What is the meaning of life, /pol/?

File: 1446587469839.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

But why? Why does anything need to exist at all? Because it has to. Something has to exist, because nothing can't. The opposite of existence is non-existence, and non-existence already doesn't exist. It never has existed, nor ever will exist, and can only continue not existing when in the presence of that which already does exist. The question why does anything exist, is a question that exists within existence and is dependant on anything existing at all in the first place in order for the question to be asked in the first place; existence isn't subject to the question, the question is subject to existence. It's like asking what it looks like behind your field of vision. It doesn't look like anything at all, it's not even an empty void, it's just not there at all, like a sense you never had in the first place. Furthermore, the nothingness behind your field of vision can only continue looking like nothing while your field of vision looks like something. Something always has to exist, however, it still need a logical causal framework to structure its existence, which I have already laid out in my closed time loop universe simulation theory above.

>>127706548
TL;DR

brraaaaap

>>127706548
Holy shit no one is going to read this.

anyways, this goes in >>>/sci/ or >>>/trash/

also consider
- you may be having a manic bipolar episode. take your meds
- lay off the adderall

>>127706659
/thread

File: IMG_0082.jpg (186KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 2048x2048px

>>127706597
Anon, you're clearly a smart guy and you're actually on to something.

I gotta be real with you though; you're not doing it right.

You're looking so closely at the brush strokes that you've lost the picture.

Our entire existence, as you're likely beginning to surmise, is completely paradoxical; there's no two ways about it. Once you've logged that one away you can stop worrying about "how" and start worrying about "why". This is where you will begin down a path of wisdom or power. The choice is yours, but be wary, power corrupts.

>>127706548

There's a political class that is worthy of salvation then us chattel

That's the unfortunate meaning of life

you're just plastering a bunch of random sci / sci fi ideas together, and making shit up as you go along. Things exist because they have to? No, there's a mathematical proof that the universe could have literally came into existence from nothing due to quantum fluctuations. The meaning of life is simple: Shit happens. There's no grand plan. Shit happens, and the end result of that is that life expands. So conquer the galaxy, maybe the local supercluster, cuz by the time you can, all the other clusters will be long gone into the black as space expands. Also, if you want to figure out if there's more to the universe before the big bang, study it now, because eventually it will be beyond our "edge" of the universe where the universe expands faster than light.

Until then, fuck off and die or get your head out of your ass and stop daydreaming about retarded shit.

>>127706548
Honestly this is not too different from the view in law of One/Ra material iirc. That is kinda crazy but also gives the meaning behind all, in a way (evolution towards unity again, as the creator experiences the illusion of separation to learn about itself).
>llresearch.org
>Lawofone.info (searchable version).

>>127708343
>>127706548
are you posting on LSD? Your ramblings look like an armchair physicist tripping on acid for their first time, thinking they solved the universe. Sober up you junkie

>>127706548
Science and philosophy are actually pointing towards an answer, albeit one that is not simple: https://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilf01.htm
Don't be misled by the word "nihilism" in the link; this goes far beyond anything Nietzsche ever conceived.
To give an attempt at summary: the sum total of existence is nothing. For example, the positive energy in the universe due to mass is canceled out by the negative gravitational potential energy, such that the universe overall contains zero energy. The same thing goes for types of differentiation other than energy, such as quantum configurations: all possible ones exist under an Everett interpretation, so there is in fact zero information since you need no bits to specify any particular subbranch among every possible one--if everything possible exists in some Everett branch, then the total information contained in the universe cancels out to zero as well. And so on for a bunch of other things, which are mentioned in the article. Note that some knowledge of physics, cosmology, and philosophy are required to get a proper understanding.

>>127709084
Ying and Yang, my man, your language regarding how you perceive that article is very telling.

Balance and harmony, not "canceled out" and "nothing"

>>127706597
>The opposite of existence is non-existence, and non-existence already doesn't exist.
You're just playing with semantics here.
>it still need a logical causal framework
>causal
But causality is not needed. In interpretations of physics that assume "block time" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) ) there is no causality, just correlation between states at different points along the time dimension. Causality is optional. One good example is if in quantum mechanics you replace the Born rule with the ABL rule--the math is just as valid, but it's instantly clear that causality is a subjective concept and an interpretive choice.

