Well, /vip/?

>>7351
Inform the driver I am a 4chan Pass user and it shall halt.

Multi-track drifting

File: DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.png (328KB, 1353x976px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1353x976px

>>7351

>>7351
But my waifu can just come back to life. R-right?

>>7359

lel

Daily reminder that your waifus aren't real.

>>7513
So she's not real in the universe, even though she exists as a character in a show?

>>7351
Wow what an ugly waifu, I kill the waifu of course

>>7543
>killing your waifu

File: sweating_man.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>7351

>>7351
just close your eyes and hit the lever back and forth really fast until the track breaks and the trolley derails

>>7351
>mfw i have no waifu
>an empty track or me
kill me anyways desu senpai

>>7565
my waifu is the train

File: 12961677_1002717576477494_579121803382749089_n.jpg (18KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x320px

Must save waifu!

>>7351
wouldn't do fuck all because MY HANDS ARE BOUND

0/10 thread moran

File: casko.jpg (8KB, 160x119px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 160x119px

>>7351
mai waifu is a fictional character and so unless this is a conceptual trolley and it's going to kill her as an idea, this is barely even a dilemma, i can just get another copy of fate/extra

>>7612
how do you kill the train in this situation though?

>>7640
>making backups of your waifu
good idea

>>7650
yep

not to mention it wouldn't even touch my save data

>>7640
>letting your waifu get killed and getting another copy of her

>>7728
mai waifu is a fictional character and can't be killed unless the concept of her is ereased. like i said, running over the game cart doesn't kill her, it doesn't even touch my save file since that's on my psp. i can just get another cart. the trolley would have to erase the concept of mai waifu to kill her and i doubt this trolley has such powers.

>>7752
err, umd rather

been playing too much 3ds lately lol

>>7752
No dog, you let your waifu get killed, that's the problem. She's dead, you're getting a copy of her but the memories she had up to the point of death is dead.

>>7728
>his waifu is not a transdimensional being permeating all of space with her
you can't replace your waifu if the concept of a copy makes no sense

>>7794
>having a bullshit space waifu
The fuck are you doing?

>>7752
What if the trolley hits you on the head and makes you forget your waifu?

Would she simply disappear, or would she continue to exist but be lost and lonely?

b-be careful anon

>>7774
nah that doesn't really make sense, i mean she's not the game cart, she's the character, the game is just the means in which you interact with her

>>7801
>not having a bullshit space waifu

>>7804
the latter, but that'd be the case if i died too

>>7801
All waifus are immaterial beings by definition. You can't kill an abstract concept. Waifus are not created, they are discovered. Art is just an exploration of pre-existing possibilities

today /vip/ proved that waifus can't be killed unless the writer is a dick

File: G0Y3.jpg (122KB, 500x645px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x645px

>>7834

>>7821
>she's the character
And said character is dead. Ergo memories are dead, ergo she's dead dead.
>having a bullshit space waifu through space and time

>>7860
but the character didn't die because characters can't die unless their writer makes them die

the only thing the trolley could run over would be the game cart and that's not really her. i guess it could also run over pictures of her, but that's just the trolley having bad taste (or maybe good taste since it went straight for best waifu)

>>7889
Nigga you ain't getting it, the first girl is dead and now you got a clone. Shit's getting too metaphysical.

>>7917
so wait, if the trolley runs me over, am i replaced with a clone?

>>7917
If I reassemble you atom-for-atom and kill the original, would you be a different person?

>>7950
In theory.
>>7952
That depends on the context.

>>7974
so in theory, if someone made this track circular, could we use this trolley to make an infinite number of clones of me?

>>7974
>>7998
better yet, we could use it to make an infinite number of clones of mai waifu

unlimited waifu works

>>7998
No, it would be one clone of you being killed over and over again. And clones don't have souls so that would mean that the first time the trolley hits you, you're already dead.

>>8027
>clones don't have souls
don't be absurd, of course we do

>>8040
No they don't, clones aren't even human.

>>8040
if clones have souls then that means science can create souls which means we have the literal power of God

>>8073
>science
>creating souls
That's not right nor true.

>>8069
hey now, that's not very nice

>>8073
if we kill god, does he get replaced with a clone?

