How can you deal with the indifference of the universe at the same time you deal with the meaning and symbols humans constantly create?
>>18554550Without even understanding much physics, I learned a long time ago everything is just physics and it doesn't need to make sense to you as long as it is consistent with physics laws lol.
>>18554554Are you saying philosophy is a mistake?
>>18554550>How can you deal with the indifference of the universeYou can start by realizing you're making a category error.
>>18554550idk, it comes to me naturally i guess? i fail to see the problem
>>18554562Explain>>18554563It's difficult to explain: I'm just so attached to ego and concepts and identity.I don't know what to believe.
>>18554568>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake>A category mistake (or category error, categorical mistake, or mistake of category) is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.
>>18554571Is this really necessary?
>>18554582I don't know what kind of explanation you wanted. Saying "the universe is indifferent" makes about as much sense as saying "the number 3 is indifferent". The adjective is inapplicable. If you can't even state your case without using this sloppy, sentimental, manipulative language, maybe you don't actually have one.
>>18554599>Saying "the universe is indifferent" makes about as much sense as saying "the number 3 is indifferent".Correct, and you understood my question if you're saying this.So why can't you take your intelligence and use it to answer things on terms that makes sense to me? Because clearly you know what I meant.>If objective reality is indifferent, wat do?
>>18554612>If objective reality is indifferentIt is neither indifferent nor concerned.
>>18554625So it is indifferent.>But it can't be concernedI know, but that's how my mind understand stuff>That's stupidI know that too, but I can't just think differently, it's how I learned and learn things.Anyway. So it's just physics. That sucks. Do I blow my brains out because my mind doesn't understand reality correctly?
>>18554612Your terms are fundamentally flawed and incorrect, so it's not a worthwhile question.
>>18554631>Your terms are fundamentally flawed and incorrectThat doesn't mean anything
>>18554612People and rocks and murder and kindness and serendipity all come out of the same process. You think calling some abstract collection "indifferent" is a statement about reality but it's really a statement about your attitude. Your brain is "indifferent" in the same sense the universe is.
>>18554634Neither does your question.
>>18554637>but it's really a statement about your attitude.How come?You talk as if I could change reality by simply thinking differently.>>18554638Why?
>>18554641>How come?Thanks for demonstrating my point with this mongoloid post. I don't know why Western teens think Existentialism is a deep philosophy when it's really just mental illness in makeup.
>>18554550Do you believe the universe itself is conscious?
>>18554648>when it's really just mental illness in makeup.Oh... That was strange and personal.>>18554650I don't know...?
>>18554656There's literal millions upon millions of you out there and it applies to all of them. It's impossible for me to say anything "personal" about you because you're as generic as they get.
>>18554667So... That means you won't be answering my question?
>>18554673I did answered your question but you didn't notice it because you're just low-IQ and self-obsessed.
>>18554678>I did answered your question but you didn't notice itThen explain, instead of calling me stuff
>>18554685>explainI already did.
>>18554550I cannot imagine making such bold claims about the Universe despite being a creature that exists for a moment, and never ever leaves his own planet, or even only rarely leaves his tiny part of his own planet.
>>18554550The universe is indifferent because the universe doesnt think. The maker isnt indifferent so there is no problem.
>>18554554Everything physical is physics. Everything spiritual is spirits.
Did you know Gaming: Dodrio has 3 heads. That's 1 head for every emotion in the world!
>>18554974There is no maker to the universe.
>>18555448>There is no maker to the universe.Proof?
>>18555451The universe is eternal and uncreated and thus does not have a creator.
>>18555453>The universe is eternal and uncreatedProof?
>>18555454The poincare recurrence theorem applies to finite dimensional hilbert spaces under unitary evolution.
>>18555459>implying this supports your ideologyProof?
>>18555463The universe is a finite dimensional hilbert space undergoing unitary evolution thus it is necessarily eternal and cycles forever with probability 1 (from the theorem) and does so infinitely often.
>>18555466>thus it is necessarily eternalProof?
>>18555471The Poincare recurrence theorem.
>>18555473Ok, I can see you're definitely mentally ill so I'll just accept your concession.
>>18555474The theorem proves the thing you're asking for proof of. You're just retarded.
>>18555475Your severe psychotic illness causes you to hallucinate that you've actually demonstrated a connection between your delusions and the Poincare Recurrence Theorem when that's clearly not the case. In fact, it would be impossible for you to demonstrate such a connection because you're trivially wrong: I can run a simulation on my machine right now of a system that the Poincare Recurrence Theorem applies to and it wouldn't have magically been there since forever.
