What are some things that blow your mind?
>>16803616
that the universe exists, is not empty, and supports consciousness
These fucking things.
>>16803631St. Rupert's drop?
>>16803636yeah
>>16803616The biological fact mothers-in-law and wives don't get along is due to competing for the same praise/manipulation territory in their son's/husband's brain.
>>16803616Nothing is something.
>>16803616Math stuff:1. Combinatorial designs2. Point-free topologies 3. Type theories4. Computable objects5. Classification of finite simple groups and theory of finite groups in general6. Synthetic differential geometry7. Delay differential equationsLife stuff:1. Life management systems2. Lucid dreaming3. Management science
>>16803616Morphological Resonance made me re-evaluate all my assumptions.
>>16803616Black holesLe meme hawking le reddit aside its the only proof that the universe is fuckey and is imperfect
>>16803616deep-field imagesi take psychic damage if i look at them for too long
>>16803793No you don't. It's just a picture from far away. That couldn't do psychic or spiritual damage that's retarded. Staring into a black scrying mirror would do psychic damage.
>>16803717This is an incredibly fascinating rabbit hole to go down. Insofar as I can tell there is little to no difference between this and the concept of the forms within Platonic realism. Weird that the Wikipedia page about the author not mention this parallel. The author seems to give credit to Jungs concept of archetypes which as I understand it are ripped from the platonic forms as well. If you find this fascinating you should check out "the Ontology of Death: Patristic Philisophy Against Nominalism" which I have found to be the most concise explanation of the subject. Strikes me as another instance of "a rose by another name". Hegels synthesis and Aristotles middle path. Many such cases in contemporary western literature. This line of conversation stands as a demonstration of the same concept of forms as well. Crazy to think the Greeks understood the breadth of the earth and the atom 3000 years ago right?
>>16803631it doesnt exist you believe in too much popsci made up shit
The Higgs mechanism in quantum field theory.
>>16804225big if true
>>16803616Correlation coefficient is really just measuring the angle of two vectors in really high-dimensional space
>>16804225You can just make one though
>>16803717This is kind of how memes work right?
>>16803616Reality of what you "see" "feel" "think" "know" happens in the bounds of a system that is similar to a virtual reality. The computer screen you're seeing is a virtual screen that is in the head. Same with the dimensions of it, the weight of it, the feel of it, the texture of it, etc. The combination of these characteristics are all happening within a virtual space. What is "real" feeling is virtual. What may actually be real is unknowable at all levels.
Recently I heard that hot water turns into ice quicker than regular temperature water.
>>16804582That is what Hume said, right? I think that idea is taking things to the extreme and has no use at all because now what? Nobody can refute that idea because nobody can see reality outside of himself. Even if you make an experiment they would say that the experiment is also seen by yourself.There are some type of sounds or lights that we can't see only with our eyes or hears, that's true but taking that to the extreme is in my opinion a stupid idea.
existing
>>16804642All major intellectual philosophies east/west converge on this point. This isnt being disputed. Whats disputed is whether there is another thing outside of our virtual reality. Descarte thought his soul, or if we're being liberal/charitable with reading, the consciousness of each individual was the only thing real, and the knowability of it. Hume thought we cannot know and unknown may not have use for it. Kant thought there ought to be a thing beyond the consciousness. And so on. But philosophers dont dispute that the conscious experience field is virtual in a sense. Even today, the "realism" (aka the reality of conscious objects) of the conscious experience is not a legitimate philosophical position. There are materialists that deny consciousness completely and then try to bring about realism to objects, but their arguments are unconvincing.
A gun.
>>16804582I realized this when I was 13 bro
>the size of stars, the amount of fuel they burn and how they keep doing it for billions of years>supercooled gas ignoring gravity>thinking about the universe being infinite
>>16804582>What may actually be real is unknowable at all levels.Then how exactly do you know so much about it that you can draw the conclusions you have drawn or are you saying that all the conclusions you have drawn are false and merely illusory, so you don't know what you are talking about whatsoever just arbitrarily rearranging words for attention?
>What are some things that blow your mindstochastic calculusand ito's lemmamarkov chainseuler-lagrange equation derivationfokker-planck derivaitonhamilton jacobi and bellman equationsfor an economics student like me these are pretty hard to grasp. I want to learn what quantum is about and how can I use in optimization. mean field theory already benefits simulation of multiagent systems of heteregenous agents and I want to create artificial financial markets and estimate the behaviour of infinitely many individuals.