>>8073
But if science could create souls then souls would exist, which would contradict science

Ergo, your assumptions are incorrect and clones don't have souls by reductio ad absurdum

>>8126
Sorry, meant for >>8040

>>8123
>wanting to have clones of your waifu

>>8126
>>8129
that depends on your definition of soul

who says a soul is a real, physical thing? perhaps it's no more than having a conscience, or being a good person?

>>8146
i don't just want clones
i want INFINITE clones

>>8166
>i want INFINITE clones
>wanting so many of the same girl that you'll drown in it
That's not worth it.
>who says a soul is a real, physical thing?
18 milligrams.

>>8184
ok maybe not infinite, but enough that i could conquer the stars with them

>>8248
>implying they would listen to you

I choose to kill your waifu.

>>8280
that's ok

seeing the stars conquered by an empire of tamamo would be enough for me, especially if i could find one to settle down with

gotta go buds, it's been fun

>>8166
>who says a soul is a real, physical thing? perhaps it's no more than having a conscience, or being a good person?
Well, now we're making a discussion about words

At the end of the day, a word is defined in the real world by the things you describe using that word. (And to more pedantic individuals, what some book says about the word)

Do people use ‘soul’ to refer to the concept of self-conscience, or to morality? It's not a usage I would argue I've seen very often. Most of the time, when I read ‘soul’ I think about it in terms of biblical images involving life after death and other metaphysical connections between your body and some form of different world

That said, ‘soul’ is also used to describe, for example, the “essence” or “spirit” of something, for example in “this artwork has no soul”.

So at the end of the day, I think we can either answer yes or no to that question depending on how hard we want to win an argument; thus making the question of whether or not science could create something with a soul pretty much an invalid question to begin with

I'd do (you) because death isn't all that bad

>>8336
why is it invalid?
if science or non science create a thing that properly resembles everything we can currently think of as being "soul" how is that not valid?

>>8336
No, a soul can not be created.

>>8389
>why is it invalid?
It's an invalid question if it has no answer (IMO)

>if science or non science create a thing that properly resembles everything we can currently think of as being "soul" how is that not valid?
By virtue of some of the things we (or at least I) think of as a “soul” being a contradiction of science, in that the idea of a metaphysical, spiritual being that has a connection to a higher plane of existence not governed by the laws of physics (and therefore not provable by science) is incompatible with the concept of science

And in this case the answer is “no (by contradiction”; whereas in other cases the answer could be “yes” or “maybe”.

Then again, I think the same pretty much applies to every word though. You can probably take every question and answer it in any way you want by bending the rules enough. This is why I have problems thinking about words and semantics - as soon as you start thinking about them, they stop making sense.

How is it that our system of communication works when we can't even agree things like what basic words mean?

I CHOOSE
DEATH

>>8464
>It's an invalid question if it has no answer (IMO)
can we call it a hypothesis then?

>>8464
Anon why are you trying to answer questions with science when you know you aren't gonna get an answer?

>>8464
i'd say internet memes are a pretty efficient system of communication

>>8485
Well, a hypothesis is a statement, not a question - although you can form questions based on logical conclusions of the hypothesis and test for those. (If your tests all seem to pass, then it can evolve into a theory)

In this context I'm not really sure what you're trying to suggest as your hypothesis here - that science can create souls? If so, we would have to find out what that would imply, and test for it.

Part of the problem with questions like these is that it's possible to create a hypothesis that's impossible to prove or disprove. These kinds of hypotheses are generally considered not to be part of science, simply because there's no way to falsify them. (For example, this includes any sort of statement like “god exists (but we can't see, hear or measure him)” or “alternate universes exist but they are isolated from our own”)

>>8464
Many things were considered to be metaphysical until described by science. E.g. if God is real, he must be bound to the laws of physics, otherwise they are no longer laws, unless there is a more precise elaboration of them required. Similar to how Newton's laws were refined with quantum mechanics and special relativity, even though for day-to-day stuff Newton works just fine.

>>8126
>But if science could create souls then souls would exist, which would contradict science
No, measurable proof of the existence of souls would supplement science, not contradict it

There's no "science" that says souls cannot exist, just that they haven't been reliably observed yet

File: .png (2KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 256x256px

>>8535
>i'd say internet memes are a pretty efficient system of communication
They're great for compression for sure. Forget .webp, we should save 4chan by posting highly compressible memes only

.. oh wait

>>8555
Wait hold up, what happens if God is not bounded to the laws of physics?

