We are all just floating in either black or white. In white we are in tanning beds with focused light triggering muscle spasms to give the illusion of movement but we are really just lying there with a virtual reality headset. In black we are submerged in a viscous fluid with sound waves mimicking muscle spasms giving the illusion of movement tiny glow in the dark mites make us hallucinate the reality. In either realm the mechanizations have been poking us for information as to what we like and dont like. This reality is just a simulation, the real world is much scarier, chaotic even. Lending to us only hints of the war between light and dark and the interminglings such as sunglasses and flashlights. Both sides are fascinated and terrified of Nothing. Literally nothing, the abscense of matter. The impossibility and the beginning of all existence. Comments experiences theory crafting shoot.
We are all just floating in either black or white...
Other urls found in this thread:
m.youtube.com
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
Op
Op
Op
Op
Totem poles
Op
Op
Checked
Ob
Op
Your just describing the world as it is. Just in a more poetic way.
Reality we know and live in is what people call hell. We are all fallen childrens. What people call Heaven is where all our consciousness is from, but we fucked up somehow somewhere and ended up here. We all look for transcendence to go back as instinct(trying to be good) but temptation always gets us. Some of us remember the hatred we felt when we were vanished, so we do evil things. Some of us who were highest degree offenders end up living as lower life forms. after living as lower life form, you transcend into better life form, and goal is to endure all the lives you live here and be good and not kill yourself. People who are mentally ill are people whos memory were not fully erased. Story of god started from pieces of memories they remember from above. and it got blurred over time and splited into many religions. Languages we speak is just many variations of one language we spoke above.
We are all fallen children and we are not cursed. We are going through trial as punishment.
there are infinite timelines and all the dreams we dream are another timeline. Our consciousness wonder while we sleep and sometimes it overlaps another timeline and we experience things. When we trip hard on acid or something and hallucinate to unexplanable point, it's breaking the bond of our consciousness and that results in blurring the border of this reality overlapping it with other timelines.
Pretending this otherworldly nonsense is real doesn't change the physical material shithole that is my life.
I agree, zen masters and Buddhas say the dream body is the real body. Dreams must be another realm of their own right. Regardless of what modern teachings dictate. Op
perception is reality. change your point of view. power goes where awareness flows. positive vibes man.
holy shit your a faggot
I don't think that gays should be sole owners of rainbow colors. Just seems like what a faggot would think in my opinion. Op
Our conciousness or soul could very well just be black or darkness. Reincarnation is a fickle thing, like you are what you eat so I guess we are becoming like what we eat, or atleast portions of their psyche. As for god I believe that's just a huge sentient cloud of particles. Op
Op
Op
Op
Op
been seeing these threads for a few days
pretty cool art tbh
anybody wanna chat on wickr?
letshavefun56
Where do I get what you're on
Making smoothbrains have an existential crisis nice!
I've had a bunch of theories similar to yours, and some very different. I'm also fascinated by geometry and I use my knowledge of physics and psychology to try to decipher the most likely theory of the thousands I've considered. It's ultimately a futile endeavor and I accept this, but seeking has value in and of itself, in my humble opinion.
What's your most likely or very different theory? All ears mate. Op
>*tips fedora*
My most likely scenario is that this is a simulation in which many distinct consciousnesses are actually a single consciousness (but there is still more than one consciousness in the simulation). We use this universe to experience and learn from things long forgotten, such as personal autonomy. It's my opinion that the universe seems designed to foster free will, something that is lacking outside the simulation - along with things like ignorance.
I believe single consciousness delves further into what is the epitome of greed or how things were at the beginning of time. Hiveminds are scary, not my thing. If we look into what consciousness is we could say it's just darkness or the frequency at which the brain resonates... I believe you're right that a simulation would allow more "free will" as you can "move" more without potentially disturbing the factors around you. Just another theory of mine: I believe that inanimate objects can see/think the color black or another color because they can't see nothing(an impossibility). Op
unfounded, unprovable crack talk
and I thought looneys thinking the earth is 6k years old, or flat, are retarded
I see, so you're a fan of panpsychism. Back when I was making connections between physics and kabbalah the idea of it became very alluring to me as well. Ein Sof in particular was an inspiring concept. Unfortunately though, I can't trust most of the ideas I had in that phase of my life, I was somewhat delusional thanks to brain trauma and extremely high levels of corticosteroids. I've been meaning to re-approach it.