>>16804716You're getting confused by semantics. Semantics discussion has rules that are only real within the bounds of the rules we engage semantics in. Even knowing the semantics have no real existence outside of our mind, we can still hold it to be true with respect to the semantics, but not outside of it. And our knowledge of the current world is bound within the semantic scheme. Outside has no verifiability. Just as there's no existence of number 1-100 as indian numerals outside, so too the conceptual frameworks. Platonists have argued that even if nothing else exists, surely conceptual forms exists for there to be imprints, but you cant escape the bounds of semantics.
>>16804744No, the meaning of words change over time, semantics are not eternal nor are their rules, but thanks for conceding that your argument is simply just you impotently kvetching about semantics and you are just arbitrarily rearranging words for attention instead of trying to describe truths since you admit that you don't know the truth so all your descriptions are just trying to compensate for your own ignorance.
>>16804662good post
spin isomers
>>16804725you want to look at parametric spacesthe theory of Hilbert spaces is well developed
>>16804751>bla-bla-bla you are wrong bla-bla-bla
>>16803616I haven't yet worked this one out fully, but I have an idea of using matrices, or at least vec4, as a numeric representation in calculations. this would be like using all numbers in an expression as a matrix of numbers for calculations, similar to coordinate transforms using translate/rotate/scale in different combinations as fundamental operations akin to arithmetic and higher functions. the idea is analogous to how quaternions sometimes act as a "carry dimension" in calculations, similar to the carry operator in arithmetic when needing to insert extra digits to complete a computation. this is familiar to having computations in N dimension, requiring N+1 dimensions to account for any "carries" which happen. the concept is that while something like velocity can certainly be a 1-dimensional number, making a 1x1 matrix, or vec1, just make it an 8x8 and see if anything pops up during the computation needing to make use of the rest of the input and output matrices. I suspect this is some sort of conservation of information entropy which needs to be accounted for.for example, conservation of angular momentum such that the computation of a rotating body for it will have an 8x8 matrix (or whatever) to store that data such that when rotation changes, or nutation/etc, those will be represented by changes made to the values in that matrix.I suspect this approach will make a generic framework and simplify much of what has to be done in terms of raw computation for math and physics. I also think that it would explain some interesting things in nature, example being the few times rotational motion and be converted to linear motion, and vice versa. conservation of angular momentum could just as easily be "trasfer angular momentum to linear momentum" presenting itself as "leftovers" in the matrices during and after computation.maybe. I've looked for prior work on this with no results.
>>16803616My genes made up this thing that my wife and I do with our dirty parts to make copies of themselves. Horny little buggers too.
>>16804647And how can someone dispute that theory if it will never be possible to see reality from outside of ourselves?
>>16804647>Descarte
>>16804642>That is what Hume said, right?It's more similar to Kant. Our minds structure reality in such a way to make it comprehensible and knowable. We can't know reality as it is itself (the noumena), but only as it appears (the phenomena).
>>16805309Thats why its an axiomatic principle. Which are apparent. Similar to how "I think therefore I am", but more so, the fact that there's thoughts isnt being disputed because we're engaging in the very thought driven experience, even if we dispute everything else. So it becomes a basic axiom. In modern philosophy, this is basically called the Primacy of the Consciousness. There's no way to dispute consciousness when we're engaging in conscious activity everytime we are thinking of something, experiencing something, etc.
>>16804582>>16804642This is 15 pages. You might like it: https://www.bard.edu/library/pdfs/archives/Bergson_Introduction_to_Metaphysics.pdf
>>16805562whoops sorry, realized this is missing pageshttps://reasoned.org/dir/lit/int-meta.pdf
>>16805541And how does the author of that theory know he is true if he can't see reality from outside of himself either?
reaching ordinals somehow encodes a fundamental aspect of mathematics, like arithmetic, exponentiation, or just flat out the entire notion of construction with defined computable procedures. each step is some stress test of mathematical consistency taken to its absolute limit. i thought it was just philosophical nonsense before but it seemed really interesting to see the effort taken to codify predicative mathematics, or computable mathematics, but then leaving it all behind when you need raw set theory for things like uncountable sets in ordinal arithmetic. even the idea of constructing had its limits, which confused me. seeing it all organized in a growing hierarchy that ranked the sheer strength of each system required to reach the supremum seemed cool. i still have this problem where i can't picture mathematics where you can have things with no measure, or no ability to be constructed, yet they exist, but somehow it's there when you're taking such a basic idea with minimal assumptions.
