and create 'virtual reality' which he is at the forefront of now. That and making rocket ships.

It was interesting to hear him go in to detail about rendering, and the parallels it has with audio rendering, with both light and audio being propagated by waves. But still being treated as discrete particles (quanta) since that is more manageable for modern computers, until they get insanely faster and can do true unbiased rendering.

At that point, it may be very difficult to distinguish between true reality and virtual reality. For now, virtual reality is just poor reality. But we are edging ever closer.

The study of how light behaves (wave/particle duality) is of course at the very forefront of these experiments with regard to the OP. And of course, how we perceive them, in either subjective or objective reality.

My mind is open.

I have a feeling the Russian experiment will be found to have flaws in it. I might be wrong. But it reminds me of when they did that experiment where the speed of light was found to be faster. It caused a ruckus in the science field, but it turned out that poor callibration of equipment was to blame.

We can of course go faster than the speed of light, or rather, it is possible to exceed the speed of light, as per the ever exponential expansion of the known observable universe. These are not contradictions. But within the bubble of universe that we live in, light can not propagate at faster than 186,000 miles a second.

https://www.miniphysics.com/propagation-of-light.html

Back to reflection and refraction, two of the main techniques in 3D rendering. See John Carmack's lecture. I'll link it if you like.

Photons travel fast in a vacuum, and are totally stopped by solid materials, but in water, the speed of light slows down as well. Interestingly enough, you also have sub surface scattering where photons go under real world materials and kick back and emit back out at new random angles. See how your skin glows red in direct sunlight.

When things start going red, you know they are slowing down (photon wise) - the coldest stars burn red. The hottest? Blue.

See black body radiation. John Carmack touched on all of this in his lecture:






It's interesting to note that when computers do get fast enough, and especially then if we do get a true quantum computer, we can go back to techniques that were originally thought up in the 60's/70's that are far too expensive to work on today's computers: Radiosity, true Global Illumination, and the poor man's version of Ambient Occlusion. Sometimes 'good enough' is not 'good enough' and you have to take the expensive version to get a convincing render of what you want. Trial and error.

Once you can truly solve these problems you are in a new world of simulation. But still, will we ever solve the consciousness problem and get true AI?

It's frightening what we can do with Machine Learning. Truly frightening. But true Strong AI is centuries off I believe. But that is not far.

All we have to do is not bomb/stab the shit out of each other in the meantime. No easy feat I know.

It's also interesting how game development (and I know we have a few game developers here on RVF) takes a multi-disciplinary approach. It's not just game play, but AI, how characters react, psychology, how can we make this game more addictive, and also the actual boring graphics engine where nerds like us that do 3D shit will work out the best material to be intercepted by the renderer of choice to show all those reflections and refractions. John Carmack said that we don't need better renderers but better materials that more reflect reality as it is.

Chuck in a bit of marketing. And you got Doom 4!

We won't even go in to the recent debate about if the recent NZ shooting up of that mosque was VR or poor real time video (as you'd expect off a GoPro streaming to Facebook with real time compression).


This stuff is just food for thought. I'm a dumbass. If anyone who really knows what they are talking about cares to correct me, I'll receive it with good grace. I was a serious failure at school with regard to maths. But it's amazing what you can do if you don't admit defeat, push yourself to the absolute fucking limit, and just keep cracking away at the 'problem'.


Just in case anyone still is wondering what the 'problem' is:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-lo...-20180725/

This is the experiment that backs up OP Valentine's experiment.

Excuse me Valentine for going off piste. Hopefully it was interesting.

Some use the simulation hypothesis to argue for theism:

Quote: (03-16-2019 01:40 PM)Hammerhead Wrote:  

https://youtu.be/H6HLjpj4Nt4

There are now a bunch of physicists doing "Backwards Flips" (As AMS would say) to come up with a way to explain this away without including consciousness, but I haven't seen a model as convincing as Tom Campbell's "information based" reality model.

I wonder what would happen if the exact same experiment was performed by people who had no understanding of the setup. In other words, if they didn't know that the path information could be extracted from the detector hits, would you still get a clump instead of an interference pattern?

Is it important that the observer be able to interpret the results (making him and intelligent observer), or is it that the setup would allow a path detection, whether or not anyone actually understood why?

Quote: (03-16-2019 09:13 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

Just when you think you've figured it all out, those bloody Russians come along and piss in your toybox!

Either retrocausality exists or it does not!

Either man went to the moon or he did not!

Either there is life out there in the wider universe or there is not!

It's binary. And whether it ends up being a '0' or a '1' "in reality" - then it's pretty mind-blowing all the same.

Where the fuck is Bill Nye (your mom's a guy) when you need him eh?

Science motherfuckers! Do you even speak it?