You can't prove that there is a 1d space in a singularity of a black hole, but you believe it. You can't prove that the big bang happened, but you believe it. Op
Yes, I believe god is a huge cloud of particles most likely half consuming of light or darkness making it infinite in a sense. I was unaware of ein sof until now, thank you. Op
I believe, like any sane person should, in proof.
I "believe" that our current understanding of the universe is the closest to the truth because we have meticulously worked our way towards a better understanding of it.
That doesn't mean this understanding is final, or immune to a major overhaul.
Anything that potentially comes after needs a lot going for it. A lot. And some crackhead on Sup Forums spouting shit he got from a drug fueled fever dream is not that. We had that 8000 years ago and nothing revolutionary came of that.
Of course. I know how hard it can be sometimes to find people with similar interests. It's nice for me to be able to talk about it at least.
I believe that science starts with hunches and hunches come from creative philosophical thinking. There is nothing unscientific about speculation, it is in fact the heart of science. The proof is essential too, of course, but in areas of discourse such as these proof is a moot point.
I'm a coward I dont even smoke crack. Just because the idea is not comfortable to you doesn't make it any less legit then the big bang. Face it you're uncomfortable with an idea so large so you retreat to calling names. Nothing is the answer and you know it is, jack is. Op
Books, auto education.
>nothing revolutionary
see: the bible
There is everything unscientific about baseless speculation. Speculation isn't the end of it. It never is the end of it. There never is an end to it. Discourse such as this is moot, masturbatory nonsense.
If discourse does not lead to a falsifiable hypothesis it's still just BS in terms of science.
Is it needed? Yes. But that assumes that we're not just spinning in circles, and that is exactly what any talk about god has been for the past thousand years at least since everything attributed to god turns out to be of natural, scientifically grokkable origin.
Reverting back to "It's god and forces of light and dark" is not going to be fruitful in any sense. In fact, looking at how discussion like this has brought forth anti-scientific communities like flat earthers and anti vaxxers it's dangerous even.
You wanna talk hippie shit, be my guest. But don't try and put it on the same pedestal as science you fucking morons
The darkness is the prima matter as it exists with or without light. Light is the secondary principle on the scale. All is consciousness..
Philosophy was the birthplace of science, without this moot masturbatory nonsense science would not exist. Even today it is a necessary aspect of science. Think of Einstein, a man who spent weeks imagining what he had already proven was impossible - what would it be like to travel at the same speed as and with a beam of light? It was nonsense, but it was inspiring nonsense, and it led to an even greater discovery. There was no falsifiable hypothesis in this thought experiment, it was merely philosophy.
No one here is claiming this discussion is the same as science, it's clearly philosophy.
It is and always has been a science fuck wit, you just need to educate yourself. Natural Law.
The question he asked himself wasn't answered and proven to be hot garbage millennia ago, that's the key difference.
Because we've been dealing with simulation theories for atleast a millenials huh. Op
Shit like this is like saying "air" is the prime matter as it exists with or without light. Add fire, water and earth to it and we're back to shamanism. Good job, you just catapulted us back 6000 years.
How philosophic.
Hot garbage that contributes nothing to anything other than giving flat earthers more ideas on how to embellish their game of make belief
>Philosophy was the birthplace of science
And said thing followed a method, and that actually produced something at a reasonable frequency. Going in circles does not take you anywhere, except where you first started. Someone has already told you that. And that starting place, in that circle, is generally nowhere to begin with. Stop dragging us backwards into the mud wit h this nonsense. It's been over 14,000 years. Do you know how many lives that is? How much time that's been? How many of the same conversations and interactions had to have happened since then? God, how many attempts it took to distill, record, and perfect the most basic concepts we take for granted? How can you even mention Einstein? Einstein.
This is all about philosophy, and no is claiming that this discussion is about science; you mentioned Einstein, said philosophy was the progenitor of the scientific method, and that the moot masturbatory nonsense directly produced fruits of real, meticulous, tedious, trial-and-error, formulaic labor. "I believe that science starts with hunches and hunches come from creative philosophical thinking".