>>18555489Your machine is classical and is not defined for all t in R
>Your machine is classical and is not defined for all t in R
Oh, you're the moldovan schizo.
>>18555501He's right and you're retarded, the theorem doesn't care if the state space is continuous or discrete
>>18555524His argument is that you can put an arbitrary beginning on the set of cycles such that it is not infinite into the past. It's a pointless claim to deny that a cyclic cosmology is supported by physics.
>>18555520Same retard?
>>18555530No, but the other guy was right. Apes are a type of monkey.
>>18555529You were wrong and you're coping. Stick to what you know next time
>>18555531Yeah I'm thinking you're definitely the same retard
>>18555532>>18555537Yea, you're both very retarded.
>>18555537Keep an eye out for this psychotic old world monkey. It's genuinely impressive how he manages to shit out a pseudointellectual and wrong take in every single thread.
>>18555548You are profoundly retarded and I don't think you've ever won a single exchange with another person.
>>18555489Your computer isn't a closed system you retard. Poincare recurrence doesn't apply to it.
>>18555554Lol.
>>18555555>Your computer isn't a closed system you retard. Poincare recurrence doesn't apply to it.Where did I apply it to a computer? You're psychotically ill and still coping desperately.
>>18555556Catarrhines are old world monkey, you actual retard. How is this so confusing to you?Apes descend from a monkey-like catarrhine ancestor.
>>18555557Where else are you running the simulation, in your asshole?
>>18555558Lol.
>>18555561Still waiting for you to quote anything about the theorem applying to a computer. Alternatively, take your antipsychotics.
>>18555568The simulation on your computer is not a closed system, so the theorem does not apply to the simulation.
>>18555568I don't care enough about correcting your severe retardation. I leave that impossible task to your handlers.
>>18555564https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini
>>18555548>>18555578>>18555571>>18555572Is Old World Monkey always this unironically insane?
>>18555571>The simulation on your computer is not a closed systemWhy not? I just wanna see how badly you will shit the bed for some more screenshots. :^)
>>18555581Yes, he actually is.
>>18555581There are 2 anons you're replying toI seriously do not get how you guys are so confused about apes being a type of old world monkey.
>>18555588Buddy, you're genuinely mentally retareded.If you were to tell a biologist or zoologist or anthropologist that apes aren't old world monkeys they'd tell you you're wrong. Im using the standard taxonomy.
>>18555591>i'm not the same psychotic monkey, i'm a different one with a deep investment in the same delusionLol.
>>18555595Apes are old world monkeys, you genuine moron. Catarrhini are all old world monkeys. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you.
>>18555592Lol.
>>18555598Lol. I don't know why your psychotic breakdown is so funny to watch.
>>18555599If you need someone to walk you through it, just watch this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkO8k12QCP0
>>18555555Sextuples of truth
>>18555605I don't need to look at pop-evo-for-dummies video, I can just look at any of the dozens of phylogenetic trees I get from a quick google search, all of which invariably confirm that you need to be in a psychiatric hospital.
>>18555571>>18555583>no repliesConcession accepted.
>>18554550I stop imagining the universe as indifferent.
>>18555609Your psychotic denial isn't going to change the law of monophyly.
>>18555617>psychotic denialLol. Reminder:>>18555556>>18555564>>18555595>>18555599>>18555603
>>18555619Yea, none of those trees show that cattarhini are not monkeys. Catarrhini and strepsirrhine are monkeys.
>>18555621Do these trees show that humans are old world monkeys as you claimed? :^)
>>18555623Yes. Humans are catarrhini which are old world monkeys.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini
>>18555628>YesDo you believe anyone who looks at any of those pics and sees where they put "Old World Monkeys" and where they put "Humans" is going to agree with your severe psychotic delusion? :^)
>>18555630"old world monkeys" does not refer solely to CercopithecidaeAre humans Catarrhines or are they Platyrrhines?
>>18555647>psychotic patient is talking to the voices in its head about things no one askedDo you believe anyone who looks at any of those pics and sees where they put "Old World Monkeys" and where they put "Humans" is going to agree with your psychotic screeching that humans are old world monkeys?
>>18555654Do you believe he believes anyone who looks at any of those pics and sees where they put "Old World Monkeys" and where they put "Humans" is going to agree say penis with your psychotic screeching that humans are old world monkeys?
