1) I explained to you why you can't be right regarding your assumption of an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality. There's an entire logical principle dating back to the ancient Greeks (and likely before them) that states exactly this...it's the principle that states differences arise from sameness and similarities. Your methodology to forming conclusions about reality incorporates a false assumption about reality itself. Reality includes both subjectivity and objectivity, and so a comprehensive model of reality must explain how each defines the other.
I think my model is much simpler. Basically, we assume that reality is objective, and we, as an objective species existing in that reality, subjectively percieve that reality through our senses. If you start with the assumption that reality is objective, i.e. it exists and is as it is whether we percieve it or not, and place the fault of subjectivity only on our own limited subjective senses and reasoning ability, all the logic falls into place just fine. Everything shares a fundamental identity with everything else. In mathematics, this fundamental identity is a distributive property represented by the number '1'. Consider a statement, "ab = xy". This is really 1(a)1(b) = 1(x)1(y). The property of identity is a mathematical law that distributes to everything. Everything is united by this principle of identity...of cohesion.
That doesn't actually say anything. All you did was present a set of mathematical symbols, and claim that these symbols represent what you say they do. I don't even know if you mean a * b or something else, or if you mean 1 * a * 1 * b or 1-of-a * 1-of-b. Like, is 1 a number that is multiplied by other variables, or is 1 a function, like f in f(x)? If you're going to throw terms like these around, please take the time to explain them, since otherwise they don't have any meeting to anyone but yourself. 2a) You can reason about what's behind the horizon in a probabilistic way, but that's another way of saying "I don't know." Instead, I can say "I know that it's impossible to know what's beyond the horizon" and be correct. You never know where Dank is having his million man music festival. It's always just over the horizon, isn't it?
Actually, it's not "I don't know," but rather "It is not x" and possibly "It is Y with a probability of %." For instance, I know Dank, if he ever does, will NOT have his festival in the Marianas Trench, in the vacuum of space, on the moon or the sun, and likely not on top of Mt Everest, the top of the mpountain range in Chile, in the middle of the Sahara, inside of a car or a small shed, or in my house. Or at any number of other things that can not accomodate the requirements of having a concert (such as viable temperatures and sound carying atmosphere). I think that is considerably more precise than simply "I don't know," especially since it lets us to narrow the choices to an overall where we DO know. Like, if I didn't know whether Dank would have his concert in Venue A or in Venue B accross the street from Venue A, I can say with certainty that Dank will have his concert in a specific city that contains both venues. Likewise, I know that Dank will have his concert on Earth, if he actually does have a concert. And hey, that's how science works  2b) Non-sequitur. The reason is because "beyond the horizon" (not-visible) and "horizon" (visible) are localized distributions in spacetime. Your conclusion would only be valid if you're talking about polytheistic gods. A monotheistic god is omnipresent.
If he is supposedly omnipresent, but yet can not be percieved, then... 1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong. Furthermore, if by simplicity you mean "conveniently throwing out information that doesn't fit into the method I've selected," then I agree with you. I'm trying to tell you that there's other kinds of information that isn't empirical information, and while you've acknowledged that this other kind of information is real to some extent, you give its significance no inclusion whatsoever in your interpretation of reality. That being said, using an empirical model is extremely practical for many things. But it's entirely useless for forming theories about other kinds of information. I'm inclined to think that your refusal to incorporate the significance of this 'other' kind of information is why you ultimately reject any concept of God. It would never make sense to call anything 'God' in a strictly empirical model, especially when empiricism is limited by not only the problem of induction, but also by size (can't observe quantum-scale or global-scale) and rarity (UFOs, ET's, etc.). 2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen. Here, I'll do three more: a - a = 0 is really (1)a - (1)a = (1)0 1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3 "Apple" is really (1)Apple Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something. In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity. This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other. To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships. Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'. Take 'infinity' for instance. Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "not-finite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others. Consider the following scenario: "Hey Bob, I like your...yard." "Oh yeah? How big do you think it is?" "I don't know, but it looks HUGE! You know how big mine is?" "Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine." "  " And there you have it. Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others. And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough? Give me a break. Philosophers have the one-up on scientists and mathematicians all-day everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician). 3) Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know." Knowing that you can't know is still knowing. It also makes for a better surprise. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant? |
|
|
|
1). You're just plain wrong in your assumption that an objective world exists independent of subjectivity.