>>127709411
My brief comment is easily subject to caricature; the article--less so, and so I suggest reading it instead of relying on your spin on my synopsis--not because it benefits me, but because it will expand your understanding.

>>127709699
I didn't comment on the material of the article, anon; you're quite clearly a nihilist. There's no doubt about it.

>>127710062
The thing is, it DOES cancel out. That doesn't mean we can't derive meaning within that framework--just that it is subjective. But I'm OK with that. True nihilism presupposes the rejection of meaning whatsoever.

>>127706548
>Notice however, that each stage of complexity occurs faster than the stage which preceded it. We can see this in our own world where in we have experienced more technological evolution in the past 100 years than we have in the previous 100,000. Following this logic, there will come a day when we will experience more change in a single day than in the entire course of human history, perhaps in the entire course of the universe.
You're using induction, which in a strict logical sense is not valid. The sun has risen a shitload of times, and will rise tomorrow, and the day after, and the one after that and... but NOT forever. One day, it won't rise.
Also, your discussion of simulation makes me wonder if you're familiar with the well-developed argument by philosopher Nick Bostrom that it is more probable that we are living in a simulation than that we are not: http://www.simulation-argument.com/

>>127710671
Yes but in a reasonable sense induction is valid, otherwise scientific experimentation would be largely pointless.

>>127711678
A common misconception. Scientific experimentation is the attempt to falsify theories. You can only disprove a scientific theory (by showing experimental results are consistent with it), not disprove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

>>127711829
>consistent
I mean "inconsistent"

>>127711829
>disprove it
I mean "prove it".

To many errors. Take two:
You can only disprove a scientific theory (by showing experimental results are inconsistent with it), not prove it.

>>127709084
I don't get it; how can you say there's no information when it's clear we can experience reality?

Hello. Reddit is down the corner to the left.

>>127711964
Grossly simplified:
Consider 0.
But this can be -1 + 1. Or -0.00999781377 + (2308954 / 230945890). Or any of an infinite possible breakdowns. Now, if only the physical manifestations of a certain number of possible breakdowns exist, then you need information in order to specify which ones exist. The longer/more complex breakdowns, and the more of them exist, the more information you need to specify which ones they are. But if ALL of these infinite number of breakdowns exist, then you need NO information to define them.
Now, you might think that talking about the information needed to specify state is a sleight of hand, since after all, physical existence is one thing and information another, right? Well, in fact that's incorrect. Information is very much a physical thing, and there are very deep and fundamental links between physics and information (a connection that classically originated in thermodynamics and was significantly expanded in the attempts to tame quantum gravity); in fact, some interpretations regard information as the only thing there really is.
Better than reading what I'm writing here is to read the link I posted, and any time you come across some terms you're unclear about, use that as starting points for more research.

File: albert-camus.jpg (26KB, 620x270px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 620x270px

>>127706548
>The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself

>>127708343
>came into existence from nothing due to quantum fluctuations

>nothing
>quantum fluctuations
pick one

>>127711829
experiment/falsification is an inductive rather than deductive process

>>127712725
What's evidence is there to show that information is not just a subjective human label to experiences?

File: Alan-Watts.jpg (1MB, 2267x1588px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2267x1588px

>this thread

Now you're getting it!

>>127712883
>>nothing
>>quantum fluctuations
>pick one
I don't have to. Quantum fluctuations don't create a net surplus of energy that persists. The more energy coming out of a quantum fluctuation, the shorter time it persists before it's canceled out into nothing.
>experiment/falsification is an inductive rather than deductive process
Absolute nonsense. The very reason Karl Popper is even famous is that he showed falsification as the solution to the problem of induction.

