/sci/ - Science & Math

hope not. once was enough for me

>>16150098
I mean it’s possible everything will turn out different for just about every one of us in each cycle

>>16150116
yeah nah, miss me with that shit. once was enough. not doing this shit ever again. fuck this universe

>>16150124
You think there’s even a afterlife then?

>>16150089
>dark energy dominates->contraction
y tho

>>16150141
Not sure that’s what I got from the net

>>16150141
Google "eternal inflation". From what I've seen, it is the current most accepted model.

I don't get the fine details but essentially some sort of energized field causes accelerated expansion (it takes energy input to accelerate things) and this field could collapse at local spots to dump all of this energy into some spot causing something akin to a big bang again while also halting or reverting the expansion in that local region.

This inflating field would be the energy source for the expansion of space and also the source for all the energy and mass we see. And it seems to be endless/always ticking up. It's a kinda slick model as it explains energy/matter creation and the expansion of space in one.

Some can correct me, I'm not an expert on this stuff tho.

>>16150132
I think there is but that's what's scary actually. what if you want to stop for good?

>>16150168
well I'm depressed right now and currently seeking out a plan of what to do if I die. I've been praying alot recently and pursuing a scientific way to see if I'll come back in some way through cycles

>>16150170
what if you come back worse than you are now? doesn't seem that smart to drop what you have if it's not hellish for you

>>16150175
you mean with god or the cycles? You're referring to reincarnation with former right? I mean honestly right now I hate all the things I've done as a human and want a restart.

>>16150116
You most likely won't exist for near infinite amount of cycles.

>duuuuuddde, i totally know everything about the entire universe!!!

>>16150166
It's not the "most accepted model", it's the model that nobody is allowed to criticize because how dare you suggest that dark matter and dark energy are unicorns.

>>16150089
Of course a cycle/bounce can exist and mean we live infinite amounts of times, every single one of us

>>16150208
I meant as cycles of universe where you pop up again.

>>16150641
Like i would notice for the next time I come to life?
>>16150672
Thanks, I needed that, the question is with the ability of making different choices/living differently. I don’t want to expect the Eternal Recurrence
>>16150686
It’s all possible

>>16150166
>Google "eternal inflation".
>it's another marvel multiverse schizophrenia

>>16150089
>Can a cycle/bounce exist, and could it mean we live infinite amounts of times, every single one of us?
its possible but I don't know if inflationary or cyclic models are presenting the full story,
I believe that if the Universe is infinite in age then the type of model our Universe is based upon is a model we probably have not considered yet or is still in the fringes of science and considered more theoretical than probable.

>>16151040
One gripe I have with cyclical models is if existence is an infinite cycle then how could the present moment be if it required an infinite amount of time to pass beforehand?

>>16151050
I don't think the cyclical models causes any paradox. infinity means forever right?
if that's the case then the present moment won't be the same exact present moment on the next cycle,
What I suspect is that if things are cyclical and 'history repeats itself', the essence of the event is what remains (like a stone pillar), the actually manifestation or expression of the event would be relevant to the environment in which it exists, but the actually 'appearance' wouldn't be the same across iterations.
to illustrate this;
>Cycle 1
You find love at age 28
>Cycle 2
You find a best friend who becomes a life long buddy at the age of 28
>Cycle 3
You losing your wife/husband at 28

All three iterations seemingly are different in appearance but underneath the 'veneer' remains a constant, that constant is You interacting with someone who you end up loving (either as a mate/partner, or friend)

this is my belief, and I could be wrong as shit but that's how things play out in my head.

>>16151050
>>16151055
Now here's something to ponder,
if a cyclical universe is the actual nature of our universe - How does one 'move', 'modify' or even 'remove' the pillar?
would that cause disarray?

It's an infinity loop.

so is the CMB randomized each time?

>>16151050
Your logic is faulty, how could the universe exist if it, presumably, required an infinite time to pass beforehand? Your understanding and assumptions about the notion of time are faulty, it's all just shit happening forever, the idea of time is ultimately irrelevant.

>>16151088
>the idea of time is ultimately irrelevant.
doesn't feel like it.

>>16151098
What is that even supposed to mean?

>>16151099
it's not irrelevant for me. seems quite relevant. the idea of time

>>16151101
It's just an abstraction made up by your monkey brain, time itself does not exist as a physical manifestation, it's all just a smooth, continuous flow of materia from one state to another, forever existing in a singular instant.

>>16151055
I think you are missing the point. In a cyclical universe there would be no "cycle 1" since there must have been a cycle before then and so on and so forth - and infinite causal chain with no starting point kinda breaks causality itself. Perhaps we exist within a reality filled with such paradoxes - but that seems unprovable. Also, I guess I wasn't refuting your point specifically - moreso using your post to ask for any refutation of my counter to the larger premise.

>>16151099
>>16151107
>>16151088
Your claims seem wrong. You claim that time does not exist physically and then define time as a "continuous flow of materia from one state to another" which IS a physical definition of time. To claim it as abstraction is outside the bounds of empiricism since we cannot look past this supposed abstraction. I'm assuming (or hoping, since otherwise would be considered retarded, clinically) you are getting here by a logical basis then. Can you elaborate? How can you prove that time is but abstraction?

How is light energy supposed to ever return once it goes out into space? Am I just retarded, or is this whole philosophical argument about eternal return complete shit?

>>16151107
>flow
>single instant
You are a flow of stupidity.

>>16151147
Reflection, refraction, diffraction, diffusion, dispersion, scattering, etc

>>16151142
>which IS a physical definition of time
Yes, as defined by humans, an abstraction derived from the relation of perceived events and comparison of the past, present and future, but guess which of these three doesn't exist.
>Can you elaborate? How can you prove that time is but abstraction?
The only thing which exists is the current moment, the past and the future are extrapolations to temporally relate separate events, but there are no separate events, existence is one continuous singular event, the past and future do not exist, second, measuring the amount of "time" between interactions is erroneous, as reality is continuous not discrete there is not a single unit of time between one state and another, because there are no "steps" to measure, not only that, there is not a single property within the infinetisimal divisions of reality which correspond to time/age, you could take any piece of materia in all of reality and you will not find within it anything which would indicate it's age, or that it is in any different now than it was a quadrillion years ago, it simply moved from one place to another, changed from one thing to another, because that's all reality is, a continuous transformation taking place in one singular moment, the final nail in the coffin is that there is fundamentally no way for you to tell that any real time is passing or whether time is moving forwards or backwards or sidewards, because it's an abstract metric which is only derived from the relations which our perception constructs, the perception of "time" is relative, as shown also by GR and SR, you can manipulate the rate of change to be anything you want.
>>16151192
Take reality, freeze everything, skip forward one random unit of time of your choosing, the state has changed but the moment is the exact same, it's always right now, a billion years ago it was right now and a billion years from now it's still right now, only thing that has changed is where everything is.

>>16151225
>he state has changed but the moment is the exact same
Not if you skipped forward by one moment, the momentum of the system has changed thus an entirely different moment, by definition.

The moment you revealed yourself to be a complete idiot and the moment you doubled down on your idiocy are two different moments.

>>16151247
>Not if you skipped forward by one moment
Skipped forward where, it's always right now, there is no forwards or backwards, these are human abstractions

>>16151251
>forward where
Ahead of the point at timestamp indicated by the post I am replying to where you tripled down on being an idiot who doesn't understand how momentum works.