I can say the same about you, and we would still be exactly where we started, with both of us thinking we are right. So... 2). Things change completely because whereas once it was impossible to perceive beyond the horizon (and thus impossible to reason about what's beyond it) you moved beyond the horizon to check it out. If you're not beyond the horizon, then it is absolutely impossible to reason about what is beyond it. The phrase "it's impossible" holds when you can't perceive past the horizon, but it does not hold if you are perceiving beyond the horizon.
This can actually go both ways: A. You *can* reason what is beyond the horizon based on what you know is in front of it, and what you know about the world/system it exists in (if we are on sea, the only answers to that question are "water" or "beach" and not "mountain" or "waterfall" or "a land of meat"). I do this all the time in my profession, where I don't know what our financial situation will be at the end of the fiscal year, but I can reason what it will most likely be based on data I have right now. This is also how we reason what is in other solar systems, or what other planets are composed of. We don't actually percieve what they are made of, we just make reasoned conclusions based on what we see here in our solar system. B. You can't percieve what is beyond the horizoon and it's impossible to reason what is beyond it, and thus since you can't percieve god, it is impossible to reason about god's existence. 1) I explained to you why you can't be right regarding your assumption of an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality. There's an entire logical principle dating back to the ancient Greeks (and likely before them) that states exactly this...it's the principle that states differences arise from sameness and similarities. Your methodology to forming conclusions about reality incorporates a false assumption about reality itself. Reality includes both subjectivity and objectivity, and so a comprehensive model of reality must explain how each defines the other. Everything shares a fundamental identity with everything else. In mathematics, this fundamental identity is a distributive property represented by the number '1'. Consider a statement, "ab = xy". This is really 1(a)1(b) = 1(x)1(y). The property of identity is a mathematical law that distributes to everything. Everything is united by this principle of identity...of cohesion. 2a) You can reason about what's behind the horizon in a probabilistic way, but that's another way of saying "I don't know." Instead, I can say "I know that it's impossible to know what's beyond the horizon" and be correct. You never know where Dank is having his million man music festival. It's always just over the horizon, isn't it? 2b) Non-sequitur. The reason is because "beyond the horizon" (not-visible) and "horizon" (visible) are localized distributions in spacetime. Your conclusion would only be valid if you're talking about polytheistic gods. A monotheistic god is omnipresent. |
|
|
|
...
Oh, and it's probably a good idea to tell your parents. Online account or not, they will get a monthly, or quarterly, or biannual or annual statement and they will wonder where the hell $4K+ went.
Ps. Don't say "$4k isn't a lot of money" unless you can, on a whim, come up with that much money yourself.
It would be pretty funny if they find out tonight, make him cash it out, and he gives them back $800 extra |
|
|
|
|
Taking a profit is never stupid.* You stay liquid, you can buy back in, and you (currently) can use your profits to pay for any expense you might incur. Basically, you win.
*A caveat: taking a profit might be stupid if your decision to profit isn't based upon the same principles as your overall approach to investing (e,g, buy and hold until BTC reaches 'x' price, or 'y' years, etc.).
When you invest, you need to create an investment plan and stick to it, otherwise you're basically gambling. "Feelings" and intuition are good at times, but in general, it's thinking that keeps you consistent, and thinking can let you know when some "feelings" are justified.
For example, let's say that you believe Bitcoin is going to be around for at least 5 more years and that the market will continue to grow throughout that time. Let's also say that you've spent a significant amount of time researching everything there is to know about Bitcoin to reach those conclusions. If a few months later you get a "feeling" that the price is too high because it has been rising rapidly, and if this feeling encourages you into selling the majority of your holdings, then your decision is at odds with your original beliefs about Bitcoin. You may have profited, but your own reasoning initially suggested that holding would have been a better option...you expected the rise in price to begin with.
|
|
|
|
1) A metric is an abstract measurement. Metrics are used to describe reality. There can be no metric (and thus no measurement or description of reality) without a mind to evoke the metric itself.
A metric is just a way for us to subjectively quantify an objective world. Some people might say a distance is one inch, some people might say that it is 3 centimeters, but egardless of their subjective measurements, that length still exists. So I see measurements as simply a way for us to describe reality, not for us to define or create reality from our minds. We say what we see, we don't create what we say. 2) A person who says "it's impossible to know that which is over the horizon and cannot be perceived" is more correct than the person who says "I don't know what's over the horizon." But if you decide to check it out, that changes things completely and the question becomes relevant to a current description of reality.