Hey man I didn't see you post that link, since I read this thread backwards and TL;DR your post


Wouldn't Quantum physics say that things aren't binary, but that they exist in both states simultaneously depending on observation.

Man went to the moon, and also didn't go to the moon.

The cat is dead and alive at the same time.

There are an infinite number of realities that exist simultaneously in our same reality, all divergent with each different choice or paradox, but all valid and observable depending on your perspective. I don't know, but I think there is a way to square both experiments and both could be valid, I don't think they invalidate each other, quantum physics is built on contradictions and paradoxes I would say.

I can't pretend to understand all this stuff either, but it is fun to speculate.

Quote: (03-20-2019 12:23 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

Quote: (03-16-2019 09:13 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

Just when you think you've figured it all out, those bloody Russians come along and piss in your toybox!

Either retrocausality exists or it does not!

Either man went to the moon or he did not!

Either there is life out there in the wider universe or there is not!

It's binary. And whether it ends up being a '0' or a '1' "in reality" - then it's pretty mind-blowing all the same.

Where the fuck is Bill Nye (your mom's a guy) when you need him eh?

Science motherfuckers! Do you even speak it?

Hey man I didn't see you post that link, since I read this thread backwards and TL;DR your post


Wouldn't Quantum physics say that things aren't binary, but that they exist in both states simultaneously depending on observation.

Man went to the moon, and also didn't go to the moon.

The cat is dead and alive at the same time.

There are an infinite number of realities that exist simultaneously in our same reality, all divergent with each different choice or paradox, but all valid and observable depending on your perspective. I don't know, but I think there is a way to square both experiments and both could be valid, I don't think they invalidate each other, quantum physics is built on contradictions and paradoxes I would say.

I can't pretend to understand all this stuff either, but it is fun to speculate.

There is a useful notion of 'ontological commitment' in philosophy.
What you are trying to imagine is the world without ontological commitment. It may be the Platonic shadow in the cave, simulation, illusion, but not the world itself.

The world must be, not can be.
If you are decribing something that just can be, it is not the world. Platonic realm of ideas maybe?

I don't understand this stuff either. And it confuses the hell out of me too.

I certainly don't expect anyone to go through a post it took me 4/5 hours to write! I'm narcissistic to a point...

I don't know about 'ontological commitment', but 'phenomenology' was a key concept with tying all this stuff together.

the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.
an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience.


I usually keep out of stuff like this, and view it as just stoned kids chatting shite. I'm not interested in anyone agreeing with me and I doubt I will ever understand anyone else's viewpoint or agree with them.

Like I said, it just happened to coincide with some stuff I had been recently reading, and it was just about at a level I could at least contribute a bit to.

But yeah, it's fun to speculate, and that's all my overly long words are: speculation. That and some links to some other research that backs up the OP.

Next week all this will be forgotten and it will be on to <insert latest fad here>.

Quote: (03-20-2019 05:29 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

I don't understand this stuff either. And it confuses the hell out of me too.

I certainly don't expect anyone to go through a post it took me 4/5 hours to write! I'm narcissistic to a point...

I don't know about 'ontological commitment', but 'phenomenology' was a key concept with tying all this stuff together.

the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.
an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience.


I usually keep out of stuff like this, and view it as just stoned kids chatting shite. I'm not interested in anyone agreeing with me and I doubt I will ever understand anyone else's viewpoint or agree with them.

Like I said, it just happened to coincide with some stuff I had been recently reading, and it was just about at a level I could at least contribute a bit to.

But yeah, it's fun to speculate, and that's all my overly long words are: speculation. That and some links to some other research that backs up the OP.

Next week all this will be forgotten and it will be on to <insert latest fad here>.

Phenomenology in philosophy is really concerned with human understanding getting the grasp of essence of something. Read about epoche, for example.You could look at phenomenology as a kind of directed meditation. But not as a quantum physics, which is theory-laden.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing...enology%29

Quote: (03-19-2019 03:45 PM)Hypno Wrote:  

I don't know that simulation theory is cognitive dissonance or black pill give up thinking.

I can see a simulated universe being frighteningly consequential for its inhabitants. Say you have an alien race that has as many moral scolds as humanity has, with near limitless computational power they might make a simulation that randomly generates entities for the sole purpose of copying the naughty ones to a hell simulation to punish them for a simulated eternity. Actually it would only take one Puritanical alien with enough space bucks to buy a fancy computer and a copy of space The Sims then download the "burn in hell" mod.

Huh, this whole time I though the the Double Slit Experiment was a euphemism for having a threesome

Another thought, if not already mentioned.

The future does not even exist yet. Despite the amount of 'time' we spend pondering the future.
The past is already gone & just a memory.

While the present itself... The present is such a brief & fleeting moment. So fleeting. That by the time we can even attempt to ponder the present. We're already in the past...

Thought this thread was about multiple layers of reality we all live under...
Too bad