>>16151265
>Ahead of the point at timestamp
But that timestamp does not measure time, it measures an abstract rate in relation to something else, were time fundamental you should be able to derive it as an isolated property, not only that it was still right now when I made my previous post, furthermore if you want experimental evidence that reality does not operate with time or have any concept of it simply throw away all your clocks and stop thinking about it, after a week you will understand how things truly operate

>>16151270
Sure because like timestamps, a week has nothing to do with time either... to a complete idiot.

>>16151273
It's okay anon, there are millions of idiots who don't understand relativity, you're not alone in your struggle, I suggest starting by looking up what the word relative means and formulating a coherent, easy to understand picture of how your perception does not dictate what is actually happening.

>>16151278
Thanks for speaking for yourself and your retarded notion that time doesn't exist since you personally feel like you are trapped in a single moment.

>>16151284
Go ahead then, prove that anything exists outside of the current moment, show to me where the past and future are physically located right now, imagine getting filtered by something which is directly measurable, empirically provable and which most, if not all, of the greatest philosophers and scientists throughout existence unanimously have agreed upon

>>16151292
I already did, there was a moment you outed yourself as a complete idiot, followed by a moment where there was a call for reason, then a moment on where you doubled down on being a complete idiot, then more calls to reason, then you keep using units of time to prove time doesn't exist, tripling down on being an idiot, then more call to reason, then the moment where you admitted that your personal experience isn't actually what dictates time even though you are still quadrupling down on being an idiot, followed by a moment where you admitted you don't even understand how past timestamps relate to past events.

>>16151295
>I already did, there was a moment
Yes, "was", ergo it doesn't exist, retard

>>16151297
>only the moment exists
>actually it doesn't exist either
Congratulations, you have just undermined your entire argument that time doesn't exist because only one moment does.

>>16151299

>>16151306
Thanks for posting your test results but everyone figured it out already and have been trying to explain why you are retarded and proving time moves on is as simple as looking at your old timestamps.

>>16151310
>still no proof
I accept your concession

>>16151314
>Still disregarding proof because too retarded to understand the relationship between time and timestamps.
I accept your brain damage damages your reasoning skills.

>>16151319
What proof, you have yet to procure me a physical manifestation wherein the entirety of reality in its state 30 minutes ago still exists, you just keep going on autistic tirades because you have no argument, so you resort to cheap shots and non-sequiturs, either that or your reading comprehension and logical deduction is equivalent to a kindergarten level child, which is not surprising, considering the absolute retardation you're posting, please go read some books and educate yourself

>>16151325
You just have take a video to see the past more completely, but timestamps prove it existed.
Why are you even engaging in the same line of argument and repeatedly asking for similar evidence if you aren't continuing some past conversation and aren't looking to validate some point you brought up in the past?

>>16151327
https://finder.psychiatry.org/s/

>>16151330
I accept your concession, care to post a third test result that proved you are retarded?

>>16151335
Can't concede when you haven't provided an argument to concede to, I, however, fully accept your concession, as you have demonstrated that you can't even read or comprehend the most basic English sentences, why don't you grab a dictionary along with a grammar textbook (I'll even provide a link for you https://annas-archive.org/search?q=english+grammar)) and dedicate a couple hours of your worthless life to slowly go over all the posts until you understand where you went wrong, toodaloo

>>16151342
Sure, videos of the past don't exist, they all come from the future, you totally aren't retarded, your facts just happen to be contrary to reality and reason.

>>16151345
>having a picture of the sun taken 6 hours ago means the sun is still in the same location it was 6 hours ago
Literally braindead

>>16151346
Yes you are since you reach another completely retarded conclusion since the video from 6 hours ago shows the sun was definitely in a specific position 6 hours ago, not that it stayed in the exact same position the entire time.

>>16151348
Yes, was there, as in it isn't there anymore, as in the past events which have passed no longer exist, ergo the past doesn't exist, if it did exist you should be able to provide me a complete physical replica of every instance of reality before this very moment, but you can't, because there isn't anything there

>>16151358
>past events which have passed
I accept your concession, there definitely is a past, we know there is because we can directly observe things that passed, but were recorded.

>>16151361
>we know there is because we can directly observe things that passed
Passed where, 6 hours ago it was the current moment and 6 hours later it's still the current moment, if you want an easier experiment to prove you wrong, I can provide you with one - Isolate a hydrogen atom such that it is in a stable configuration, record the information of its state, come back some indeterminate amount of time later and record its state again, then provide evidence of there being any empirical metric of time within that atom, which has changed in its quantity, via which you can prove that there is indeed a temporal difference between then and now, good luck, I shall await for your eventual concession when you realize that there isn't anything there

>>16151372
>Passed where, 6 hours ago it was the current moment
No, 6 hours ago was the moment that passed six hours ago.

>Isolate a hydrogen atom such that it is in a stable configuration
Impossible.
>come back some indeterminate amount of time
Also impossible since you would never be able to determine when to come back if you were waiting for something indeterminate to happen.

Don't outsource your retardation, if you think you can perform an experiment to prove your retarded ideas, feel free to do it, but without time, you can't actually record and revisit your experiment, so its a moot self refuting point to try to prove that some experiment you did in the past proves there is no past.

>>16151376
>6 hours ago was the moment that passed six hours ago.
And where is it? If it was separate from right now then it should still physically exist.
>Impossible.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17759034/
1988, you can also just observe iron in vacuum if you don't want to isolate individual atoms
>Also impossible since you would never be able to determine when to come back
Wow, you are truly mentally handicapped, aren't you? There is no hope, no wonder the world is failing when the education system is pumping out drooling retards like you.

>>16151382
>And where is it?
6 hours in the past.

That is a completely different experiment that says nothing about isolating since to be held in a laser beam is specifically not isolation.

You are too retarded to know the words you use like indeterminate.

Why are you even referring to past experiments that happened in bygone years if your entire argument is that there is no past since everything just exists in the current moment since that is all you can personally perceive?

>>16151385
>6 hours in the past.
Where, provide me an identical physical copy of reality in this "past" you speak of, it's been 2 hours and you still can't do it

>>16151386
Show me an exact copy of reality first, then I can show you how to get six hours in the past. Or just set up a camera and you can look back six hours.

>>16151389
>Show me an exact copy of reality first
You mean the one we're existing in right now? Yeah it's pretty easy to see if you just open your eyes.
>Or just set up a camera and you can look back six hours.
picture of the sun =/= the sun

>>16151392
>Yeah it's pretty easy to see if you just open your eyes.
Its just as easy to set up a camera for six hours and look six hours into the past.

>picture of the sun =/= the sun
The the picture you get of the sun when you look at it with your eyes also is not the sun or any other part of reality by your retarded logic.

>>16151392
>You mean the one we're existing in right now?
No, a copy like a 3D sensor array that stretches through all of reality and captures all the data.

Cosmology isn't science, science has repeatable experiments and disprovable theorems.
Cosmology is religion.

>>16151412
You mean like how set up an experiment where you look at the orbit of a particular celestial body, then repeat it later to see if the orbit has changed and if you can disprove the orbital path that has been established from past experiments?

>>16151406
>Its just as easy to set up a camera for six hours and look six hours into the past.
That does not imply existence, if you take a picture of the sun and hold it up at night it is not magically daytime, because the state you photographed no longer exists, this is basic logic, it's astounding how you can't grasp this simple concept
>The the picture you get of the sun when you look at it with your eyes also is not the sun
Complete non-sequitur, please learn to argue

>>16151422
>because the state you photographed no longer exists
It exists in the past and the picture is proof, I get that you make posts without actually believing anything you say, but cameras don't work like that.

More words you use that you don't know what they mean.
What you think you saw wasn't actually the sun, it was your cells reacting to light that no longer exists, by your retarded logic.

