Cognitive dissonance here.

If you can make a rigorous argument how Math has not been invented I'll concede.

You have to go from the fact that every piece of Mathematical Theory (which is the basis of all science) starts from an assumption. Demonstrate how these assumptions can be inherently non-subjective given our limited capacity to even perceive the world.


You're getting defensive by the way. You haven't disputed any of my post, you're starting to go full Toxic here.

Today at 01:49:15 PM

Today at 01:51:00 PM


1:45 minutes.

You didn't even read the post. You're not a Mathematician. You don't know what you're talking about. And you're not even trying to learn about that which you talk about with authority from someone who actually spent half his life studying it.


Also, Math is certainly not a property. It's a language. The most accurate we have for describing the universe, but certainly not a property of it.



Edit: Yes you can, it's called matter anti-matter annihilation.

Why are you trying to tell a Mathematician what Math is? It's "the most objective thing" that we have. But it all depends on assumptions. We literally structure every single theorem as: Assumptions, Claim, Proof.

Literally the entire body of Mathematics, and thus by extension of science, is circular in its very being. We have simply agreed upon a cut-off point at which we stop arguing, namely axioms.

Math is literally built around axioms, which we pulled out of our ass forever ago based on our experience of reality. An experience which is fundamentally limited by the capacity of our senses. Senses which are so poor that we have to create all sorts of tools, based on our imperfect senses, to attempt to converge towards a deeper understanding of reality. None of which has been objective so far.

Why do you think that science keeps calling out lunatics which turn out geniuses every so many generations? Will keep happening by the way, because reality is pliable and not objective. It keeps changing, or evolving if you will. It might appear objective to you, but that's just because of incomplete knowledge. As soon as you understand gravity completely you know how to nullify or invert its effects. Things we have partially achieved by creating artificial zero-gravity environments.

No such thing as objectivity when it comes to reality. It only appears so on some scales and is a useful concept for the identification of solutions to problems we have subjectively identified.

There is no such thing as "objective", as the 2+2=0 example was meant to illustrate.

Depending on your assumptions you will arrive at different conclusions. Depending on your experiences, you arrive at different assumptions.

And with just purely reason there is nothing to stop you from picking assumptions in ways that you wouldn't with a healthy dose of appreciation of life. One could probably make an irrefutable case for the annihilation of humanity using just reason alone. And one could convince themselves that the reasoning is flawless, with reasoning. It takes emotion and empathy to appreciate humanity despite its many shortcomings. Just like it takes reasoning to counteract the retarded conclusions raw emotion can lead to.

Sounds like a plan.

And damn, most of the islands on the next page look pretty small. We'd quickly run out of space on just about any of those.

That's just life in a nutshell.

Very much this.

Today's algorithms already shit all over humans on much more complex tasks than driving a car by the way. They completely destroy the global top teams in Starcraft 2 and Dota 2 respectively. And those games have a search space that is orders of magnitude more complex, even without considering the fact that cars virtually only have to react to things that are temporally very close to "now". Those games use predictions that span much further into the future.

Of course, I would be all for having "open streets" between key locations, where human drivers can choose to drive if they have a death wish. But safety for everybody involved should take priority, so if there's only one road available it should be driverless. And again, specifically designed race tracks can serve for human driving as a form of entertainment (which I would heavily partake in).

Are you aware of any geographical locations that could turn The WO Islands (name pending) into a reality without having to worry about actual pirates or other random twats attacking and looting?

You're regularly "off-topic" yourself (for example right now). And I was under the impression that it was established by the majority of us, including you, that these off-topic conversations were what made this thread so interesting and fun to come back to?

Opening up to is not the same as embracing something and all of its implications. If the US hadn't opened up to even looking at what was going on in Germany it wouldn't have stopped Hitler. And maybe if the right people opened up to Hitler he would've never gone down the path that he did.

Also, I strongly believe that the way in which you interact with things you hate strongly impacts the way you look at things you love. Closing off to aspects of one I believe could cause one to close off to aspects of what you love, for better and for worse.

And then, if one can't look at things he hates with an open mind then that suggests to me that their conviction has been flimsy at best in the first place.

You don't have to convince anyone and you don't have to be convinced by anyone during a conversation. And even without doing so you can always skim off some new information or perspective from the exchange.

I also firmly believe that you can not even begin to fully appreciate reality without remaining open to and learning from all aspects of it. After all, even our biggest enemies and the worst atrocities are part of the reality we find ourselves in. As a result, we are fundamentally incapable of understanding reality without really understanding our enemies. And we can't understand our enemies without engaging with them.

What a way to tie back into Bitcorn and speak sense at the same time.


Emotions are an important aspect of life though and we would be ill-advised to discard them entirely. They're the other side of the coin and need to be balanced out with reason. Similarly going overboard with reason is a poor idea as well. You can reason your way into anything you want, not matter how grotesque. Without both reason and emotion things tilt off to the extremes.

I'm sure I don't have to point out who in this thread tilts too hard towards reason and who tilts too hard towards emotion at times. We all know who we are. The question is what we make of it.

Merited for pie day. But cute little self-induced echo chamber there. And he dares talk about objectivity.

Edit: Also Hawking's death day and Einstein's birthday for those who were unaware. The universe works in mysterious ways.


Thank you very much.

Someone merit this man.

Edit: Never mind. I had one more than I thought.

Touche.


All of this.

No it doesn't.

But let me propose that we restrain oil cars to specifically designed race tracks in the future and keep streets that are meant for transport and travel automated and electric. That way we can have the best of both worlds while minimizing the down sides: pollution and accidents.

You can dehumanize and fight wars without raping and torturing. You don't consider animals human, but you're not going to run around raping them.

There were countless of investments that could've reversed 20 years of bad financial life choices. Doesn't mean it's going to reverse their poor life choices in general. Incels with money will still be incels unless they pay up or otherwise fix their attitude.

This thread is heavily biased towards die hard Bitcoiners. Terrible sample to base your conclusions on. I regularly check out shitcoiner places, and they're freaking out en masse on a daily basis.


Either way, regardless of your belief, Bitcoin won't go away. It's too efficient compared to legacy finance. So even if it was a scam, legacy finance will be displaced by it. Not sure what your financial goals are, but I'd just skim what I can regardless of my beliefs and then use the gains for whatever I deem valuable.

Big if, I know. But virtually nobody even seems to be making the argument. I've only really seen people who completely demonize the entire Muslim population and people who are completely ignoring any problems associated and indirectly defending them with "not all Muslims" type arguments.

Neither seems to converge towards a sensible solution that doesn't require war or complete separation of populations.

I agree with that. I don't think you have any right to complain about Muslims raping if you condone Christians raping, for whatever reasons. Given the Islamic conquest of the past I may be able to defend the Crusades as a an offensive defense tactic (again I don't know enough about this to talk with any authority). But as soon as you justify rape and torture in the process of your defense you've forfeited the right to stigmatize your opponent, as you become identical.

That said, in some cases demonizing a group of people associated with a type of behaviour could help them wake up and fix the problems within their community. So I'm a bit on the fence about what I should think about Ibian's remarks. I don't know what his intent is when making such.