>>127713016
>What's evidence is there to show that information is not just a subjective human label to experiences?
But everything we can conceive of is ultimately a subjective human label to experiences. We don't have objective access to an underlying reality. Ultimately, we cannot even disprove a trivial philosophy such as solipsism (that all of reality is inside your mind only and there may not even be other minds).

>>127713016
There is none. Everything from language to religion to the scientific method to time and mathematics are subjective human inventions, structural ideas to create a semblance of order and meaning in an inherently chaotic and meaningless universe.

>To a human grass is green
>To a dog grass is grey
Whichis real? Are either? Neither?

It is subjective information passed through physiological processing which is limited in its understanding of reality by its verg nature.

Hell, colour is just reflected light, so technically the grass is every colour BUT green because it's absorbing one light wavelength and reflecting all the others whixh we see as colour.

Our entire existence is subjective

>>127713552
Then how are you state, objectively, that information is, in fact " the only thing there is"?

It seems like a HUGE leap to me.

>>127713480
Watts is that he tried to popularize Eastern philosophy, but he provided no connection to science that would make us more likely to consider such a viewpoint.
On the other hand, we have the physicist Mohrhoff, who has an interesting interpretation of QM that is heavily influenced by his exposure to Eastern philosophy since he moved from Germany to India: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182
In some of his other writings, he describes how his interpretation is consistent with Eastern Philosophy.
In relation to my other posts in this thread, replace Zero with One (specifically, the Infinite Oneness, self-differentiated into a multitude of aspects that represents the elements of reality). I find study of his views worthy because the interpretation of QM he proposes considered on its purely logical terms is fully consistent with QM mathematical formalism, and thus not eliminated by science as a possibility.

>>127706548
that was a good read toothpaste, I've always had a similar idea about existence, except I've always imagined the evolutionary endpoint of not just humans but all life in the universe as some kind of omnipotent energy that transcends space and time (quite possibly what we have been calling "god(s)' for thousands of years)

that been said I can totally see how AI has a role in all this, then again you're talking to a guy who did a lot of acid back in the day so don't need to take everything i say seriously

>>127713994
It's not a leap, but if you learn the basic mathematics of QM and then carefully study QM interpretations, you will be able to understand that this is at the very least plausible if not probably. Results such as the Bekenstein bound strengthen these considerations. However, I can't teach you QM and the general logical foundation of physics in statistical mechanics in a /pol/ thread :)

>>127711829
Please explain to me how Critical analysis assigns values to theories.

What makes one theory more viable than another?

>>127714244
No, explain it to me. I understand the basics, you're not offering a valid argument and instead are opting out of any discourse.

>>127713552
What do you think a quantum fluctuation is?
And Popper's a spook. If falsification was a solution science would stop.

>>127706548
Yes

>>127714316
I don't think you know what critical analysis means (it's a literary term).
>What makes one theory more viable than another?
In a very strict logical sense: nothing. https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v302/n5910/abs/302687a0.html
"Supposed positive evidence (such as the provision of "good reasons" for a claim, or its having been "corroborated" by making successful predictions) actually does nothing to bolster, support, or prove a claim, belief, or theory."
In less strict terms, we choose theories for more practical reasons.
Consider the analogy of a decision tree (in the machine learning sense) with some data. The tree is a model, like a theory, and the data in our analogy stands in for the "reality" one is modeling. In general, having too many parameters on the tree (more complex theory) increases the chance of overfitting the data on which you train the tree (the experimental observations based on which you develop the theory) and decreases the chance of the tree generalizing to new data on which you test it (the chance of the theory being falsified by new evidence).
>>127714553
>If falsification was a solution science would stop.
Fantasy.

>>127715102
I mean decreasing generalization ability of the decision tree corresponds to increasing the chance of the theory being falsified, i.e. I dropped the word "increases"

>>127714244
Furthermore, if you're just going to play the subjective card at least have the grits to start with it.

What you did was start with a conclusion, use advanced vocabulary and esoteric language to explain it, then when the right questions were asked, it boils down to a theory which you can't explain without playing the "subjective reality" card.