>>8528
Pretty often the act of asking a question that can't be answered gives insight into why the question has no answer.

>>8555
>>8579
If god is not bound to the laws of physics then the only thing it implies is that our laws of physics are wrong.

For example, consider a universe living inside computer simulation. To inhabitants of the computer simulation, their world seems perfectly logical and natural to them. Everything can be explained, and they have formed a rigorous system of laws describing the interactions between simulation units in their simulation to near perfection. In essence, they have completely understood the algorithm that's generating their consciousness.

And then, the developer/owner of this pocket universe comes along, selects an apple, and changes its color from red to green by overwriting all the relevant bits in memory. To the inhabitants of the computer system, this is an inplexicable event indistinguishable from magic. They have no concept of memory, because they do not even have an understanding of the machine on which their (perhaps primitive) universe operates. They would not even be able to explain how the apple changed color.

It would immediately falsify all of their ideas about how they thought the universe worked. While their laws might seem perfectly rigorous, no matter how much they observe their natural world they are never able to reproduce this apple event nor explain it in any way they can relate to. At some point, they are forced to include an exception to their laws, like “apples remain the same color - except when they don't by will of a higher power”.

The laws of physics are only as valid as the predictions they deliver. As soon as they predict something that contradicts with reality, they must be discarded. It's impossible to fully prove something correct, only wrong. (Even our systems of mathematics)

>>8649
>The laws of physics are only as valid as the predictions they deliver
>trying to get me to support atheistic ideals

>>8649
This is often what people misunderstand about what 'theory' means in a scientific context. Theories are what best describe the data we have. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is what best describes the climate data we have. The theory of gravity best describes the phenomena we observe of why objects fall. So on and so forth. If new data comes along that contradicts that theory, the theory must be refined to include that data, or otherwise discarded, assuming the data is solid.

Self-sacrifice is the noblest thing you could ever do. The gate of Heaven shall always be open to such people.

>>7351
If the trolley is 3D then my waifu is STRONG and will protect me from the 3DPD

lol ez fucking kill me

>waifu shitposting devolves into philosophical metascience in under 100 posts
classic /vip/

>>8779
Who's your waifu?

>>8649
>>8690
What about a definition of a god that implies his own almightiness? That goes beyond just violating the apparent laws of physics (e.g. conservation of energy, increasing entropy, etc.) and actually goes to violating the statement itself.

For example, “almighty” gods seem to run into purely logical contradictions, like being able to make stones so heavy they can't lift them.

But maybe the laws that are being violated here are simply our mathematical axioms that we base our idea of logical implication on? What if an almighty god was one that could violate the axioms of mathematics which we take for granted and universal?

To our simpleton world view, the idea of violating the very essence of correctness itself seems absurd, but what does that mean other than our own inability to comprehend the reality of mathematics itself?

The idea of a stone that's simultaneously too heavy to lift and liftable doesn't fit into our world view, but that doesn't technically make it impossible. It just means we wouldn't be capable of comprehending how it can be both things at the same time.

my waifu isn't 3d, so a train would merely pass through her as she is in another dimension

>>8842
>For example, “almighty” gods seem to run into purely logical contradictions, like being able to make stones so heavy they can't lift them.
That's called being God nigga, he can do whatever. He's like a Mary-sue

>>8842
Expanding on this thought some more using a similar example of a computer simulation.

Many data structures in computer science have valid reasoning and guarantees that only hold true if the way you use them holds certain guarantees. For example, a binary search tree will only produce meaningful results if your comparison function is transitive.

If you reach into the bits of your program and change it in a way that violates the transitivity of < (which is easily possible on a technical level), you suddenly break data structures in all sorts of hilarious ways like a set that says a number X is simultaneously both an element and not an element of the set.

If I'm implementing an interpreter for any given mathematical structure, I could make my interpretation function violates some of its fundamental axioms at will. To inhabitants of any universe I simulate within my interpreted framework, their reality would begin to literally contradict itself, as I'm able to prove things like 1=2 within their universe, but they are unable to reproduce my results using only their own internally consistent logical rules.