>>16151437
>It exists in the past
Please, provide me a modicum of this "past" you speak of and show me that therein exists physically a reality which is temporally distinguishable from the current moment, oh wait, almost 4 hours later and you still can't, sad
>More words you use that you don't know what they mean.
No, you just have the comprehension skills of a toad
>What you think you saw wasn't actually the sun, it was your cells reacting to light that no longer exists
Not only is this a retarded analogy it has precisely zero relation to looking at a photo of something, ergo it is a non-sequitur, all you can do is pull shit out of your ass because you have no arguments

>>16151447
>show me that therein exists physically a reality which is temporally distinguishable from the current moment,
Its still called a timestamp and you are still depending on them to determine that it has been 4 hours since whatever.

>comprehension
No, you clearly don't know non-sequitur means if you think comparing the image you see with your eye to the image a camera sees with its sensor is a non-sequitur.

Its not an analogy, it is literally the basis of a camera, if you think it just an analogy, you clearly don't understand how cameras or eyes work.

>>16151457
>Its still called a timestamp
Which is an abstract measure, ergo not real, physically tangible or empirically observable, I'm sorry it took you 4 hours to figure out what I already extensively detailed in my fourth post not only by following logic statements, which are directly observable and applicable to reality, but also pointing towards a 100 year old theory which has already been widely tested and known to be correct, you get nothing, you lose, good day, sir.

>>16151470
>4 hours
I accept your concession, the past definitely exists which is why you can't even argue that it doesn't without repeatedly referring to it and relying on it to form your argument.

>>16151480
existed =/= exists
https://annas-archive.org/search?q=english+dictionary
READ NIGGA, READ

>>16151483
So I didn't say something 4 hours ago and you aren't trying to argue that something I said in the past was wrong?

>>16151484
Huh? What's an hour?

>>16151486
I accept your concession, you have no argument and never did.

>>16151487
Why are you refusing to answer the question? Tell me, what is an hour?

>>16151489
I accept your concession, you are the illiterate retard who needs to open a dictionary since you keep using words wrong since you have no idea what they even mean.

>>16151491
>still no answer
Come on, buddy, if you want me to concede you have to actually substantiate your arguments, so tell me, what is an hour.

>>16151494
Its a word you used in a past post apparently without even actually knowing what it means because you are a retard with no reasonable argument who is grasping at straws and expecting me to answer for past actions you claim don't exist.

>>16151495
I know exactly what it means, the only one denying that meaning is you, which is why I'm asking you what you think it means, but you just keep going on autistic tirades, you must either be a bot or you were dropped on your head after being birthed, either way reddit is a more suitable outlet for your rants

>>16151508
Except you are the retard ranting about how the past doesn't exist by trying to cite things that happened 4 hours ago then acting like you don't know an hour is when you try to answer someone reasonable question with a retarded question.

Maybe you be spending more time, not here or on reddit, but getting help and meds from that psychiatry.org site you brought up earlier >>16151330.

>>16151510
I already answered your "reasonable questions" several times, promptly after which you responded with another autistic outburst, sad, but don't feel bad, someone has to stare at the shadows while others hold the torches, that's life.

>>16151513
No I asked >>16151484, then you responded in the most retard way you could muster by suddenly forgetting what an hour was and having to ask >>16151486 even though taking over 4 hours to accept your retarded premise was the entire basis of your retarded argument in >>16151470.

>>16151523
>t.

>>16151528
ok retard

>>16151533
>can't understand basic logic
>can't understand basic english
>can't understand mathematical quantities
>can't understand experimentally verified scientific principles
>calling anyone retarded
I think it's time to stop munching on those crayons, anon, they're not good for your brain.

>>16151551
>t. the retard who doesn't know what an hour is and still refers to time in nearly ever single post despite trying to argue that time doesn't exist

>>16151556
>pointing out that something is an abstraction made for convenience of information relation with no qualitative property behind it means you're not allowed to use it
Literal crayon muncher, but I'm sure you have all the evidence in the world to prove your argument correct and surpass all the mathematicians and physicists who have been trying to do the same thing for hundreds of years with no result, right?

>>16151570
I accept your concession, you must use time to make your points and referring to past posts is necessary in making your argument no matter how much you would like to avoid it because time clearly exists and you are clearly making use of it.

>>16151585
>still no argument
>still no proof
I accept your concession, I'm sure you'll pull the big bang out of your magicians hat one day, since it's still magically lingering around according to your yet to be proven hypothesis

>>16151594
By accepting a concession, you explicitly accept that something happened in the past that you now accept, so I accept you concession that the past must exist since it is the only way anyone can accept concessions.

>>16151631
something happening in the past =/= past existing
basic
logic

>>16151637
By basic, you mean retard since something couldn't happen without existing.

>>16151646
How can it exist when it already happened and has already passed, numbnuts, you can't say you still have a cock after it's been chopped off just because you used to have one in the past, it no longer exists, it's gone. Christ almighty, even literal dogs understand object permanence, but apparently the concept is a bit outlandish to you, but hey, I'm sure you can whip up a grand old proof to show that all the possible states of reality spread out over infinite increments of time are physically there and empirically observable, measurable and quantifiable, right?

OP here, keep yourselves restrained please.

I thought this philosophical shit was science btw, it IS possible through infinity and energy we can be remade?

>>16151663
>it IS possible through infinity and energy we can be remade?
define "we", we are the universe, made from it, directly connected to it, there is no separation, there is no remaking because there is no undoing, only the changing of states from one to another

>>16151665
You propose the idea of being given life in a reshaped universe for the next cycle then?

>>16151677
Yes, we live again and do something else in the next cycle

>>16151677
Of course, doesn't even have to be the next "cycle", you could die today and in an instant (since you would not perceive any passing of time) open "your" eyes as a goat who was just born some 2 years after "your" death, all life is based on the same concept, all consciousness is the same thing spread out in separate forms, any notion of self or a separate identity is just a trick of the mind, we're all just reality reflecting upon itself via mechanisms which allow it to interact with itself in a way which manifests as this conscious experience, the only question is how it works, because physically your body is just a bunch of chemical logic gates and electromagnetic interactions, but no matter where you look there is no place where the "experience" itself is stored or manifested, the brain is just a fancy memorizing machine recording information it has processed with specific orders of chemical reactions and electromagnetic impulses, but where does the qualitative experience itself come from, who knows, it's all just a giant clusterfuck and we have no other option but to just roll with it and hope for the best, even though your next life could possibly be way worse than this one.

>>16151719
>open "your" eyes as a goat who was just born some 2 years after "your" death,
that implies there's a unique something which goes into the goat, which we don't know if it's real.
makes more sense to continue in some universe where the same matter arrangement somehow comes to be and manifests you (as a continuation past your death here)

>>16151726
>that implies there's a unique something which goes into the goat, which we don't know if it's real.
Yes and no, qualitative experience/consciousness seems to be some yet to be defined property of reality, these complex forms seem to be merely a "focus point" of sorts, a way to bring information to a more readable form, and a way to memorize and repeat that information such that a continuous perception of experience may be formed, if you couldn't remember anything you would probably not be conscious, it could just be that it is merely the way the interactions between these things are expressed, like igniting TNT produces an explosion, the specific matter interactions produce qualitative experience, but it's just not possible to pinpoint where exactly that experience comes from or where it goes, personally I think consciousness is some fundamental of reality, all reality is one singular "consciousness", but without a form which could take in and process the information within itself, due to innate physical laws which dictate the behaviour of reality, it can't really perceive anything or know that it is conscious in any way because it has no way to store or process information in a way which would make sense, but of course that's a huge hypothetical, I don't think we will ever be able to explain it with these limited forms, a next step in evolution is necessary to change our perception of information and how we communicate it, words and numbers are just assigned values to specific things, but you can't assign values to everything, because not all is explainable by these simplistic terms and logic operations.