>>127715102
So you're poopooing induction because it's not logical, but you rely on critical analysis for your rebuttal?

>>127715469
I'm not poopooing induction: it's useful in two cases:
1. Mathematical induction, which IS logically valid
2. Generating new hypotheses (but plays no part in "proving" them--the analogy to [hypothesizing and falsification] is [mutation/recombination and selection], and the latter doesn't guarantee that at any generation the individuals will be 100% optimal by whatever fitness metric one might choose)
>critical analysis
There we go with that literature term again

File: IMG_1342.jpg (80KB, 605x412px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 605x412px

>>127706548
There is no meaning in life other than eat, breed, and die.

Yin and Yang. Black and White. Life and Death. Light and Darkness.

Check out Alan Watts .

>>127714506
>>127715330
Gentlesirs, let me ask you the following: how are you expecting me to give a detailed answer in a post form where the full answer as presented by scientists and philosophers comprises a bunch of papers and articles (which themselves require familiarity with some of the concepts discussed)? I posted here with simplified sketches of the answers and gave links to references that do contain these detailed answers. How is what you're asking different from asking me to derive quantum chromodynamics to someone who's never even heard of group theory? What the fuck happened to proportionality?

>>127715822
It's logically valid based on axiomatic principles which were ARBITRARILY assigned. Fuck off with your sophistry.

I'm responding to the idea that you linked critical analysis to disprove the notion of induction being valid. It seems to me the current scientific consensus didn't solve Hume's problem, it only changed the model. It still relies on "reasonableness" to assign any value to theories.

But as we all know, your entire argument at its core relies on feelings rather than logic.

>>127716297
Nigger, haven't you noticed that every time you post without reading the thread, your post is totally redundant because what you wrote was said at the very least once already and with more finesse?

>>127716317
Admit you know nothing like the rest of us, end the sophistry, and come back to Sophia.

>>127714049
>no connection to science that would make us more likely to consider such a viewpoint

Confirmed for having never listened to his lectures, his books stay in the realm of humanities a fair bit more but Watts' idea was heavily rooted in physics.

>>127716630
fuvking brainlet commie faggot wants everything to be easy to understand - and everyone to be as retarded as him

>>127706548
>>127706597

I actually decided to read everything you typed in those posts and was pleasantly surprised at your intelligence. I think the fact that anything exists at all means that everything exists, including purple elephants (for example). Just because purple elephants apparently don't exist in this universe doesn't mean that purple elephants don't exist in an infinite number of other universes. Indeed, the very fact that we can NEVER prove that purple elephants don't exist suggests that purple elephants exist at least SOMEWHERE. I sincerely love you.

>>127715824
And now think about what all those things share.

Their existence necessitates being, that's what the point of all this is, to be, and see how jazzed up it can get. So enjoy the ride, that's really all there is to it.

>>127716998
Truth is simple, friend.

File: image.png (662KB, 581x552px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 581x552px

>>127717012

We ought to remember who and what EVERYONE REALLY IS - Pure Consciousness (which is INFINITE AND ETERNAL) experiencing life in a temporary human form. You can do ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DO and you can be ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BE. They want us to think that the average person is powerless to positively change the world, but the TRUTH is that we have INFINITE POWER - both individually AND collectively. There's only one of us here. If you hit yourself on the head with a baseball bat, they'll put you in a mental hospital, yet that's EXACTLY what people are doing on a global scale. You can call Pure Consciousness 'God' if you want, but I don't because the word 'God' has religious connotations that I would rather avoid. Religion is the McDonald's of spirituality.

What we need to do is to raise our level of consciousness, both individually AND collectively. If even one person raises his or her level of consciousness, it has a ripple effect that benefits EVERYONE ELSE, even if they don't believe any of this stuff - and this is because 'reality' itself is HOLOGRAPHIC in nature. One of the ways that they have manipulated us so deeply for so long is by suppressing our sense of the possible. What we call 'reality' is COMPLETELY ILLUSORY and thus MALLEABLE - and they KNOW THIS, while most other people do NOT. EVERYTHING IS ILLUSORY, EXCEPT PURE CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF. NOTHING is impossible in a universe that is ILLUSORY TO BEGIN WITH. People are AWAKENING to a MORE EXPANDED CONCEPTION of the world and life in general and this is a PROFOUNDLY GOOD THING. We owe it to our innate intelligence to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that includes EVERYTHING that I tell you. We have the power to transform this prison illusion into a PARADISE ILLUSION, so let's USE that power.

