High pressures over time deep within the internet have led to the crystallization of pure butthurt which can be explored in the cyber-cave linked below:
these people are not mentally well
they need some degree of an intervention because no, being a part of a “resistance” should not come at the expense of your own mental health
Trump is memetic SCP confirmed.
rolling a 1 on resist intrusive thoughts
the best part of this is that he “wasn’t charged with a crime because there is nothing against the law about driving a truck through a house, as long as it’s your truck and your house”
rocketverliden asked:
I’m sorry to say this, but as an experienced Gundam fan, you are the DSX-05L Custom Prototype Full-Autonomous Discourse Suit revealed by the World State in episode 18 and added to the ship’s crew, that sides against the mass-production autonomous discourse suits fielded by the Mysterious Organization in season 2.
It’s just how it is. Don’t worry, your self-sacrifice in season 2 episode 23 is touching and heroic.
if everyone thinks that, why didn’t they stop sooner? thank you russia for helping the americans reaching average intelligence
today this white girl asked me why my hair is so curly and i said im black and she told me to say african american
You hear about this happening in Britain with tourists sometimes, but I’m not sure if it really happens there or if the Brits are just yanking our chains.
If I ever have a live-in partner, or wife, I’m not sure I’d want to share the same bedroom. For a few reasons:
1) Sleep quality. “Brain scans have also shown that couples who sleep together wake one another continually. Next morning, their stress hormones are higher while their cognitive ability is lower. 1” Seriously, how could I sleep well if someone else is moving, shifting, and getting out of my bed? It’s not like I can use Sleep As Android in that case ….
2) Her sense of style might conflict with my taste! It might get messy! How am I suppose dance around in my undergarments to 80s hits in the morning if someone is watching? I mean, I guess she could watch, but I doubt anyone would want to!
in conclusion, I am likely to remain 5evar alone
Just fall asleep in the warm embrace of each other’s arms, then have your butler and maid servants gently carry you to your separate sleeping quarters, where you can awaken in the morning refreshed and clear headed!
#doesn’t everyone do this
It’s always weird when I see these reblog posts from an account that’s been deactivated It’s like the ghosts of Tumblrs past showing us all that social media, like life, is ephemeral and fleeting. Someone arrives, posts for a bit, and then disappears into the ether, never to be seen or heard from again.
Not me.
I’ve been sentenced here by the government of Earth for my many sins, as punishment.
Philosophy is not engineering, but neither is computer science, at least not the good bits. But that’s a bit of a sidetrack.
By making new universes I meant defining possible worlds, either on paper, or better yet in executable form. These can be humdrum, such as the world of Minecraft, made up of discrete cubes of material with certain laws of interaction, or much more abstract, like a distributed database system where there is no global clock to give a single unambiguous ordering of events, and it is a struggle to achieve a consistent interpretation of the current state for every observer. Or you can go even higher and try and define a dependent type theory that can unify mathematical proof and executable code, which is what we really need.
The interesting thing about these worlds is that we have direct access to the underlying laws and can address questions of object properties and identity directly. Most of them are not reductionist in the way that the real world is, so you can have a chair that literally exists as an independent object that is not made up of smaller parts, and lots of traditional reasoning about object identity then applies.
If we look at a reductionist universe like Conway’s Life, then I think there is not much to say about objects. The only fundamental entities in this universe are grid cells, and the absolute time step that updates them. Influences can propagate through the grid, and particular patterns of cells might be labelled as “objects” while analysing their behaviour, eg. gliders. But this is for notational convenience, we can’t actually learn anything at the object level that we couldn’t learn by studying the underlying cells.
You can create Turing machines in Life, and then you can analyse them as if they were abstract computing devices, ignoring the grid cells. But if a stray glider crashes into the machine, it will break, and the analysis will fail, just as if a chair in the real world caught fire: at some point your mental model would shift from chair, to burning chair, to smouldering remains of what once was a chair, or just pile of unidentified ash.
So there is clearly not much point for philosophers to debate the fundamental nature of Conway’s Life (right? I am assuming this).
The real world is still less well-defined, and there is behaviour we have not yet explained, and laws we have not fully worked out. But I have to draw the line somewhere, and if someone thinks that a chair has existence independently of the particles that make it up, well I don’t really know what to say to them. I mean, the question of what objects are was answered 2500 years ago by Democritus: arrangements of atoms in the void. Even I know that :)
Since there are no intrinsic properties of objects that can’t be dissolved into statements about their component parts, the only reason to have a theory of objects at all is for convenience in modelling and communication. But both of those have specific requirements, there is no single model of objects that will be ideal for every use case. You are going to need a very different model of chairs depending on whether you are talking to a furniture designer, a cafe owner, a Roomba, or a hunter gatherer.
I was speaking in a very compressed way about causal bundling just now, but I wasn’t joking.