>>16151726
>>16151745
cont. due to text limit
>makes more sense to continue in some universe where the same matter arrangement somehow comes to be and manifests you
Perhaps, that is one likely outcome, but then comes the question of what makes you "you", because you're made of the exact same things that everything else is made of, there is no physical difference between the carbon atoms in your body and the carbon atoms in the center of a slowly dying star, or the water molecules in your body and some large lake, wherein lies the identity of "you" within these parts? I just see it like this, I was dead, there was absolutely nothing and then I came to existence as some form which, through interaction with the outside and the inside, formulates an experience, but I am not unique in the sense that even far less complex forms have experience, just not on the same level of complexity and not even the same type of perception, since different interactions produce different outputs, so the complexity of the form seems to play some role in the complexity of experience, but it is not unique to your form, all interactions produce some reaction, it is only through the cumulation of these interactions that a more complex image can manifest, so following from the statement that experience is not unique to one singular form of one singular type and can manifest in different forms with varying levels of complexity and different mechanisms of interaction and that there is no separate identity between the constituent parts of these forms, I see no reason why I couldn't have been a bug, or a rabbit, or born in America to John and Jane Smith in 1972, or born a billion years later in some hyper-advanced human society.

I don’t care for a goat or anything , we may be able to be reborn through the restarted cycle, as the same person.

Reincarnations are hard to figure out though

>>16151788
>we may be able to be reborn through the restarted cycle, as the same person.
Are you proposing that the outcome is always exactly the same? Personally I find that unlikely, given the amount of input conditions and potentially infinite amount of time and variability.

>>16151793
nta but don't think they can play out the same. which would make for another (You) each time, not this particular one. which blurs everything as far as ID goes.

>>16151815
>which would make for another (You) each time
But how do you know it's (You) and not someone else? If you take two people and strip them of all their memories and knowledge, any sense of self, then what difference is there between their consciousness? The physical mechanisms behind it are the same, the atoms are physically the same, the consciousness is the same, the only difference is the physical separation, which is unavoidable due to the laws of physics, but the underlying framework is the exact same and technically you aren't even physically separated, since the transition between all matter is continuous.

>>16151793
Not exactly? I think we would come back as the same person but live a different life sometime.

>>16151815
>>16151821
I speak on the idea that I want to be the same person but come out doing different but similar things? I mean everyone else would be doing it too I guess?

>>16151821
That's what I mean by ID becomes blurry. Thus what you are is at least the whole set of experiences which shaped (You), and this makes (more) sense to go on forever, somehow. I don't know how. The "simplest" way would be for some reason for this (You) to get rebuilt again in the future, after you die here. Else I don't understand how this (You) would get reborn. When I try to think about it everything dissolves into (One), we're all the same thing, in anything, animals, insects, humans. AGI/"synthetic" life. Which ok might sound interesting from some points of view but doesn't say much about (Me) now.
As in, makes more sense for some "human" race developing in 10384612038 big bang cycles from now, with proper control over tech, "randomizing" a fake human with a random set of experiences and memories which happen to be exactly (Me) right before I die here. In this way (I) would have a continuity after dying here, and it would still be (Me), and it would make "some" sense. For them I'd be a randomized human, for me it would be (Me) with my experience, knowing I died and immediately popped up in that strange new world. Where the "humans" that made me think I'm just a random creation with no "real" past.
That makes more sense than reincarnation, for me.

>>16151841
>That makes more sense than reincarnation, for me.
I'm not talking about reincarnation, though, just recombination of matter into a form which can process information, basically the same idea you have, just eliminating the self identity which only appears to be subjective based on what you've experienced

>>16151847
but if you eliminate self identity which is fully based on genetics+experience here there's no difference between any of us. at least humans. which makes it weird. are we all the same shit? doesn't feel like it that's for sure

>>16151852
That's my hypothesis at least, reality is both the play and all the actors in it, why our conscious experiences aren't combined is because our information processors are separate, there is nothing between us to directly communicate the information we receive, the underlying property of a singular consciousness has no awareness or thinking capability in itself, so it doesn't transmit any information through itself, for lack of better words, rather it induces the conscious experience in sufficiently equipped forms which have the capability to interact in a specific way, I think this is further strengthened by the fact that if you were to combine two, or possibly more brains, the separation between them would disappear, it would start acting as one brain in unison or that in patients whose hemispheres have been separated there has been observed split "consciousness", where one hemisphere has apparent individual control over limbs and such without the primary hemisphere being aware of it or making a conscious decision to perform those actions. It's all very strange and weird and very hard to make any educated guesses about without being an observer outside of the entire thing, but since there is no outside, or at least there doesn't appear to be, then we're stuck in this pit for the time being and can only mull over it philosophically.

>>16151865
I wonder what would be the difference between a strongly networked mesh of say 10 brains, all having access to everything from the other 9, and a single brain with all memories of the other 9 brains uploaded to it? Would a single more massive brain-unit with all memories of all humans "feel" like each of them at the same time? Also what would be the purpose of consolidating all knowledge into a single individual? It is clearly more restricted in action as compared to it being split in 10. Even if it thinks 10 times faster or something (in parallel) it still has one body which limits action.
For example, some future AGI could exist either in a secluded guarded place, and remotely access robots to exert its will on the real world, either would be isolated "cores" that independently act on the real world, like humans do now.
For me, the most sense makes a configuration where as many individual units exert will on the environment, in parallel, which allows them to go further into the Universe as compared to a single centralized power core which remotely exerts its will on the Universe, it being bound by the speed of light and all that, can't be as effective as many "like-minded" units acting on their own.

What proof can we get out of the idea of being able to return though?

Perfect example of a thread being hijacked by schizos

>>16151909
You can't get proof I think. If there's SOME way that we may continue to exist after dying here, that's good enough for me. As long as it doesn't break any physics. If I can "invent" at least one possibility, there may be way more. In reality you don't know what in the superposition of what's possible to happen for (You) after you die. And even if some version I can come up with is in that superposition, I don't know how probable it is, by comparison to all the other possibilities that are in that superposition. There may be even better possibilities, or way darker, that are more probable. We don't know. But if it's possible it should be in that superposition.

>ctrl+f conformal
>0 results
Penrose figured this out with CCC. When it all shakes out, I guarantee that his interpretation will be closest to what actually happens.

>>16151949
I thought they were all different ideas? CCC is the big bounce/Big Crunch/cyclic model but with additional details no?

>>16150089
All of the evidence is against it. And we've had *100 years* of failed crunch/bounce cope theories at this point

>>16151968
No. CCC is the heat death model but somebody actually spent 30 seconds thinking about what happens when all mass has dissipated.

>>16151979
Is there proof of this? There’s never a failure if there’s persistence of the human soul.
>>16151981
And?

>>16151987
Distance is meaningless to a photon. When there's no remaining matter, all the energy just ends up bunched together again because the principle of "place" or "location" is no longer definable.
There's no crunch or bounce. The final step of heat death is identical to the instant of the big bang.