The sheer desperation and cope of creationists who don't want to admit humans are monkeys will always be amusing :)
>>18555660>>18555663>full-blown psychosis
>>18555663Humans aren't monkeys. They are apes. :)
>>18555660I seriously don't understand what the confusion is.>>18555669See >>18555605
>psychotic patient desperately trying to backpedal and save face
>>18555669
In the OP I asked about absurdism.Instead, you guys discuss God. There is no proof that God exists or not, so what's the point in these discussions?
>>18555693No one cares, homo.
>>18555693Absurdism is an ad-hoc rationalized feeling. No perspective feels like your own so a bunch of them clash in your head and you seek to validate this experience by treating it philosophically. There is no philosophical treatment of absurdism. Because it's not a coherent philosophical position. It's a feeling. And you get rid of it by adapting a perspective and holding on to it. Preferably the perspective from your embodied existence. How the universe feels or doesn't feel about us is something we will learn much later on, if ever.
>>18555695>>18555711Arigato anon-kun
>>18555583>>18555611
>>18555728>mongoloid gets all of his "knowledge" from retarded AI slop
>>18555730Simulations exchanges(receives) energy from outside the program. The universe does not.
>>18555734>Simulations exchanges(receives) energy from outside the program.Your claim is quite literally insane and incoherent, but even setting that aside:>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system>A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although the transfer of energy is allowed in the contexts of certain fields (e.g. physics, chemistry, engineering, etc).
>>18555741>Your claim is quite literally insane and incoherentNo, it's neither. You're just wrong and retarded. The Poincare recurrence theorem does not apply to any system that exchanges energy with outside systems, thus your program comparison does not apply.
>>18555746Go prove yourself a a chatbot, psychotic subhuman.
>>18555747You're a subhuman who can't understand basic definitions.
>>18555611You can stop the simulation from running by smashing your computer, so it cannot be a closed system. Just like how you are not a closed system because your handlers can stop you from posting your diarrhea by euthanizing you. Hope that helps.
>>18555746>the retard makes the mistake of conflating a simulation with a computer for the Nth time
>>18555752>You can stop the simulation from running by smashing your computer, so it cannot be a closed systemThis is a logical nonsequitur. Try again. Also notice how your severe psychosis forces you to reply to every post of mine at least 2-3 times.
>>18555755>Also notice how your severe psychosis forces you to reply to every post of mine at least 2-3 times.The only thing I'm noticing is your severe mental illness which causes you to be unable to understand things like closed systems or anonymous image boards.
>>18555765Notice how your subhuman nature forces you to keep replying, even though you can't actually explain or substantiate your psychotic claims. Your next post will be proof of this. :^)
>>18555769See >>18555752. Your debilitating mental illness is not my problem, so stop begging for replies.
>>18555773>directly confirms my pointNothing you shit out matters. The bottom line is that I can easily create and run a simulation that conforms to the conditions required by the Poincare recurrence theorem. If someone intelligent (unlike you) was given enough simulation state data and asked to infer a model for it, they'd arrive at a model that falls under the Poincare recurrence theorem, not at your insane drivel about it "exchanging energy" with anything. This demonstrates (although only an imbecile even needs such a demonstration) that the Poincare recurrence theorem says nothing about a data-generating process being eternal.
>>18555786>incoherent schizobabble from a retard who doesn't understand computers aren't closed systems
>>18555791>directly confirms my pointNothing you shit out matters. The bottom line is that I can easily create and run a simulation that conforms to the conditions required by the Poincare recurrence theorem. If someone intelligent (unlike you) was given enough simulation state data and asked to infer a model for it, they'd arrive at a model that falls under the Poincare recurrence theorem, not at your insane drivel about it "exchanging energy" with anything. This demonstrates (although only an imbecile even needs such a demonstration) that the Poincare recurrence theorem says nothing about a data-generating process being eternal.Notice how your psychotic condition forces you to keep replying, even though nothing you write will be read by anyone. :^)
The moldovan bot broke down again. Time for its handlers to "fix" it.
>>18555793>This demonstrates (although only an imbecile even needs such a demonstration) that the Poincare recurrence theorem says nothing about a data-generating process being eternal.How is this even up for debate? I know this isn't a science board but even /his/ should be able to figure out it makes no sense talking about something returning to its initial state if it's always been around i.e. there's no initial state.
>>18555795This particular old world monkey spams /sci/ as well.
