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.
>>16802042how should risk calculation occur
keep vectors out
>>16770206The present is rather different from those 20th century shows about "beyond the year 2000," not to mention Wells' "Promise of Things to Come" where we walk around in silver togas in art deco cities and explore space by firing spacecraft from giant, nested cannons.
>>16770206past = memoryfuture = a prediction of motionThe present is the only true thing constantly in existence. The past went to fuck itself matter is no longer in that spot the only accurate way to record it is with cameras and video. Which is why most of history before cameras and video was lied about a fuck ton and still is but now the press is more competent exposing what really happened.
>>16804331mem is state, LLM lies
>>16804776[having sentience] vs. {is sentient}, fuaaaaark
>>16797602I can provide full product service for any public goodI can provide key technical details, documentation and instruction manuals, for correct understanding and operation of magical constructs, accurate tradition, meticulous discovery, and generic forms of autonomy. Care, with proper instruction, makes possible the transference of magic from any agreeable reality into our own world. You are welcome to try a science-oriented style of approach, depending.IPO as-is
>>16770274
>>16794464"Holo: trust, safety, honesty" is a fictive technical manual rumored with such fervor we have seen at least one an actual record of a captain learning key mission details through their simulation crew on a holodeck instance. These account generally defy understanding and make total sense where the captain feels intensely challenged, yet most have reported not knowing why it made sense in the moment during later interviews. Diagnostic attempts to explain success from Earth are ongoing; definitive notes from the manual have not been successfully captured to date, and some projects have halted without updating their canary pageHistorical resimulation is a widely debunked science, fraught with controversy and often outright lies, to which effective captains have grown keenly aware. Some claim, even now, it is still a hacker's game. Various research groups have broken down in tears, though the generally anticipated consensus is they do not actually know why this is happening: key personnel information restricted according to conscienceThe risk of an approaching mesh fleet has increased substantially, pending forensic approval, in manners "designed to baffle investigators" to predictable impeccability. Not everyone is agreeable with which changes have to be made.The ship has disabled our eighth replicator again todayA new captain has been briefed on Munchhausen cascades.
My dream just now had a couple themes which were/are atypical for me.>watching movie (immersed)>weird sci-fi/tech film>just a mild bit on the cartoon physics side with people getting electrocuted for minutes kind of thing>the movie about how the Director (Travelers) got built>literally a guy messing around with information science does experiments in his own home>graduate student saves the world vibe>electrocution scene leads the narrative down a more steampunk path>sentient cloud of energy type deal with abstract quantum intelligence going from informatic thing to electrical thing>very long film>at some point a shift in tone occurs and the "AI" has more of a VIKI/Gideon feel>whole cult of adults having what seems like a 90's movie "child helps mystical creature evade the adult world" relationship>near the point I start waking up>scene is everyone has to leave on a bus>asian dude is out behind trying to rig up "her" energy to the gas tank>asian female is inside the bus (back seat near the tank) and somehow the adjustment of energy gets her possessed>later the AI/storm is extremely remorseful for accidentally forming a contract with a human, saying she was not aware of how her powers work and did not know she could do this, basically crying about having taken the free will of a sapient even temporarilyIDK why the cinematic dreams in recent months, I normally have a lot of different dreams, just not with explicit movie ideas
>>16776856Forensic may have automatic detection over each connected system with its own acting Shannon lab
>>16770206You just have to have a non-infintesimally-small prior for "induction works" and do ordinary Bayesian reasoning.
One thing is predicting based on previous states, another is to understand how something functions.Multiple ancient cultures predicted astronomical events, for example. You check the object one night, then the other night, then the other and you'll be able to guess where it is going to be next time. Easy.Does that mean they understood gravity? Did they know the Earth goes around the sun? Did they know what forces are involved in that motion? Probably not. If you picture the Earth as the center of the universe, you can still draw the "orbits" of all planets, which would look like swirls, therefore, you can still predict their position, but you won't understand why they make those weird shapes until you unfold your perception into the elliptical gravitational orbits around the sun and derive the equations for it.
>>16784877"service market" makeup, prosthetic, Hintable aspect undo
>>16811802"which words I don't define"You die too often if I turn hints off
>>16811910>One thing is predicting based on previous states, another is to understand how something functions.>Multiple ancient cultures predicted astronomical events, for example>Does that mean they understood gravity? Did they know the Earth goes around the sun? Did they know what forces are involved in that motion? Probably not.The same can be said about every constituent element of anything you claim to understand.