File: astronaut.jpg (174KB, 1331x1024px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1331x1024px

>>127717312

We're all one - and the beauty of this is that we don't have to be cucks despite this fact (and it IS a fact). We can STILL protect Western Civilisation and save the white race from extinction. We ought to embrace nationalist principles to protect Western Civilisation and save the white race from extinction even while REMEMBERING who and what WE REALLY ARE - Pure Consciousness (which is INFINITE AND ETERNAL) experiencing life in a temporary human form. Our TRUE STATE, our TRUE NATURE and our TRUE IDENTITY is Pure Consciousness and Pure Consciousness is ALL-PERFECT AND EVER-PERFECT. We are SIMULTANEOUSLY one yet different in our oneness in much the same way that the waves of an ocean are one with that ocean but are also unique in and of themselves in that each wave has its own shape, speed and size. I think that's pretty neat. What we call 'reality' is HOLOGRAPHIC in nature, so we are in fact smaller versions of the whole (which you can call 'God', if you want). Every part of the whole contains the whole and, to be more accurate, IS the whole. And just as a drop of water contains the same qualities as an entire ocean of water, we likewise contain all that exists within us - but merely on a smaller scale. From unconditional love we ALL sprang and to unconditional love we ALL return. There is no death, only transference of consciousness. There are no answers, only choices. There are no hallucinations, only shifts in perception. There are no laws, only habits. There are no coincidences, only synchronicities. There are no truths, only experiences. There is no separateness, only oneness. Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my message shall NEVER pass away. The message is more important than the messenger.

>>127716364
>axiomatic principles which were ARBITRARILY assigned
Now I know you're just trolling. If they're axiomatic, then (with respect to the given logical system) they're arbitrary by definition.
>relies on feelings rather than logic
Ultimately, cognition and feelings cannot be separated, as Damasio showed (look up somatic markers). :)
>come back to Sophia
Do you mean in the sense of mathematical Platonism? Because there are very few things I'm more opposed to.

>>127716902
Now this one to an extent at least comes down to a feeling: ultimately, I trust scientists a bit more than philosophers. Ironically, critical rationalism doesn't apply to philosophy the way it does to science, so I consider Morhoff's QM interpretation as the kind of "good reasons" for taking a closer look at Eastern philosophy (the "good reasons" Popper rejects for considering one _scientific_ theory better than another).

To rid your country of traitors, Jews and non-whites. To kill, maim, rape, and utterly destroy every single one who stands in your way.

Anything else if faggot bullshit.

>>127717312
>What we need to do is to raise our level of consciousness
What do you recommend?

>>127708693
I'm actually coming down off a acid trip and it's still gibberish to me..

>>127717312
>Pure Consciousness
Well, this is just a type of panpsychism. Panpsychism in general is not inconsistent with the zero ontology I linked to above. See https://www.physicalism.com/

>>127717699
Try DMT instead, mah native

>>127717012
What about purple and pink elephants with polka-dot stripes that shit out dinosaurs?

>>127717777
everyone says that but I think the stuff smells like ass

>>127716317
Well, I really appreciate your posts bro, and that other bro, you guys are reaaal Bros I rexkkn

>>127717445
Quit playing the fool, axioms are imperfect rules. They are incredibly well thought out and genius in their implementation, but ultimately they rely on man's subjective touch. You can follow the logic from the axiom, but the axiom itself is arbitrary.

And I mean Sophia meaning Wisdom. I figured someone as versed as you are in philosophy would catch the the old line: "Socrates was the wisest of the Greeks because he knew that he knew nothing."