>>16803793seriously?
>>16803616gravity, we all accept it even though it appears to just be something God said exists and there is no other basis for it to exist
>>16803616there are an estimated 10^24 stars in the universe. if you were to assign each one a simple 8 letter name, it would require about 8k zettabytes of data to store that list. roughly, you would need the combined hard drive space of about 40 planet earths just to hold all the names.
solution to Fermi Paradox is all civilizations self-destruct before they get interstellar tech.
If the Big Bang is real that means energy can be made from nothing.
>>16805736>I display all the traits of extremely highly intelligent peopleyeah. and i'm a millionaire, buddy.
>>16805692>zoom in>most of those are galaxies tooyepthere is too much shit out there
>>16803616the moon is the perfect distance from earth relative to earth from the sun to create solar eclipsesthink about how random that is and we exist at a time where solar eclipses exist on earth. only thing that makes me believe in simulation theory
>>16805692yeah this shit is mindblowing. each of those balls and disks has over 1 billion stars with planets, asteroids and comets. All existing longer than humans have on earth
>>16805790Anon, if the moon looked bigger it'd still give a total solar eclipse. If the moon were smaller we'd still get significant partial eclipses.
>>16805790>the moon is the perfect distance from earthOnly partly true. The Moon's orbit is elliptical, a total eclipse happens ONLY when it is closest to Earth, otherwise the Sun isn't covered completely. Sure it's a funny coincidence that the apparent sizes are roughly the same for even part of the orbit, but it's far from the epic proof that simulation fags brag about.
>>16805805coincidence my ass look up mars solar eclipse then your mind will be blown. either that or something about the distance earth is from the sun and moon is from earth correlates with the creation of life
>>16805808>you've proven me wrong??>l-look up this other unrelated thing isntead!!!!!!!you a bot? whatever, I'll bite. What's so mindblowing about solar eclipses on a planet with two tiny moons?
>>16805790the moon is slowly moving away from earth ~3.8 cm. so no "perfect" in any kind of understanding sense
>>16805813on mars the solar eclipses dont overlap evenly. yet on earth they do perfectlyeven in our own solar system this phenomenon is not mere coincidence
>>16805814that further proves my point. we exist when total solar eclipses are possible
>>16805816>yet on earth they do perfectly**perfectly 100% of the time, sometimes.
>>16805790>makes me believe in simulation theoryis simulation theory just creation theory for zoomers?>>16805814>coverage WAS perfect but has been driftingsure>near perfect solar eclipse>jupiter is a size anomaly and has shielded us from countless impacts>local space appears to be less populated than elsewherei'm with the schizos on this onesomething (unimaginably big) put us here
>>16805816>perfectlyYou keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means. >Perfectly by frequency Nope>Perfectly by eraNope, it occured millions of years in the past as well. >Perfectly by sun coverage Nope, the corona still finds a way through >Perfectly by ... [insert cope here]
>>16805827>has shielded us from countless impactsHey, retard. If Jupiter has shielded earth from countless impacts, then why is the moon covered in craters from impacts? Oh, right. It's because the earths atmosphere is the primary shield against impacts.
Behold! The "perfect" total solar eclipse. Which doesn't look perfect at all, occurs at most twice a year, at remote locations that allegedly God's chosen are nowhere near.
>>16805831>if my mother sucks so many dicks, how is she also taking backshots?solid argument
>>16803652expand on this?>>16805790Maybe Earth will be a tourist destination for aliens, they might think solar eclipses are the coolest thing everAlso the fact that wood is probably a mind-of-a-kind material in the whole universe
>>16805855one-of-a-kind* and also the hexagon on saturn's north pole is pretty neat
>>16805701Fermi Paradox in general. I know it is now a popsci staple but the fact that we do not see any alien life really tells us something deep about the universe. Either intelligent life is very rare or we are fucked in the long term, never colonizing the galaxy.
>>16803717>>16804221Pretty much same workspace as Michael Levins
>>16805790Nah, I think there are some stable geometric configuration in the sea of stars. And its not because of their uniqueness but rather the spectrum of stable configuration is spread throughout a wide array. Like other planets having moons, multiple moons, stable moons, relative distance between their moons/planet/sun, etc. This is just our own solar system, these variety of configurations are spread throughout the galaxy, throughout the universe in likely every solar system with multiple planetary bodies. A similar ratio will likely exist on another systems at a much more higher frequency than you think