If it changes things completely, then the person who said "it's impossible to know" is abviously more wrong that the person who says "I don't know yet." The phrase "it's impossible" also implies that we shouldn't even try, which is a MAJOR issue with conservative religion, where they claim "God did it" or "Only god knows," and don't bother investigating it themselves. So, obviously, I am extremely hostile to that idea. 1). You're just plain wrong in your assumption that an objective world exists independent of subjectivity. 2). Things change completely because whereas once it was impossible to perceive beyond the horizon (and thus impossible to reason about what's beyond it) you moved beyond the horizon to check it out. If you're not beyond the horizon, then it is absolutely impossible to reason about what is beyond it. The phrase "it's impossible" holds when you can't perceive past the horizon, but it does not hold if you are perceiving beyond the horizon. |
|
|
|
Laws governing physical reality are abstract. Another word for 'abstract' is 'mental' to the extent that you cannot assert something abstract to exist without acknowledging that it exists due to mind.
In fact, the abstract metrics that we use give definition to our conception of physical reality. For example, if we use a metric that you can divide infinitesimally, then we might say that space is continuous. But, if we suddenly use a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space becomes discontinuous.
Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about XD Because logic reinforces itself, 'infinite regressions' and other paradoxes must be self-resolving, for if they weren't, logic 1) is an incomplete method for forming true statements and therefore can't be trusted, and/or 2) is not self-contained, meaning there is some higher-order law (an illogical one, at that) at play capable of making sense of paradoxes, and therefore it can't be trusted.
A person who gives a logical "I know! It's ..." answer to the question "What's behind that horizon?" will come out rather foolish as soon as the person who said "I don't know" walks over to check it out. You have some strange concepts of logic... 1) A metric is an abstract measurement. Metrics are used to describe reality. There can be no metric (and thus no measurement or description of reality) without a mind to evoke the metric itself. 2) A person who says "it's impossible to know that which is over the horizon and cannot be perceived" is more correct than the person who says "I don't know what's over the horizon." But if you decide to check it out, that changes things completely and the question becomes relevant to a current description of reality. |
|
|
|
If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.
FTFY And natural processes are the result of...? The flying spaghetti monster  The go-to response for someone without a good answer. The problem of infinite regression is one that exists in both the natural and supernatural view of the universe. I could say that natural processes are driven by the fundamental force of the universe. You could then come back and say "And fundamental forces are the result of...?", ... and so on... On the other hand I could say "And the flying spaghetti monster is the result of...?" ... and so on ... There is always a limit to our knowledge, at some point we have to say 'I don't know'. But, just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean that God did it and to assume so is illogical. No, you don't have to say you don't know. Knowing through reason is fully contained within the realm of logic. Logic is self-contained. It reinforces itself. Anything outside of logic isn't an "I don't know." It's more like a "don't even bother going there because it's pointless to try." You know that tree that falls in the forest where nobody's around to perceive it? I don't either. As long as you adhere to some essential rules you can never be wrong. The reason you can never be wrong is because logic says you can never be wrong, so long as you're logical. Because logic reinforces itself, 'infinite regressions' and other paradoxes must be self-resolving, for if they weren't, logic 1) is an incomplete method for forming true statements and therefore can't be trusted, and/or 2) is not self-contained, meaning there is some higher-order law (an illogical one, at that) at play capable of making sense of paradoxes, and therefore it can't be trusted. Referencing "supernatural," I think we could both agree that this generally (and literally) means "above or superior to natural law." This could imply a few things. It could imply the possibility that something could directly manipulate or influence natural law and cause the law itself to change. It could also imply the possibility that something could manipulate the content that the law governs without changing the law itself. Or it could imply the possibility of both. After all, were talking about "natural processes" here, and "natural processes" describes a relationship between both physically real content and abstractly real law. Now, is supernatural possible? Well, first of all, supernatural does NOT necessarily mean illogical. It's quite plausible to imagine, for example, that for no apparent reason you could raise your arms up and start floating up into the air. All I'm asserting is that it's possible to imagine. And, given that thoughts are logical constructs, I'm also asserting that it's possible to imagine something quite "supernatural" (defying gravity). This would be a concept representing a supernatural manipulation of content without manipulating the law itself. The Jesus miracles are also examples of this. Now, what about the other case? Is is possible to imagine something supernatural affecting the law itself? The whole concept of a god that is "outside of reality" but is real enough to "be inside of reality when he wants to" goes nowhere fast. If something is real enough to be considered real, it would always be inside of reality and never outside of it. A much more interesting option is a law that intrinsically changes itself. If a law changes itself, then something interesting happens -- both the law and the content governed by that law are changed dynamically in tandem. So, yes, I think supernatural is very possible, logically. All you need is a Universe with an informational feedback loop. |
|
|
|
Have you discovered the joys of masturbation yet?