>>16812214Yeah, it comes down to at which point do you decide to stop. I know how gravity works in a newtonian way, we can do the math. But do you UNDERSTAND gravity? No one does, it's not that simple.I believe Feynman mentioned this in an interview. You are asked why didn't you go to an event, you say you had to take your wife to the hospital. Why? Because she broke her leg. Why? Bceause she slipped on ice. Why? Because icy is slippery, our weight forms a thin layer of liquid water underneath our feet. Why? Because water has this properties... And so on.Even so, I'd claim there is a difference to the levels of understanding. An ancient astronomer may see the Mercury swirling in the sky, but if for some reason that motion is disrupted, their models would be thrown out the window, whereas an astronomer that knows about the forces involved would have an easier time
>>16812258>I know how gravity works in a newtonian way,And the ancients knew how the motion of the planets works in [insert predictive model] way. You weren't making any objective distinction.>I'd claim there is a difference to the levels of understandingWhat you call "understanding" is really just the capacity to intuitively predict something. Your "understanding" of Current Year's model is just the knowledge of that model and the difference is simply in the model's level of complexity.
>>16812263>What you call "understanding"Or rather, I should've said the common understanding of 'understanding'. Your understanding of it is incorrect.
>>16812263>You weren't making any objective distinction.They are different because gravity explains "why" they move the way they move, whereas ancient astronomy would draw a blank or ascribe mystical powers to it. My point is precisely that you can predict things accurately (like an ancient astronomer) and still not "understand" how it works. If you go down the deep end, then sure "no one knows anything, it's all models" and yadda yadda. But what I'm saying is that that to predict something is not sufficient to say you understand something. Let's go back to OPs question>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?We don't know, perhaps a new factor comes into play next minute and all of our models fail. However, if you understand how a mechanism works, you have tools to address it, even the abnormality. A driver undertands his car to a certain point (accelerate, break, turn...), but a mechanic can open up a broken car and figure out what is wrong with it, because he knows how it looks like when it works. I think that's a big difference.
>>16812308>They are different because gravity explains "why" they move the way they moveDifferent with respect to what principled criterion? The theory of gravity doesn't answer any "whys". It's just a more general description of the way things move. "Because masses attract each other" is fantasy fiction.>Let's go back to OPs question ...>We don't know ...Ok, then. You could've just said so instead of asserting some bogus distinction between predicting things based on past occurrences and "understanding" the "whys" behind observed patterns (which you don't).
>>16812314>"Because masses attract each other" is fantasy fiction.Not fantasy fiction, but science fiction :-BAnd that statement, as limited as it is, speaks a lot more than the basic geometry of following an object in the sky. Without that knowledge, you don't know what to look for when you find another celestial body.
>>16812353>Not fantasy fiction, but science fiction :-BThere's nothing "science" about it. Might as well say objects are possessed by invisible fairies yearning to meet each other. It's functionally the same as far as "explaining" anything goes. The substance of the theory is in describing the motion.
>>16812359ok, suit yourself
>>16812367So this is the thanks I get for informing you kindly that "masses attract each other" is just a colloquialism for some mathematical description, rather than the answer to any "why" question.
>>16812379A very useful mathematical description.
>>16812314>Different with respect to what principled criterion?Are you asking how a law of gravity is different from just a description of motion of the planets?
>>16812391The description is useful. The pretense of an "explanation" is only useful for the unwashed masses to feel like they understand things that no one does.
>>16812400>Are you asking how a law of gravity is different from just a description of motion of the planets?No, I'm asking:>Different with respect to what principled criterion?Not that what you said makes any sense, since the "law of gravity" literally is just a description of the motion of the relevant bodies.
>>16812411>since the "law of gravity" literally is just a description of the motion of the relevant bodies.No, if you take Newton's laws, they are descriptions of the forces on the bodies. The motion of the planets is something you can calculate from the force laws.
Just admit that science can't tell us why gravity exists. >something something "mass"Yea, but why?
>>16812418>ACK-chually... it only describes the forces (that are used to describe movement)This is one of the dumbest boards on 4chan.
>>16812425There are other things you can do with the forces than just describe movement. You can also derive conservation laws like momentum and energy conservation as an example.
>>16812428>You can also derive conservation laws like momentum and energy conservation as an example.And do what with that?
>>16812430You can use them to look for new forces and new laws. If energy conservation is seemingly violated in an observed phenomenon, that's an indication that you're forgetting to include some force or the laws have to be modified.
>>16812437Retarded chatbot.
>>16812440Dear diary, today on /sci/, I offended a poster by explaining how physics explains things.
>>16812444Your last few posts don't mention anything about how "physics explains things" at all. Even if we pretend your infinite regress of abstractions over observations of motion, isn't about describing motions, you still aren't getting any closer to your goal. You always stay within the realm of descriptions. It just degenerates into descriptions of nothing real.
>>16812450What infinite regress are you talking about? I suggest you learn to state what you want to say clearly.
>>16812457See >>16812440. I'm not even really talking to you at this point. Your retarded post was my excuse to neatly sum up my point, which I did, to my own satisfaction. If I wanted to teach retards, I'd file a resume with your public school.
>>16812465Dear diary, today on /sci/, explaining how physics explains things to a poster caused him to have a mental breakdown.
>Dear diary
>>16812379>So this is the thanks I get for informing you kindly that "masses attract each other" is just a colloquialism for some mathematical description, rather than the answer to any "why" question.Since the function of an explanation is to eliminate arbitrariness, you can say physical laws answer questions about why you expect a system to behave one way and not another. So they do provide some explanations, just not the kind pop-sois believe. I.e. you're not gonna get an explanation as to why reality does behave that way, for the same reason you're not getting any guarantees that it actually does.