A chair has qualities that its subcomponent parts do not, in terms of how it deflects the development of the world towards different directions/timelines vs a non-chair.
In this case, a chair is not an absolute definition, but rather a causal bundle - a cluster within the matter configuration space which has a high probability of producing certain related outcomes.
You can, then, learn something at the object level that you couldn’t by studying the atoms of the chair.
Yes, because it’s causally entangled with arrangements of atoms in the brains of a certain species of ape.
Most possible configurations of matter within the same bounding box are not chairs. And at the atomic level, if you take the same atoms, there are almost infinite permutations within the same macro-scale shape of any given chair that have nearly-indentical outcomes in interacting with the environment. Where we put the boundary around the fuzzy cluster is our choice and to some degree arbitrary, but the cluster itself is legitimate macro-scale information.
only because of the entanglement with us
I disagree. The effect on worldlines is also present for animals and plants, particularly less WRT chairs, and moreso with things like boats or rafts, with the propagation of animals across oceans.
Because of the way those parts work together, an animal is functionally more than the sum of its parts: a wave which the parts ride on.
You can get all the behavior of the animal if you simulate the whole thing at the subatomic level, but that’s because you’re including the wave when you do so. 90% of an animal is quite different from 100% of an animal.
So which one of you is the chair as a probabilistically-bound bundle of causative properties, and which is the chair as a set of atoms in the void?
this implies that objects and their boundaries are probabilistic, but in practice this is how we treat them anyway! e.g. chairs vs stools classifying, what counts as part of someone’s body, etc
Philosophy is not engineering, but neither is computer science, at least not the good bits. But that’s a bit of a sidetrack.
By making new universes I meant defining possible worlds, either on paper, or better yet in executable form. These can be humdrum, such as the world of Minecraft, made up of discrete cubes of material with certain laws of interaction, or much more abstract, like a distributed database system where there is no global clock to give a single unambiguous ordering of events, and it is a struggle to achieve a consistent interpretation of the current state for every observer. Or you can go even higher and try and define a dependent type theory that can unify mathematical proof and executable code, which is what we really need.
The interesting thing about these worlds is that we have direct access to the underlying laws and can address questions of object properties and identity directly. Most of them are not reductionist in the way that the real world is, so you can have a chair that literally exists as an independent object that is not made up of smaller parts, and lots of traditional reasoning about object identity then applies.
If we look at a reductionist universe like Conway’s Life, then I think there is not much to say about objects. The only fundamental entities in this universe are grid cells, and the absolute time step that updates them. Influences can propagate through the grid, and particular patterns of cells might be labelled as “objects” while analysing their behaviour, eg. gliders. But this is for notational convenience, we can’t actually learn anything at the object level that we couldn’t learn by studying the underlying cells.
You can create Turing machines in Life, and then you can analyse them as if they were abstract computing devices, ignoring the grid cells. But if a stray glider crashes into the machine, it will break, and the analysis will fail, just as if a chair in the real world caught fire: at some point your mental model would shift from chair, to burning chair, to smouldering remains of what once was a chair, or just pile of unidentified ash.
So there is clearly not much point for philosophers to debate the fundamental nature of Conway’s Life (right? I am assuming this).
The real world is still less well-defined, and there is behaviour we have not yet explained, and laws we have not fully worked out. But I have to draw the line somewhere, and if someone thinks that a chair has existence independently of the particles that make it up, well I don’t really know what to say to them. I mean, the question of what objects are was answered 2500 years ago by Democritus: arrangements of atoms in the void. Even I know that :)
Since there are no intrinsic properties of objects that can’t be dissolved into statements about their component parts, the only reason to have a theory of objects at all is for convenience in modelling and communication. But both of those have specific requirements, there is no single model of objects that will be ideal for every use case. You are going to need a very different model of chairs depending on whether you are talking to a furniture designer, a cafe owner, a Roomba, or a hunter gatherer.
I was speaking in a very compressed way about causal bundling just now, but I wasn’t joking.
A chair has qualities that its subcomponent parts do not, in terms of how it deflects the development of the world towards different directions/timelines vs a non-chair.
In this case, a chair is not an absolute definition, but rather a causal bundle - a cluster within the matter configuration space which has a high probability of producing certain related outcomes.
You can, then, learn something at the object level that you couldn’t by studying the atoms of the chair.
Yes, because it’s causally entangled with arrangements of atoms in the brains of a certain species of ape.
Most possible configurations of matter within the same bounding box are not chairs. And at the atomic level, if you take the same atoms, there are almost infinite permutations within the same macro-scale shape of any given chair that have nearly-indentical outcomes in interacting with the environment. Where we put the boundary around the fuzzy cluster is our choice and to some degree arbitrary, but the cluster itself is legitimate macro-scale information.