>>16152034
Interesting then, so just another bang in the dark then

>>16152034
>Distance is meaningless to a photon
Photons are hypothetical quanta of the EM field, not confirmed and the current consensus on their properties is highly dubious
>When there's no remaining matter
Fundamentally impossible, matter/energy are the same thing and can not be destroyed
>all the energy just ends up bunched together again because the principle of "place" or "location" is no longer definable
1. Relative measurements do not affect physical properties
2. It should have already happened, because everything is made of the same quantum oscillations, the principle of "place" or "location" is already not definable on the smallest scales, because it becomes one uniform soup

>>16152311

>>16152320
>no argument
>wojakposting

imagine how insanely narcissistic you'd have to be to presume you understand the entire universe

>>16152325
>photons are not actually photons
>refuses to elaborate

>>16152331
Who are you quoting? Nobody said this.

>>16151979
Not the other guy but things like zero energy universe and eternal inflation also set the stage for more universes/more energy creation.

It'd be kinda arbitrary if there was an energy creation mechanism at the beginning and then it just doesn't happen any more.

>>16150124
Start with kys then, goodnight

>>16152359
>It'd be kinda arbitrary if there was an energy creation mechanism at the beginning and then it just doesn't happen any more.
would be great if we could create or destroy some of this energy. that would be proof there can be more or less than it already is.

>>16152330
Yeah I mean i'm just in the middle of a battlefield atp with these people.

>>16152384
Well modern physics models keep the energy density of space constant, which means the total goes up as space expands. So physicists have started saying that energy is not conserved on a universe scale.

Then there's also the fact that the universe can not be eternal into the past, so energy has to have increased at some point to the energy we see today. If net zero energy universe is true, then you could just keep pulling energy from nothing as long as you balance it with negative potential energy, which seems to be what space is doing. Eternal inflation posits that this field that is ticking up with energy sometimes collapses locally and shits out all this energy as radiation that eventually can become matter (a new local big bang).

>>16151987
>Is there proof of this?
Literally, yes. I didn't bring up the proofs since these are even stronger than the fact that all (100% [the entirety]) the evidence is against it, but yes. Even the most extreme, unhinged evasion attempts like arbitrary arrow of time reversals or entropy density modifications or string component additions, etc. fail to them. I'm sorry if you're Hindu and this obliterates your religion.
>There’s never a failure if there’s persistence of the human soul.
That is fair enough, we're gonna have a 2+2=7 thread in a couple hours. I've learned not to underestimate schizos at this point.

>>16152359
>It'd be kinda arbitrary if there was an energy creation mechanism at the beginning and then it just doesn't happen any more.
You seem to be talking about multiple models at once (though eternal inflation fails on similar geodesic grounds). The big crunch shitpost from OP is what I'm talking about, where you don't need additional creation.

>>16152418
>Then there's also the fact that the universe can not be eternal into the past
I get it as human intuition but we'd need to prove that.

>>16152432
It'd mean that a clock ticking away eventually reaches infinity and that this has happened, I don't see how that can be true.

>>16152433
>and that this has happened
that's the funny part, we wouldn't know anyway

>>16152426
Wait there’s no links? Also I’m sorry if we have people like general sci folks in here.

>>16152433
I agree that with a limited number of energy there's a limited number of possible scenarios. even if unimaginably high variety it would eventually repeat. the randomness of radioactive decay can contribute for variety but that too will eventually repeat.
what if it plays all possible permutations with a fixed quantity of energy? and then stops. like a giga simulation

>>16152426
Why do you assume there had to be a creation scenario?

>>16151655
You are arguing the exact opposite of permanence though, you are saying past things stop existing as soon as you stop observing.

>>16152730
>you are saying past things stop existing as soon as you stop observing.
No, dumbass, past events don't exist, the state has changed, it is never the past or the future, it is always right now, the current moment, time, past, future, these are all abstract concepts which don't correspond to anything physical and are illusions of the mind, it's really not that difficult to understand if you bothered to think a little

>>16152748
>are illusions of the mind
No they actually happen and it refers to real things, you don't know what illusion means either.
If your thoughts are just illusions from the past, what is the point in thinking and what value does your illusory conclusion actually hold other than to completely devalue yourself and your choices and opinions?

>In the beginning God created the heavens and the stars…
<NOOOOOO!!!!
<In the beginning big bang basedence created the heavens and the stars!!!!
>In the beginning God created the plants and the animals…
<NOOOOOO!!!!
<In the beginning Darwin basedence created the plants and the animals!!!!

>>16152752
>No they actually happen
Where, show me where the past and future are happening right now, show me where the big bang is right now, show me where the solar system is being engulfed by the sun right now
>it refers to real things
No, they don't, why bother arguing when you have zero clue what you are talking about
>If your thoughts are just illusions from the past
Your thoughts are the electrochemical reactions occuring in your body at the current moment

>>16152763
Show me a copy of reality where right now is happening, no you can't say what you see because that is only your perspective, its not the whole of reality, so show me where this copy of reality exists.

Obviously when your opinion is fake and you are just trolling you will assume everything that has ever happened is fake too.

>Your thoughts are the electrochemical reactions occuring in your body at the current moment
Nope it takes several moments for electromagnetic signals to travel and for chemical reactions to occur, so if time isn't real, neither is any of that other stuff since they all take time to occur.

>>16152773
>Nope it takes several moments for electromagnetic signals to travel and for chemical reactions to occur, so if time isn't real, neither is any of that other stuff since they all take time to occur.
Holy retard, everything in reality happens at the same time, if you freeze the frame and skip forward one frame everything in reality changes state at the exact same moment, the amount of "time" between each of these moments is zero because reality is continuous not discrete, there are no increments of time nor distance between one instant and the next, but I'm sure you've got plenty of proof to back up your backward ass thinking and prove wrong the theory of relativity and that time is indeed discrete, not continuous, in which case I wish you luck with getting your nobel prize and being heralded as the greatest mind mankind has seen yet, bye!

>>16152780
It is easily provable because electromagnetic waves take time to propagate by definition given electromagnetic waves are specifically defined as energy disturbances that ripple through space over time since Maxwell's equation include both time and spacial components. Whether discrete or continuous, it still has a time component.
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/modules/m1/emwaves.htm

>>16152792
>bringing up spacetime when you have no idea what it represents
Peak dunning-kruger
>It is easily provable because electromagnetic waves take time to propagate
First, what is the amount of "time" between one infinitesimal increment and the next?
Second, motion does not need time, time is an abstract derived from comparisons of change, but the change has already happened, it is always the current singular moment, past states don't exist and neither do future ones, which is why the past and future are abstract properties, furthermore your own argument can be used to prove you wrong, because if you were to travel at the speed of light then the propagation distance and time would become zero, because surprise surprise, time (and space) are both abstract metrics derived from relations and not real physical manifestations, even the fucking greeks figured this out.

>>16152825
You are the tard who brought up EM without realizing it takes time to propagate.
You also for some reason think math goes out the window when dealing with continuous variable and 3(t)-1(t) equals 0 for some reason.

>muh abstractions
You also don't know what abstract means since 'current moment' is also just as much an abstraction as 'next moment' or 'previous moment', so all you are doing is proving that you don't believe in reality since everything word is just abstraction since humans can only communicate in an abstract human language.

> if you were to travel at the speed of light then the propagation distance and time would become zero,
No it wouldn't, if it moves at a specific rate that specifically means it takes a specific amount of time to move a specific amount of space, by definition.

>>16152833
>it takes time to propagate.
What is the amount of time between one infinitesimal and the next? What is the number between 0.999... and 1?
QED

>>16152836
Your body is not infinitesimal in size and resistance, though, so EM waves moving through your body has nothing to do with infinitesimal values.

>>16152839
>reality is not continuous
Cool, can't wait for your thesis and subsequent nobel prize for proving everyone to ever exist wrong, bye!

>>16152843
Whether it is continuous or discrete it is not infinitesimal in size, continuous vs discrete has nothing to do with my argument since time is still an em component when dealing with either the continuous or discrete versions of maxwell's equations.

