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?