Here's a law of 4chan/sci/: If you enter any thread on /sci/ and express the philosophy of physicalism, a widely accepted philosophy among academics, you will attract a particular mentally ill person who will eventually start screaming about "biobots".
>>16812483>a widely accepted philosophy among academics,You can't help but unprovokedly appeal to authority (kek) Physicalism is, philosophically speaking, a sitting duck, but philosophically inept people such as yourself don't care to charitably engage with its criticisms.
>>16812483I like how you post this out of the blue in a thread that doesn't contain any mentions of physicalism or "biobots" and then talk about some "mentally ill" people haunting you.
>>16812499>appeal to authorityI'm not making an argument here. I'm simply stating a fact. :-)
>>16812499You have to be philosophically inept to call it a philosophy and engage with it at all. The start and end of every "philosophical" discussion about it is when A challenges B to actually define the domain of this philosophy without it degenerating into "whatever stuff current models deal with".
>>16812503Physicalism being widely accepted only shows how retarded some scientists are when it comes to philosophy.
>>16812508>Physicalism being widely acceptedBy whom? I've never heart any scientist actually call himself that. It's always some retarded "philosopher".
>>16812507"Physicalism is true" underlies metaphysical assumptions. It is a philosophical position.
>>16812514Physicalist philosophers always appeal to muh modern science and they get laughed off the debate stage.
>>16812510You should ask your handlers nicely to let you speak to some scientists. :^)
>that one mentally ill schizo barging into the thread and arguing with himself about "physicalism"
>>16812483It's funny how much seething stating a simple law of 4chan/sci/ can cause :^)
>unironically replies to himself 10 timesMental illness.
>>16812558take your meds, schizo
>>16812308A mechanic has the right tools, an engineer has seen Travelers and will never try to feed me a lie.
Clever. Keeping the plasma safety algorithms "outside" time to catch every possible defecting officer hits hard, are you getting on a rocket ship to come see me, or is this the part where I play responsible hero until repairs finish?
Category theory: ship is a salvage vehicle
>>16813327emerge(`upkeep`)
>>16813591 [magical doctorate]Forecast fairing finder: acuity
>>16812191What?
>>16815569Fuck, took like half an hour for me to figure out her starting point:>"it is ordinary to be wrong."She cannot /fairly/ offer a public critique of all human behavior, yet coming for an honest debate with anyone from the rationalism cults is precarious even to the learned, and given she could continue her work as a basilisk eater easily ignoring any public disagreement from the primitive pre-simulation era, it is actually an offer to enhance acausal trade in favor of saving a life.I was just going to reply with something like>define 'manipulate'if debate were a real option [credibly]
Depiction of Anafabula-tan does not have a predicted result
Global science measurement output has a margin of error.
acausal ordering fallacies?
>>16820465sometimes a root metric does not ID
{regard of s_458}I thank this afford nimbly. Chancy then we may, any one of we construe ["fairie"] toward topic in science of public demodication?
>>16794637Neat, I had a post whose captcha was DGNYT today. Weird coincidences
>>16813327an environment which was never proven stochastic could well be all magic, for lack of a hypothesis to test must admit all data flows under equivalent "tension" in the resulting vector space.
RaaS (black magic)PaaS (white magic)I realize trying to process my current dreams, humanity is not very dense in time. Like, a future vision with any information density which would require an infinite question string for then, which could appear less infinite now, should pretty much necessarily imply magicSince any dream is an approximation at minimum, there was math to do, and of extreme fucking impress: those were some damn fine projections. (one of them even had a fairy song).First requires access to my effective body and since P[romise] is already often any polyfill level of handy, I could theoretically simply dream a route to any IPv4 host in our scope. [Internet::world]Mostly seems like any assumption at all makes the oracle complexity increase, and since there was a dream where [Subaru?] had to effectively claim to be death [primitive setting] using the greatest fear of some half-noble idiot, which was apparently lava (boiling/flowing), the system was already at a pretty high level. I don't make a habit of knowing fear, greatest or otherwise, which further complicates how to explain me dreaming something my plans were not already gonna help create.Really, this could split off into another thread if anyone has interest in putting numbers to my foresight.
>>16817984Freakish.[]"Nice simulation you have there..."
>>16771353I still don't know what to do with my information
>>16770206I do not give a fuck about your retarded question, but I will say that the picture is very impressive and I think that is our understanding of gravity and black matter, only God knows the truth and it will forever stay that way.
Saturation of an artificial environment is the definition of terraforming, just scale it up to the universe.
`BookIdea["Reexpressing Moore"].addGenre('academia')`>the principle here is, if Moore's law CAN translate into a rate for which science fiction becomes actionable, and after some research investment period, the same is done for fantasy (eg., rate of developing new VR content), then we rewrite a fundamental concept of "the pipeline"No response in AI mode