>>16152845
You shouldn't talk about things if you don't know what they represent, bye!

>>16152848
>t. the complete tard who brought up EM waves without realizing that both the continuous and discrete formulas for EM mechanics rely on time components.

>>16152855
You shouldn't talk about things if you don't know what they represent, bye!

>>16152870
Which is why you shouldn't have brought up EM waves and you shouldn't keep trying to bring up continuous vs discrete since you clearly don't understand what that means and somehow think it means the time component is self-negating even though time components are still part of the continuous version of maxwell's equations.

>>16152878
You shouldn't talk about things if you don't know what they represent, bye!

>>16152879
Which is why you shouldn't have brought up EM waves and you shouldn't keep trying to bring up continuous vs discrete since you clearly don't understand what that means and somehow think it means the time component is self-negating even though time components are still part of the continuous version of maxwell's equations.
Which is why you shouldn't have brought up EM waves and you shouldn't keep trying to bring up continuous vs discrete since you clearly don't understand what that means and somehow think it means the time component is self-negating even though time components are still part of the continuous version of maxwell's equations and you shouldn't keep saying bye since you don't seem to understand that word either.

>>16152882
>he still thinks the time component represents a physical quality and not an abstract quantity
Keep staring at those shadows, you will never leave the cave

>>16152883
Physical is an abstraction, you shouldn't use that word since you don't know what it means and you shouldn't use any words if you hate abstraction so much.

>>16152885
>Physical is an abstraction

>>16152887
Yes it is a word that relates to forces and energy transfer which are abstract concepts. All words are abstractions, so you need to stop using them if you dislike abstractions so much.

>>16152889
Physicality is by definition not abstract, you fucking nonce >>16152825
Go back to school and stop posting, you retarded faggot, nothing smart will ever come out of your mouth.

>>16152892
It is a word which requires a definition which by definition are abstractions.

How can you say to go back if you don't even believe there is a back since the current thing is the only thing?

How can you say anything will ever be anything else if you don't believe in anything except now?

Why do you continually make references to a past and future you don't believe in using abstract words that you don't believe in either?

>>16152895
https://finder.psychiatry.org/s/

>>16152898
Enjoy your cave and your constant need to use abstract words and resources created by other people to complain about how you don't understand anything and you can't make sense of reality with the words that have been provided for you by men far better than you at everything.

>>16152900
>still doesn't understand what abstract means
Here I'll make it easy for you
https://www.google.com/search?q=abstract&sca_esv=4d7efd29b5dccb68&source=hp&ei=I6UwZqL1M9jNwPAPtPq7sAY&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZjCzMzzvQg99Zp9Dd4OGHr9X847ILZGF&ved=0ahUKEwjiktmevOmFAxXYJhAIHTT9DmYQ4dUDCBc&uact=5&oq=abstract&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IghhYnN0cmFjdDILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARivATILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwFIughQAFiCCHAAeACQAQCYAUCgAZ8DqgEBN7gBA8gBAPgBAZgCB6ACsgPCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYgwEYxwEYigXCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAgUQABiABMICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFmAMAkgcBN6AHrUw&sclient=gws-wiz

>>16152902
>he still doesn't understand that words are abstractions even when he is staring at dictionary pages that say as much

>>16152905
Wrong, everything which represents qualitative properties are by definition not abstract, things which represent quantities without qualitive counterparts are abstract
QED, you lost, bye

>>16152907
If it "represents" something else, it is an abstraction by definition.

>>16152908
No it doesn't, you absolute retard, stop posting and open up a dictionary

>>16152907
>everything which represents qualitative properties are by definition not abstract, things which represent quantities without qualitive counterparts are abstract
So you think magenta is not abstract, but 1 fluid ounce of water is abstract?

>>16152913
I did and cambridge says that abstract is the quality of representing an idea rather than being concrete and the word physical like every other word represent an idea rather than being something concrete.

>>16152914
Magenta is abstract, because colours are not physical properties of matter, but abstractions of the mind, volume is a directly observable physical property, time is not, there are no time particles, it is impossible for you to say which way time is progressing, there isn't a single qualitative property of time in any ounce of matter, it is an abstract quantity used for extrapolation and relation
>>16152915
>something empirically observable and tangible is an idea not something concrete
Lord almighty, I thought you couldn't get any more retarded yet here we are, I'm getting second-hand embarrasment from your idiocy

>>16152917
>Magenta is abstract,
So your definition was wrong as is everything you have said about every word.

>colours are not physical properties of matter
Yes they are, they are words that describes specific types of EM waves which was the entire basis of what you considered physical earlier.

>volume is a directly observable physical property,
No, you have to measure it, you can't just directly eyeball an amount of water and know the exact volume.

>time is not,
Its called a stop watch, you can directly observe the time moving as much as you can directly observe water flowing.

>there are no time particles
Because time is the physical description of the particle motion through space, not the particle itself.

>there isn't a single qualitative property of time
Time is both a qualitative and qualitative abstraction, it describes the quality of a particle's movement through space and makes reference to some base amount of movement quantified as a second.

The word physical like every other word is not tangible, it is just an abstract idea that can be translated into a number of different languages.

>>16152921
>they are words
Words are not physical properties, they are representations of physical properties, colour is not a physical property of matter, it is a construct of consciousness to differentiate between things, just like time, all electromagnetic waves are the same "colour", that is they don't have one, they are just oscillations of matter, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post, you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say

>>16152926
>Words are not physical properties
I accept your concession, so you can stop using words now since you have proved they are abstraction that are not actually physical and you hate the use of abstraction and references that aren't entirely physical in nature.

> they are just oscillations of matter
That oscillate at different rates which dictate different colors, so are you saying the oscillation isn't real or the energy through space isn't real?

>>16152929
>I accept your concession
Where is it, in your imaginary past which still exists?
>they are abstraction
Which is irrelevant, only relevancy is what they represent, if it has no physical form it is an abstraction
>That oscillate at different rates which dictate different colors
And it is the consciousness which creates the abstraction of colour, it is not an inherent property of matter and if you really think it is then provide evidence to substantiate your claim and collect your nobel prize, because so far noone has been able to prove that colour is a physical property
You lost, bye!

>>16152936
>Where is it,
Where you finally admitted that words are not actual physical properties despite trying to argue this whole time that they somehow were.

>Which is irrelevant, only relevancy is what they represent, if it has no physical form it is an abstraction
No, anything that is just a virtual representation of something else is abstract by definition. The word physical doesn't have a physical form, if it did all words would and nothing would be abstract since being an abstract word would count as being physical.

>it is the consciousness which creates the abstraction of colour,
No, it is the rate of oscillation of an EM wave that determines the color you perceive otherwise you could just wish for anything to be any color and it would be since it would be dependent on your conscious choice rather than on the physical properties of the object.

>so far noone has been able to prove that colour is a physical property
Wrong not only have they proven it, they have objective physical sensors that can detect color because the color of an object isn't dependent on your opinion, it is dependent on the physical properties of the object.

You still don't know even what bye means since you are still going to say something retarded instead of understanding how words work as abstract references rather than the thing itself.