>>127706548
read the cosmic serpent

>>127706548
stop being a faggot.

Short answer: to spread the gospel

Other short answer: your daily life feels pointless because it is. Being a slave to work and companies has nothing to do with real happiness and community. Man was created to live together with Gods creation but the fall corrupted that. All those in high power dont want you to break away from this serfdom, remember, but even if you wanted to break away there is little you can do. At best, you just have to ride the tiger and make the most of it.

>>127717890
Then do ayahuasca or pharmahuasca.

>>127717533

Intense, sincere, prolonged meditation and/or consumption of psychoactive substances (although consuming psychoactive substances only temporarily retunes the receiver-wavelengths of the human brain to enable us to perceive frequency bands that we usually cannot perceive).

>>127717887

EVERYTHING exists, either in this universe or somewhere else. No exceptions.

>>127706548
>there will come a day when we will experience more change in a single day than in the entire course of human history


;()

>>127718421
It's fun to try to imagine universes that have different defining laws.

>>127718224
I've done DMT many times. The experiences were intense, deep but not completely life changing.

Same for tripping on heroic dose of shrooms in a cave with a few "enlightened" friends.
Much has changed, the most radical thing is the frequent experience of synchronicities. I am becoming more aware.

My point is - we are no where near what you described earlier. Those are just buzzwords.

>>127718658
Like a universe that only has whole numbers.

>>127717012
The purple elephant hasn't left the universe, its in you, an you are apart, now its in we too.
It exist an you are nature.

>>127718695
Dude, the synchronicities are definitely a game changer.

>>127717969
>Quit playing the fool, axioms are imperfect rules. They are incredibly well thought out and genius in their implementation, but ultimately they rely on man's subjective touch. You can follow the logic from the axiom, but the axiom itself is arbitrary.
We're not really disagreeing on this. An axiom is arbitrary w.r.t. the logical system under consideration by definition. But saying they are "incredibly well thought out" isn't really acceptable evidence in their favor from a logical perspective. The best justification we can do for axioms is based on some feelings, generally shared among some (hopefully majority) of theorists, influenced by experience and other things we can map to reality (to the extent that the mind is mapped to physics by its neural correlates). It's easy to demonstrate that such "good reasons" are insufficient: smart people still disagree on axioms. Look at something as foundational as the ZFC basis of mathematics. Most mathematicians don't bother with it, preferring to take a utilitarian approach and use what works in their proofs, but there are mathematicians that disagree with basic ZFC axioms and there is no rational argument against them. And I don't mean just things like the axiom of choice, but even more fundamentally things such as that infinite sets are a thing (finitism isn't dead ).

>>127717445
You cannot look at science and philosophy in the same light in that way, but you must take both into account wholeheartedly when considering one.

The scientist finds the parts and how they work, leading us to bigger and smaller parts, and the philosopher takes these into consideration to figure out the machine they run as a part of. There's a reason they used to call scientists 'natural philosophers', but now we can think about us and the world in the same picture once we realize they are two groupings of parts of the same machine.

Never let the word machine imply that it is dead though.

>>127718867
Of course it is, I'm loving the ride. But that's baby steps to all those big words the aussie is using

>>127718878
Do you think I'm an infinite set of universes there is one where there are only whole numbers?

>>127719279
There is only one universe, if there are separate ones in the sense that you mean they're still all a part of the same process.

>>127717969
>And I mean Sophia meaning Wisdom. I figured someone as versed as you are in philosophy would catch the the old line: "Socrates was the wisest of the Greeks because he knew that he knew nothing."
You're right. I'm not as well versed in classical philosophy as I should be given my interests in philosophy, not to mention my shilling for Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" in other threads when one of the very things he laments is forgetting and misrepresenting the ancients in modern times in the West.

>>127718896
I'm not saying they're independent, and I do take both wholeheartedly. My comment was regarding the fact that I prefer philosophy that is rooted with the most up to date scientific understanding of the universe.