>I know this isn't a science boardYou can tell how low iq this retard is from the fact that his standard for science literacy is /sci/
>How can you deal with the indifference of the universe at the same time you deal with the meaning and symbols humans constantly create?radical acceptance you just have to face it head on and accept every single part of life you can't run from it. for some reason we live in a disordered, ordered universe. who knows why? idk if that's for us to understand in this lifetime but to be mentally stable: you just have to accept that things are unfair and don't make sense. that's the healthy response. no running from reality.
>>18555793>The bottom line is that I can easily create and run a simulation that conforms to the conditions required by the Poincare recurrence theorem. No, you can't.You are actually retarded.
>>18555795>>18555799Holy shit you are both actually retarded.How are you so stupid you can't tell the difference between different poster's writing styles?And yes, shit for brains, the the nth time, apes are a type of old world monkey. Your psychotic denial of this does not change the law of monophyly.
>>18555817Yes, I can: if someone intelligent (unlike you) was given enough simulation state data and asked to infer a model for it, they'd arrive at a model that falls under the Poincare recurrence theorem. Notice your blood pressure rising and your psychotic illness escalating as you're reading this and realizing you can't refute it.
>>18555819>How are you so stupid you can't tell the difference between different poster's writing styles?The only possible explanation is severe mental illness, as has already been noted earlier >>18555765
>>18555820You can conclude the program loops forever/doesn't halt, that is not the same as an isolated system adhering to Poincare recurrenceI'm smarter than you btw
>>18555841>psychotic patient shits another incoherent nonsequitur and more AI slopConcession accepted.
>>18555847>incoherent non-sequiturNope, I directly refuted your low IQ argument.
>>18555852You didn't refute anything, you're just mentally ill so you keep falling for shit-tier LLM hallucinations after being corrected once here: >>18555524
>>18555856I didn't mention discrete or continuous state spaces, I said isolated systems (i.e. not your program) are what the theorem applies to. The universe is an isolated system, a computer program isn't, you dumb old world monkey retard.
>>18555857>I didn't mention discrete or continuous state spacesYour AI hallucination does. Also notice how your psychotic delusion causes you to drivel something about "isolated systems" and "programs" that don't actually figure into what you're trying to refute. You're the most dysgenic cretin on this board by far. It's surreal to watch you go.
>>18555857>The universe is an isolated system, a computer program isn'tIt's really remarkable how such a simple statement comprehensible even to freshman undergrads is beyond the capabilities of this moldovan retard.
>>18555860You can't track basic conversations and you lose every exchange with every person you engage with. I also don't think there's a single day you don't post all day. What I am refuting is very obvious, the universe is an isolated system (it does not receive information or energy or matter from outside of itself) and the Poincare recurrence applies to it. Your "argument" is to claim that the universe could have had a beginning at some point but then evolved in a way such that it appears to recur forever after that point, but that there could still be a beginning to it much like there is a start to an otherwise non-halting computer program. That analogy does not work because the universe is not an open system like a computer program.You're the most psychotic pseudo intellectual subhuman on this board. You literally can't even understand basic monophyly.
>>18555867He could have just said something like "the universe is probably described by an infinite dimensional hilbert space and thus poincare doesn't apply" and that would have actually been a counter argument, but he had to white knight for the theist faggot (even though he claims he's not a theist, despite only ever arguing for theist positions).There is something wrong with him.
>>18555870I'm not reading your psychotic breakdown. Lol.>>18555817Yes, I can: if someone intelligent (unlike you) was given enough simulation state data and asked to infer a model for it, they'd arrive at a model that falls under the Poincare recurrence theorem. Notice your blood pressure rising and your psychotic illness escalating as you're reading this and realizing you can't refute it.
>>18555875Notice how your psychotic rage is causing you to reply to yourself repeatedly. Meanwhile my point stands completely unchallenged: if someone intelligent (unlike you) was given enough simulation state data and asked to infer a model for it, they'd arrive at a model that falls under the Poincare recurrence theorem. Notice your blood pressure rising and your psychotic illness escalating as you're reading this and realizing you can't refute it.This circumvents your 80 IQ old world monkey inability to differentiate between a physical computer and an abstract computation.
>>18555879>I'm not reading your psychotic breakdownI accept your full concession.
>>18554550You don't. It's just something that you have to live with.
>>18555880>Notice how your psychotic rage is causing you to reply to yourself repeatedly.Nope
>>18555886Notice how your psychotic rage is forcing you to reply to me again. :^)