>>16152942
>Where you finally admitted that words are not actual physical properties
Irrelevant, reductio ad absurdum, they are used to convey information about physical properties, but not all words (or quantities) represent physical properties, in which case it is an abstract
>it is the rate of oscillation of an EM wave that determines the color you perceive
Yes, the colour you perceive, not the colour it physically is, because there is no physical property of colour, not only that the EM waves which excite your cones are not the same which your brain uses for communication with its parts and inducing the conscious experience, why do different electromagnetic impulses have the same colour if a specific wavelength has a specific colour property?
> otherwise you could just wish for anything to be any color
You can, just do acid and you will see how your perception of things can be manipulated to the craziest of extremes while the external reality remains completely unchanged, consciousness, or qualitative experience, is itself partially an abstraction and like words and numbers can represent both abstract and objective properties, not only that there is no empirical way for you to prove that your red is my red, or that I am seeing any of the same "colours" you are, nor can you describe properties of colour, you can say something is red, but it is not possible for you to convey what the properties of red are, making it an abstract concept.
>not only have they proven it
[citation needed]
>they have objective physical sensors that can detect colour
Wrong, sensors detect the energy fluctuations through analog interactions with the electromagnetic wave, which only have two physical properties, neither of which is colour, your cone cells operate on the exact same principle, it's just transfer of work from one system to another, there are no colour particles in EM waves.
That's strike three, mister, you're out!

>>16152965
>they are used to convey information
I accept your concession, they definitely are abstract.

>there is no physical property of colour
Wrong, there are sensors that can detect the physical color of an object, so its definitely more than just something you perceive.

>why do different electromagnetic impulses have the same colour if a specific wavelength has a specific colour property?
Because like you said waves are continuous spectrum, not just discrete impulses, a color can be represented by a subset of the spectrum, not just one exact wavelength.

No wonder your don't understand words, you are a retarded drug addict who spends way too much time getting high and imagining nonsense instead of analyzing the real world around you.

[citation needed]
https://components101.com/sensors/tcs3200-color-sensor-module

>neither of which is colour,
Except for the fact that it is literally a device designed to sense colors because it accurately identifies the color of the waves based on its physical properties.

Color like time is not a particle, it is a description of the motion of waves (particularly the frequency) like time is a description of the motion of particles.

You are the one who has said bye three times without leave and doesn't even know what the simple word means, so you are the one who should be out especially since your entire argument is that abstract=bad while all you do is use abstract words to reveal yourself to be a retard who doesn't even understand the references you are making, at this point I can't help but to assume you are just a tard bot meant to increase engagement by saying the stupidest possible things and compelling people to correct your retarded nonsense.

>>16152976
>https://components101.com/sensors/tcs3200-color-sensor-module
HAHAHHAHA, imagine posting this and not knowing how it even functions, what a fucking retard

>>16152980
That spec page literally tells you how it functions to sense color which is why I used it for the citation, dipshit.
>each photodiodes are coated with different filters each of them can detect the corresponding colours.

>>16152985
>still doesn't understand what an abstract property is
I'd feel bad for you but choosing to intentionally remain retarded warrants no sympathy

>>16152988
Too bad you are the who already admitted that your retarded inability to be consistent is tied to your crippling drug addiction and all your information is the result of unstable drug induced hallucinations rather than actual measurable facts.

>>16152991
Still not seeing your nobel prize for your discovery, almost like you're spewing shit and you don't even know it

>>16152994
Its not a new discovery, lay off the bong and your memory won't be so fucked so that you instantly forget that I literally just showed you it has already been put into practice and there are consumer electronics that can detect color.

>>16152996
>still doesn't understand how it works
This is just sad to watch, like watching a heroin addict choke on his own vomit, you're peaking on the dunning-kruger meter, guess that's a physical property too, eh?

>>16153004
Sure, bro, just a few more drugs and reality will work however you say it should.

>>16153006
Damn, you are one expensive projector considering you're propagating false information about things you know fuck-all about, but I'll await for your nobel prize for proving all the greatest minds of the last 3000 years wrong!

>>16153011
Yea, man, if only I had a crippling drug addiction like you, then I would totally know the secret to everything as stare off into space being too retarded to even move my own body properly.

>>16153012
All you need is to read some books, but I can tell from your negroid-level IQ that you haven't opened a single one in your lifetime.

>>16153015
Yea man and when you roll the paper up to smoke your drugs with you will like totally be able to figure out everything despite constantly looking like a retarded and never having consistency to people who haven't tarded themselves with drugs.

>>16153017
I can see your schizophasia is kicking in, you should refer to the psychiatrist link I posted earlier, you're clearly unwell in your head

>>16153020
Since when do you need a psychiatrist for the type of drugs you have crippling addictions to?

What are the chances you're here existing right now? It makes more sense that the universe is infinite in size and time, this way it's possible that you exist somewhere at all times

>>16153029
Then why don't everyone's parents exist at all times?

>>16153025
Wouldn't know, I don't have any addictions, you should be put on some very strong meds, though, albeit I would suggest just putting you down, can't make a horse with no legs walk

>>16153035
Sure, bro, we are totally responsible acid users, we can quit any time and stop using it as a crutch to deny reality.

>>16153036
LOL, I will personally give you a hundred grand if you can find me a single person on the planet who uses psychedelics regularly, good luck

>>16153039
Its the entire reason you are actively denying reality and pretending like any color can be any other color you wish it to be, so you are obviously dependent on it to some degree. Are you saying that your brain was that severely damaged by just a few uses that you don't need to do it regularly to retain the brain damage it caused?

>>16153040
>Its the entire reason you are actively denying reality
Yeah, all the recognized and highly respected scientists who have laid the foundations to their respective fields are also denying reality, eh? Get your nobel prize for proving them wrong, then.
>any color can be any other color you wish it to be
Asking why qualia is like it is is redundant, I merely pointed out that your subjective qualitative experience is independent from inherent physical properties and can represent things however it wants, but seeing as you lack understanding of even the most basic topics I won't presume you to know how the brain or conscious experience functions, if anything all signs point towards you lacking consciousness, even dogs are more intelligent than you.
>so you are obviously dependent on it to some degree. Are you saying that your brain was that severely damaged by just a few uses that you don't need to do it regularly to retain the brain damage it caused?
Phew, not only are psychedelics contraaddictive they are physically harmless and build up an instant tolerance which would make subsequent use completely effectless, but just like with everything else you have no idea what you are talking about because you have no comprehension of how things function and live in your own little delusional world where you believe your imaginary things are real, seek psychological counselling, you have some severe issues you need to work on, bye!

>>16153046
Scientists don't say reality is whatever I say it is when I am hallucinating on drugs, they use the scientific method rather than acid.

>subjective qualitative experience
Color is not relegated to only being that since objective quantitative electronic devices can accurately measure color.

You also proved that brain functions are dependent on time since they involve electromagnetism and chemical reactions which all have time dependent variation.

They clearly harmed your ability to do reason and make logical consistent statements, so I wouldn't call them harmless.

>you believe your imaginary things are real
>t. the retard who says a color can be any color you want because you imagined it to be like that when you were on drugs.

>>16153051
>electronic devices can accurately measure color.
They don't measure colour, they measure the analog energy transfer from specific wavelengths and translate them into digitial signals to which you assign the arbitrary property of colour based on your preconceived notion that a specific wavelength corresponds to a specific colour, there is no colour information in the wavelength, it is all in your head.
As a final kick to the head to put you down permanently, I shall ask you to ask yourself this, if colour is an inherent property of electromagnetic radiation, then why doesn't anything outside the visible spectra have colour, why are all "images" taken in those wavelengths in black and white and false colour is assigned to them?
QED, you lost, enjoy your schizophrenic delusions, leave the hard topics to the big boys

>>16153058
No, I quoted the spec page and it doesn't say any of that, that is your drug filled mind hallucinating specification, it says there is an array of photodiodes with color filters that detect color.