What if our reality is like this? It's not unimaginable. We have no way of claiming an almighty god is impossible

>>8832
saber

>>8906
>Saber
>fucking boring ass Saber

>>8842
>but that doesn't technically make it impossible

Well, by any useful definition of the word "impossible", it does. It'd be "possible" in the context of an almighty god like you're describing for whom the concept of possibility is meaningless.

>>8919
well I'm fucking sorry man but I can't change who I am. I don't even particularly like saber, nor do I care about F/SN.

It's just that she's just somehow stuck with me over the years. I have no other way to answer this question when I have a figma sitting next to my monitor and a saber vector as my “go-to” avatar

>>8946
But saber is a meme, she doesn't do anything.

>>8996
I don't care, she doesn't need to do anything. My waifu isn't there to serve me. (in b4 “she literally is”)

She just needs to keep being what she is, and I'll keep being who I am, and fuck choosing waifus based on selfish interests

>>9018
Anon a waifu is suppose to be a loving relationship, not a boring dead one.

>>9024
Leave the man be, anon. Each to his own waifu.

>>9046
I'm trying to keep myself awake so I'm able to tell you that you need to find passion in her.

File: 447px-Manlytears3.jpg (40KB, 447x599px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 447x599px

>>7370
>>7374
>>7502
I think I might be falling in love with this board.

>>8927
Fair point. I guess this brings us full circle to the words thing. If the question of whether or not an almighty god could do something impossible hinges on the interpretation of the word “impossible”, we've pretty much re-established the only relevant conclusion: That the question is meaningless in practice

I'm sure we'll figure these things out when we get there. Occam's razor has its purpose, and waxing metaphysical about the infinite possibilities of the uncertain has never solved any real-life problems.

>>9024
Well, what's love - really? I don't exactly know how to answer this question myself. All the relevant answers seem to be tautological.

Is it love if I couldn't imagine my life without her, or is that simply dependence? Is it love if she's there for me when I need her, or is that selfless/abusive? Is it love when glancing over and smiling, knowing she's always sitting by my monitor watching over my code, or is it taking her for granted?

I don't know, man!

>>9054
are you saying I should cum on my figma?

>>9097
>I don't know, man!
I don't know either, all I know is that if you don't feel anything for her, then shit man, cheat.
>>9111
No

>>9111
I think he is.

>>9125
>I don't know either, all I know is that if you don't feel anything for her, then shit man, cheat.
I actually sometimes think about this. I think pretty much every relationship decays and becomes stale with time, no matter how passionate it was at the beginning.

Everybody cheats eventually if given the opportunity. Most of the time, what's stopping us from doing it is the strong feelings of binding that come with formal marriage, as well as the risk of negative repercussions should it be found out. But with the age of the internet and increased openness/freedom and ability to meet new people, I think that both of these are becoming less important, which leads to more and more cheating and shorter and shorter marriages.

How long until cheating stops becoming a social taboo and swinger/cuckold/polygamy-type stuff becomes the norm instead? Would it even happen?

>>9203
>How long until cheating stops becoming a social taboo and swinger/cuckold/polygamy-type stuff becomes the norm instead?
Never. Never goddamn ever don't ever say stupid shit like that ever again, that's a sin, that's a heresy, that's just immoral and wrong. Look if you aren't feeling anything for her, just move on, or just get another saber.

>>9176
No, don't do it.

>>9097
love is a word and words are defined by people. some words are more nebulously defined than others. love is one of them.

generally speaking, love is just very strong like. anything more than that is shit people heap onto it. define it however you want, or don't, because it's a poorly defined word to begin with. there are other, better words to use for the specifics of what you might feel for someone.

>>9203
>How long until cheating stops becoming a social taboo and swinger/cuckold/polygamy-type stuff becomes the norm instead? Would it even happen?
>becomes the norm
"the norm" refers to a behavior that is considered tolerable by a majority of society. cheating is inherently intolerable because it is, by definition, unethical by most peoples' standards. if it wasn't, it wouldn't be called "cheating."

in order for it to become tolerable, everyone would have to devalue their own relationships to the point where they didn't care they were being "cheated" on, in which case it would no longer be cheating, just basic polygamy.

and good luck convincing me of that, cuck