>>127706548
This sums up what I believe perfectly. 11/10

>>127718961
Eh, he's just going off about the philosophy of it. He believes those things and his experiences likely brought him there, but it's not like I can see through universes now. He just a normal dude with eclectic beliefs.

>>127719457
You'll love the Greeks, dude.

For being ancient, they dealt with a lot of the same problems we have today, from women and money, to politics and powe.

In some of their works the entire lesson is taught in the form of dialogues. These dialogues function very similarly to 4chan threads and they're honestly a blast to read.

>>127719279
I can't parse your sentence--perhaps you can check your grammar. Based on my best guess of what you're asking:
I can accept countable infinities, but not uncountable ones--(((Georg Cantor))) and his transfinites can go fuck themselves.
This is axiomatic, so here are my "good reasons" for such a philosophical stance based on rootedness in science:
Real numbers (an uncountable set) are not physically realizable. If a physical value could represent an arbitrary precision real number, then you could encode infinite information in it (one for each of its infinite digits). However, that would violate the Bekenstein bound.
So, this is a pretty good fucking reason.
The second reason is that I reject mathematical Platonism. Believing in a world of mathematical absolutes beyond physical reality is a religion. It's also unnecessary.

To secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

>>127720061
Likely. Bloom has inspired me to take a closer look at them, and he considers all of these topics in his book with them in mind.

File: what_if_i_told_you_by_onyxcarmine-d8q5ke8.png (540KB, 1024x580px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1024x580px

OP, Who is to say we aren't in a simulation 0.0?
>*Phone Rings*
>You answer, "Hello?"
>"Hello Neo, do you know who this is?"
>"Morpheus."
>"Yes, I've been looking for you Neo, I don't know if you're ready to see what I want to show you..."

>>127720063
Well try to imagine that our universes are just a subset of metaverses that follow the same axiomatic laws.

Now imagine there's another meta verse that has other laws, and within that set there's a universe that only has whole numbers

It's just an imagination game. It's hilarious to try to play with an axiom like that.

>>127718658

I completely agree with you. I think that what we call 'the laws of physics' aren't laws at all, but just arbitrary conditions imposed on this universe by Pure Consciousness (which is infinite) to limit Pure Consciousness. Pure Consciousness is expressing what it is to be finite through this universe. Indeed, physicists from the University of Bonn in Germany say they have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation and that our universe simply being a computer simulation means that our universe would create its own 'laws of physics' to limit possibility. However, I would say that our universe is NOT a computer simulation but is LIKE a computer simulation. (end of part 1)

File: krishnapepe.jpg (448KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 600x750px

>>127720391

(start of part 2) 'Reality' is NOT a simulation, but it is LIKE a simulation. The simulation theory is a blue pill. The red pill is that 'reality' is LIKE a simulation - that it's not 'reality' that's like a computer, but that a computer is like 'reality'. Technology mirrors 'reality' and technology imitates biology (and this is completely intentional).
The base state of all things is energetic wave-form information, which has been confirmed by quantum physics. This is why everything can be perceived in an infinite number of different ways, because nothing can exist without being perceived and to be perceived, there must be a perceiver. When you see a rose as being red, a bee sees that same rose in shades of ultra-violet and a bat perceives that same rose as vibrations of sound. It all depends on the way that the information is 'read' (so to speak). We not only decode/re-decode information with our senses into what we call 'people', 'places' and 'things', but we can also ENCODE/RE-ENCODE information with our senses into what we call 'people', 'places' and 'things' - this is the basis of meme magic. We're encoding 'people', 'places' and 'things' with different information to what was there before, we're altering its informational substrate. The base state of EVERYTHING in the universe is ENERGETIC WAVE-FORM INFORMATION. EVERYTHING. We are literally information decoding information. Energy flows where attention goes. Things like 'mental illnesses'/depression/anxiety are basically ROGUE INFORMATION. Think of those things as being like a computer virus.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is - infinite." - William Blake

(end)

>>127718781

There is a mathematical substrate to the universe, it's a level of the universe that is pure mathematics. It's why things like the golden ratio are found in nature. This is what numerology taps into and the ruling families know this. The universe is like a computer simulation:

http://theawakenment.com/theoretical-physicist-james-gates-finds-computer-code-in-string-theory-equation/

>>127706548
The meaning of life is to preserve love , life and liberty.

