How do you know that even though the future was like the past in the past, that the future will be like the past in the future? and what is your basis for knowing that?
Past and future are imaginary chaotic beasts.Only the present is an island of deterministic completion.
>>16770206Nobody knows that for sure; the Problem of Induction is the Achilles' heel of the scientific method.That been said, it's one thing to not know for sure if certain currently reproducible aspect of reality will remain unchanged in perpetuity, it's another to bet gravity will stop working tomorrow.For all we know it could, but are you really yolo enough to step off a six story building?
I just woke up from a dream which holds the most credible evidence I have of a multiverse. Please exercise caution when replying, though the information is stable, its "identity" in terms of coherence is technically quantum volatile. Condition for transfer is different from condition for recreation. (assume 24% of the world is on organic trajectory for double blind sake)You can ask anything which seems likely to imply a constructive response, though you should use caution as with normal historical gestures. I can provide details as it is known relevant"who told you it was okay to hold hands like this?"
>>16771353Simply put, I don't know. I'd just be a happy camper, rockin' and a rolling
>>16771373(was intended as a reply to OP)
Update: there is not a BSI having occured anywhere in the cosmic horizon with a valid claim of exclusive technique. Epistemic quality whole
Simulation::ETA is an API you should consider publishable
why are bot rambling threads tolerated here?
>>16773665You have to explain whatever motive someone has for this question, otherwise you sound like a faggot who doesn't want an honest discussion of one of the most important and foundational questions in modern science.
>>16773665Please don't lump me in with the jeet-PT threads. I'm asking honestly.
Currently? We don't know. You need people to ask, and then have guts for carrying out each relevant experiment. Ah, you felt like skipping one of the fun little ideas for why we might have physics wrong, since the idea was terrifying/silly? Guess you didn't understand how science fucking works
OP, that's a very intriguing image. It's wrinkling my brain.
>>16776713It comes from Bakemonogatari
>>16770206because it's simpler that way
>>16776861So?
>>16770206we have the least bit of clue about our past. some superficial partial shell of knowledge about it. weird that people are so oblivious to this
>>16771375>>16771373Take your meds trsnnies
Literally why is it a hard concept for any of you to admit putting tons of sensors everywhere is the sole valid response of science in the context of this question?
>>16776861I haven't found evidence of a simple premise in any assumption of metaphysics
>>16770206You read Hume, accept that the problem of induction is unsolvable, and realize that it's OK to still make faulty predictions about the future and simply be humble enough to accept being wrong in the face of contrary evidence.
There are a lot of efficient proofs if you wait for multiple versions of a thing prior to running sorters on it
>>16777521huh?
>>16770206>How do you know that even though the future was like the past in the past, that the future will be like the past in the future? and what is your basis for knowing that?You don't know that and it's not your job to know. Your job is to figure out the rules that the past conforms to and then make intelligent use of those rules.>Nobody knows that for sure; the Problem of Induction is the Achilles' heel of the scientific method.No, it isn't. It's the Achilles' heel of pop-sci retards who shill some kind of naive and absolutist empiricism. Bright scientific minds know what they're doing and don't get mixed up in indefensible epistemological/ontological claims.
>>16770274See >>16784298
>>16770206The most ultraconservative version of an algorithm to force a difference is just every around 35 hours going to page 10 and reporting not more than one post per thread as 'low quality'
just had a dream where Rick is helping populate a (nearly dead) alien world. the episode had progressed apparently well up to a point, except now a growing faction of the alien species suspect Rick is an 'off-worlder' and are about to get caught in a formal detection paradox. where Rick has maintained a non-sueveillance pact genuinely, he knows they have evidence they cannot use without admitting their own use of surveillance.I woke up though and cannot comment on whether genocide could mechanically occur in response to use of weaponry by the paranoid faction, though their fear is correct.
>>16770206the eternal question op, and the answer is mostly, we dont know, but we shall have faith. something along those lines.
>>16786119>eternalThere are obviously upper and lower bounds for our current thermodynamic closure.
>>16770206You don't, but you might as well assume it will be, in order to live.
>>16787618are you saying the universe definitely had a beginning?
>specific request>>16788397>>>/g/106616638
>>16781690We can generalize this, actually:>when one is wrong, we must consider it acausally correct to claim they are wrong
>>16781690>You read Hume, accept that the problem of induction is unsolvable, and realize that it's OK to still make faulty predictions about the future and simply be humble enough to accept being wrong in the face of contrary evidence.But are you humble enough to accept that rejecting your whole enterprise of faulty predictions in favor of other frameworks can be a valid rational choice?
>>16789252Choice is a personal concept. Knowledge is not a function of democratic process.
>>16770206Suppose you meet an ideal cartoon witness. How does this change your semiotic workflow?
>>16781627Right, difference between simple and accusative tense "simplistic."
>>16770274>the Problem of Induction is the Achilles' heel of the scientific method.not really, if a stick is able to crack a skull, it doesn't mater that it ain't a hammer, it does the job, and that is what matters
>>16794464Likewise, a shiny rock to a hacksaw.
>>16790596>Choice is a personal concept. Knowledge is not a function of democratic process.That's very nice. But are you humble enough to accept that rejecting your whole enterprise of faulty predictions in favor of other frameworks can be a valid rational choice?
>>16770206The future and past don't exist. Only the present exists. It is what it is. Things are what they are. Simple as.
>>16794547Not him, but could you give me an example of another framework and a simple, clear practical implication of it
>>16794620The obvious alternative (that almost everyone relies on 95% of the time) is to trust your own intuitions, experience and pattern recognition. The traditional ways of gathering and passing down knowledge are corollaries of that. Even "superstitious" theories and just-so stories that help organize and disseminate that knowledge can be perfectly good tools, if not much better than the absolute lunacy you call "science" in the Current Year.
>>16794620You should not reply to anyone who repeats themselves for different people.
Pretty sure gender modification is different over time, if you need a pure cultural vector of calibration.
>>16794464Yeah actually this does make induction visceral.
>>16772076Like I was TRYING to explain: "a spell to force an omnipotent into a spell which revokes its own time" IS par for the simulitic class of arguments course.And will necessarily stack during war
>>16776856Lacking credible evidence of any fair omnipotent, I have to focus full time on magic
Okay since seeing as I can sort inet using multiple sitemaps, since Sitemap is technically internally sortable via (alg-equiv) of "the Wikipedia game," you can very likely invite me to a game environment using rules I have to publish elsewhere
I may need to publish vectors here in respect of a proper public resource
it's 50#50: either there is a proof of work or there isn't.