You should get perma-banned for this. It seems you haven't discovered the joys of masturbation yet. It seems he's 13! |
|
|
|
If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.
FTFY And natural processes are the result of...? The flying spaghetti monster The go-to response for someone without a good answer. |
|
|
|
Have you discovered the joys of masturbation yet?
You should get perma-banned for this. |
|
|
|
If you can agree nothing is random supernatural, surely you can see how the world is manifested as a result of intelligent beings natural processes.
FTFY And natural processes are the result of...? |
|
|
|
I have accidentally deleted my previous message:
Of course God exists, you don't need scientist to prove it or anyone else,
you just need to look around you and see that nothing happens without
reason and there are no coincidences.
Or everything is a "coincidence" (that's another word I never understood...its practical meaning just falls apart entirely). |
|
|
|
Of course God exists, you don't need scientist to prove it or anyone else,
you just need to look around you and see that nothing happens without
reason and there are no coincidences.
Everything happens for a reason. That reason may just be something other than god. For instance, if you took a whole bunch of magnet bars with N and S at opposite ends, tossed them into the air, and let them fall freely over a large space, you'll see them orient themselves into large lines and curves, as the S's attract to the N's. Were the reason they oriented themselves in such a way god's doing? Or was it basic physics? Laws governing physical reality are abstract. Another word for 'abstract' is 'mental' to the extent that you cannot assert something abstract to exist without acknowledging that it exists due to mind. In fact, the abstract metrics that we use give definition to our conception of physical reality. For example, if we use a metric that you can divide infinitesimally, then we might say that space is continuous. But, if we suddenly use a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space becomes discontinuous. Edit: by the way, you had problems when I said earlier that chance is simply a word for unknown causation. Now, based upon what I'm quoting, you sound like you would agree with me. |
|
|
|
can we a picture of the actual phone you are selling?
Will have that up later today. Promise. If any later call me a scammer. Also I don't take lowball offers posted publicly here seriously. The best ones come through PM anyway. Is this available for in-person pickup? Yes. How far are you from Champaign, IL? A few hours but I have family whom I visit there. |
|
|
|
can we a picture of the actual phone you are selling?
Will have that up later today. Promise. If any later call me a scammer. Also I don't take lowball offers posted publicly here seriously. The best ones come through PM anyway. Is this available for in-person pickup? |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is "anonymous" only to the extent that there is never a need to associate an identity with any public address that can be created.
But, Bitcoin is better described as 'pseudonymous' because the lack of an association between identity and public address doesn't mean that much. In every transaction you make, at least one other person (the person with whom you exchange) will know that you are linked to a specific address unless you go to very significant lengths to mask your identity.
|
|
|
|
The excitement has been building, but it is not yet at fever pitch, like in previous crashes.
There was no "new normal" / "new paradigm" that happened right before previous crashes.
I agree that there is legitimate growth here. And, back in April, Gox had a much larger market share coupled with 58 minutes of lag time. |
|
|
|
They often put up animations when the price is doing something interesting. I missed this one though.
lmao the penguin 'falling knife.' I love it. |
|
|
|
|
I've been using bitcoins for 2 1/2 years, and never once have I made a btc transaction on Gox.
Don't need 'em. Nobody needs 'em. They suck. End of story.
Edit: I deposited around 25 cents USD in BTC when I first opened an account in 2011. Never did anything with it. Later I found out that my account was completely gone (no password retrieval, no record of my email, no record of my account name...nothing) and so were my 25 cents. To this day, I will adamantly claim that Gox stole 25 cents from me and never notified me about deleting my account. Password strength was 20+ random alphanumeric characters and other symbols. I want my quarter back, assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
This may be one of my oddest posts in a while, but I'll do my best to describe what I just experienced.
I was simply watching the price movement at Bitcoinity.org on the USD markets when I heard a beep from my speakers. All of a sudden, a video of a penguin sliding across ice on a green backdrop was displayed just above the chart. It wasn't advertising anything whatsoever...it was just a penguin sliding around, being a penguin.
Anyone else see this before? I've used Bitcoinity for months and have never seen this.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