>then why doesn't anything outside the visible spectra have colour,
It does, your organic sensor just can't detect it, but numerous birds can see the color of ultraviolet and other smaller animals can see even higher frequencies.

>>16153061
>It does, your organic sensor just can't detect it
And coincidentally not a single sensor made from every possible element also can't detect it? Get real, nigga
>but numerous birds can see the color of ultraviolet and other smaller animals can see even higher frequencies.
Yes, because colour is an abstraction of the qualitative experience, not a physical property

>>16153067
No, birds can and you can get ultraviolet color detectors and filter too, you can definitely use sensors to filter any wavelength and color shift it into the visible spectrum, its how most photos of space are treated.

It is that, but it is also objective and quantitative since objective sensors can detect color and quantify them.

>>16153071
>ultraviolet color detectors
1. there are no colour detectors
2. the electromagnetic spectrum extends far beyond uv and ir, why are all the images taken in those wavelengths black and white, why can't a single detector made from a single known element detect their colour?
>you can definitely use sensors to filter any wavelength and color shift it into the visible spectrum
By this logic you can use filters to represent light as any colour, making it an abstract property
>sensors can detect color and quantify them
They don't detect colour, they read the energy transfer and you apply an imaginary property to them
also quantity =/= quality
QED, you lose yet again

>>16153075
>1. there are no colour detectors
There are and I provided a spec sheet for one.
>2. the electromagnetic spectrum extends far beyond uv and ir,
Which is why I mentioned higher frequencies and pointed how space photos color shift them, especially microwave frequencies into visible color ranges.
>why are all the images taken in those wavelengths black and white,
They are not, photos of space tend to be very colorful because they are converting many different wavelengths to many other colors in the visible range.
>why can't a single detector made from a single known element detect their colour?
Electronics aren't made of single elements, but electronic color detectors like the one in the spec sheet can.

>By this logic you can use filters to represent light as any colour, making it an abstract property
Nope you need a physical object to filter like you need a hose to make water into different pressures proving they are objective properties that change when they encounter various other objects.

>They don't detect colour,
They do, they have photodiodes with color filters per the spec sheet.

The only way I am losing is by continuing to have a discussion with a self admitted drug addicted retard who bases his worldview on drug addled hallucination instead of actual reality.

>>16153085
>There are and I provided a spec sheet for one.
No you provided a spec sheet for a device which reads an electromagnetic transfer to which an abstract colour is assigned
>how space photos color shift them
No, they don't, you can go look at the raw data yourself, all false colour images are black and white and the colour is added digitally
>Electronics aren't made of single elements, but electronic color detectors like the one in the spec sheet can.
And magically detectors which can detect other wavelengths can't detect their colour?
>you need a physical object to filter
Yeah, it's called a photodetector, like the one you posted earlier
>hey have photodiodes with color filters
They have photodiodes with wavelength filters**

Hey guess what, there are also cells in your eyes which can detect the same light but produce no colour, I wonder why
Hey guess what, did you know that everything interacts electromagnetically, why don't inanimate objects perceive colour, why don't single atoms perceive colour, why don't electrons perceive colour?
And, oh wow, guess what, looks like even the scientific consensus disagrees with the retardation you are spewing out, oops, looks like you're wrong again!
Strike three, hook, line, sinker, you are done, toodaloo, maybe one day you'll graduate from second grade, but not today.

>>16153093
>electromagnetic
Yes, color.

>added digitally
That is what a color shift is and why space photos are very colorful as other wavelengths are objectively shifted to the visible range.

>And magically detectors which can detect other wavelengths can't detect their colour?
What? The color detectors detect color.

>photodetector
No the filter is what filters, it is put over the photodiode like I quoted the spec sheet as saying.

>but produce no colour
so now color is not even subjective?
Get off the drugs.
>why don't inanimate objects perceive colour
The color detectors whose spec sheet I provided are inanimate objects.

Lay off the drugs.

>>16153103

so do we live forever or what

>>16153120
Sadly yes, there is no way to get off of Mr. Bones' wild ride

>>16153120
I think so, but we would live differently each time. I have hopes so I just want to live more and see what happens if it becomes true

Damn autism is a helluva drug

>>16150089
>could it mean we live infinite amounts of times, every single one of us?
What do you think deja vu is?

>>16153161
I tend to think it's a brain fart. but in schizo mode say in a "many worlds" situation where the one you are in (for some reason) has a moment where current_state matches the one of another but it quickly decays into a different state. but for a short while they had an identical state.

>>16153134
It's autism + schizophrenia + low IQ + internet addiction

>>16153161
I get that and dreams too, implying the next time I die I do other things

>>16153161
>>16153193
OP here, thanks for telling me this so I know once I die I can either go to heaven and ask for a redo in a different family or I live a new life

>>16153106
Thanks for sharing your story brave young retard.

>>16154239
Sorry, your words no longer hold any credibility as you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of even the most basic things, your attempts at projection are in vain.

the simulation resets with random parameters each time, so it isn't likely

>>16154270
So things from the past definitely still affect what is happening now since you are treating past posts with the same degree of reality as the current post?

read about stygian colors if you want a nice mindfuck

>>16154287
Nobody asked, you can go back to r/mentallyhandicapped now

>>16154303
I just did ask since you were clearly treating the past like it definitely exists by indicating that past actions definitely influence reality.

>>16154307
Nobody asked, you can go back to r/mentallyhandicapped now

>>16154309
I definitely asked why you are very obviously treating the past like it exists and giving more credence to past posts over more current posts when you claim the past doesn't even exist.

>>16154322
refer to >>16154303

>>16154324
OK, thanks for confirming a past post is more important than an updated post right now since the past definitely exists and you felt it more important to refer to the past than make a new post presently.

>>16154328
Nobody asked, you can go back to r/mentallyhandicapped now

>>16154330
Nobody had to ask anything after I asked you about the past, you just had to confirm that the past exists and you did by putting past arguments above present ones, so thanks for the concessions.

>>16154333
Nobody asked, you can go back to r/mentallyhandicapped now

>>16154335
I know you didn't ask, you conceded I was correct and you are retarded which is why you are obsessed with hanging out in retarded people hangouts and posting pictures of your id from the retard clinic.

>>16154339
Nobody asked, you can go back to r/mentallyhandicapped now

>>16154351
I already said I know, you don't need to ask anything any more now that you definitely conceded that I was correct and you are a retard who likes hanging out in retarded people hangouts and showing off your id from the retard clinic.

>>16154356

>>16154359
It wasn't an answer to any particular question, just a statement of pure raw fact and summary of your concession amid your obvious demonstrable retardation and the terribly constructed argument that result.

>>16154362
Nobody asked

>>16154365
You don't have to ask a fact to be a fact, it just is a fact because it is factual like the fact you conceded because you realized your argument was the result of your own retardation rather than any actual facts lining up with your retarded nonsense.

>>16154392
Psst
Hey
Nobody asked

>>16154489
Concessions aren't questions, I know, thanks for the concession anyway even if you can't figure out what kind of grammar it is when you retards concede.

>>16154517
Nobody asked

>>16154529
Nobody answered any question, either, just stated facts.

>>16154545
Nobody asked

>>16154579
Nobody answered a question.

>>16154594
Nobody asked

>>16154601
Who said someone did?

>>16154603
Nobody asked

>>16154610
Asked what?

>>16154611
Asked you anything, yet you keep replying as if anyone cares what you have to say, what a sad existence

>>16154622
Don't worry you only have to spam about 20 more times until you get the thread to the bump limit with your spam and cover up all your retardation so nobody else has to be exposed to your stupid attempt at arguing.

>>16154623
>>16154622
In case you were thinking of asking.