Which means snowflakes are going to have to either
A: Cling to the government that is killing them and treating them as slaves
B: Kill people as to secure the future of any nation for generations not yet born.

I think (A) is going to happen , then true Patriots will rise and cleanse this earth of both snowflakes and federal government in any form it takes on. Then we can create a new FED with new rules and regulations.

Blood , Death , Sorrow and with just a chance of Freedom.

" Through Emerald Eyes I See 1776 "

Doesn't matter what we do, always loops back to red pilling...

>>127720521
I'd say we're on about the same page ideaologically.

How do you feel about good and evil?

THREAD THEME: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zj45_uYIQo

File: bender.jpg (73KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x768px

FUCK IT, I'LL CREATE A NEW UNIVERSE WITH BLACKJACK AND HOOKERS!

>>127720662
reddit spacing

>>127720804

I think of 'evil' as being rogue information, sort of like a computer virus. 'Good' is the anti-virus software that counters the computer virus.

>>127720662
One could save a lot of lives by starting early.

>>127720319
You can imagine that, and I would regard it likely that taking all possible universes formed with all possible self-consistent sets of axiomatic laws altogether adds up to zero net information, as per my initial post.
However, aside from imagining that these universes and metaverses etc. can exist, I find no point in imagining any thing else about them, such as specific instances (other than our own, of course).

>>127720653
>There is a mathematical substrate to the universe
Many philosophies of mathematics reject that. It's simpler, for example, to consider the two one and the same, or that it's basically a product of precise thinking (rooted in physical reality by the mind's neural correlates, and so mathematical laws have a universality that derives from the universality of physical laws), as in mathematical intuitionism.
>http://theawakenment.com/theoretical-physicist-james-gates-finds-computer-code-in-string-theory-equation/
>string-theory
Stopped reading right there. String theory is non-falsifiable pretend-science.

Personally, I think good and evil is a human construct, and morality and ethics works in practice but can seem meaningless unless you are genuinely placed in that situation. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to judge someone's immoral acts because I know what they "should" of done, as humans make immoral choices everyday. Just not everyone knows about it. Leading me to conclude that humans are flawed in themselves.

>>127706548
Suffering, my dude. Suffering. What you thought you were born to be happy? I'm afraid not. You will die an excruciating death and enter eternal nothingness, never to see the people you love again. Of course, that's the best case scenario. Why wouldn't you be reincarnated back into this universe to feel all its misery again? Who the fuck knows what reality truly is?

>>127706548
idk lol

>>127721855
>good and evil is a human construct, and morality and ethics works in practice but can seem meaningless unless you are genuinely placed in that situation
And what gives them meaning when placed into that situation? The feelings that are experienced. Emotivism is the only sensible moral theory. However, most emotivists don't put enough emphasis on the shared biological foundations behind these feelings and social cognition, which is what gives them a level of (soft) universality that is not completely subjugated by cultural variations--and this is why I discount moral relativism (and the logical result of it--SJWs) while being more or less an emotivist myself.

>>127722605
>moral theory
I mean moral philosophy

>>127722605
Yea, Idk , If I did I'd be cashing in my knowledge on dank book about philosophy and the meaning of life.

File: 129791361380.png (265KB, 450x375px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 450x375px

>>127720521
So basically, we're Orks?

>>127724431

Yes.

>>127706548
Someone's been reading McKenna a lot lately...cite your sources you stupid fuck.

File: hexagon.png (293KB, 702x702px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 702x702px

>>127713016

This is more of a question about the place of mathematics in reality.
It's called Mathematical Realism - which states that math exists whether we do or not, and that there is math out there we don’t know yet, and maybe never can.

Anti-realists, on the other hand, argue that math is a language, a fiction, a “rigorous aesthetic” that allows us to model regularities in the universe that don’t objectively exist.