Damn you, OP. You are retarding us.
>proven to be hot garbage
The point is that it can't be proven user. Moreover, the Greeks also considered the nature of light and had similar thought experiments. When the idea originates is of no concern to science or philosophy, what matters most is its utility. In science this means making predictions, in philosophy it means guiding science and our own lives in a positive direction.
Let me guess you probably think that darkness is just the lack of light reflected henceforth nothing. Seems legit mainstream idiot. Op
You missed the part where philosophy is still essential to science.
When? Can you point to that?
It was the second sentence user
>Even today it is a necessary aspect of science. Think of Einstein, a man who spent weeks imagining what he had already proven was impossible - what would it be like to travel at the same speed as and with a beam of light? It was nonsense, but it was inspiring nonsense, and it led to an even greater discovery.
and I further clarified just now
Yes, in a sense. Simulation hypothesis is the latest instance of "idk what the fuck is going on, so I frame the problem in a context I do understand"
We thought the earth was flat when our best understanding of the world was nautical maps.
Then we framed the problem such that this flat earth must rest on something. And somehow it turned into a turtle and elephants.
We believed the earth was round, and reframed the problem such that it must have come from somewhere, so we made it 6k years old, created by god.
We believed the universe was such and such, and in the age of digitalisation we reframed the problem such that it's a situation.
Now we are aware that black holes are a big deal, and it's being reframed to the universe being a hologram on a black hole's event horizon or whatever.
It's the same approach that existed millenia ago, and even though it's more accurate because our understanding of the universe grew a lot since then, the approach is continually BS and presumably no closer to reality than the parts it's assembled by.
Also I'm not op, use some observational skills. He ends every post he makes by saying he is OP. There is also a count of the number of posters in the thread.
We know that it's not nothing. But unless you have a better theory, including better tests to prove it and better results to confirm it, yeah, I'll stick with mainstream science and people that understand the scientific method and know to apply it. Surprise.
simulation* not situation
You guys liked the NGE ending a lot huh?
What's NGE?
Neon Genesis Evangelion, it had some kaballah in it.
I haven't even unleashed screaming, relativistic fury on the idea that relativity wasn't falsifiable, and was merely a thought experiment.
>Going in circles does not take you anywhere
>except where you first started
That's the sentence that misses the part where philosophy is still essential to science? Oh, wait, no. You're not even communicating your ideas in a coherent fashion anymore- you're referring to what you typed, all with the running premise of
>You missed the part where philosophy is still essential to science
And so we'll see this part where I missed philosophy still being essential to science, by refocusing on what you typed, because I'd just asked you to figuratively point to it. Surely, this will be a fruitful endeavor.
Let's take a look.
>>Even today it is a necessary aspect of science
>>Think of Einstein
>>a man who spent weeks imagining what he had already proven was impossible
>>what would it be like to travel at the same speed as and with a beam of light
>>It was nonsense
>>but it was inspiring nonsense
>>and it led to an even greater discovery
Motherfucker. Do you see anything in the reply to this post, that downplays or argues against the relationship between philosophy and science? Does anything affirm the idea that philosophy has no correlation with science?
What meaningful distinction is there, when the ideas being expressed are virtually identical in theme and rigor? What changes, user? What revolutionary aspect suddenly makes itself apparent, when you're not OP, peddling these turds?
Oh, I am a big anime fan but I only saw that one once and it was over a decade ago. Maybe I should re-watch it then.
> haven't even unleashed screaming, relativistic fury on the idea that relativity wasn't falsifiable, and was merely a thought experiment.
Like I said, he'd already proven relativity at this point. Your reading comprehension is pretty bad, are you that angry about the FACT that philosophy is still essential to science?
Your obsession with rigor has no place in this discussion, but given your obvious bias:
A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
Albert Einstein, Letter to Robert Thornton, 1944
>he'd already proven relativity at this point
What? He'd already proven relativity at this point? You said that?
>a man who spent weeks imagining what he had already proven was impossible
>There was no falsifiable hypothesis in this thought experiment
He'd already proven relativity at this point?
>A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering
That would make me a scholar on the matter. You hog.
You are clearly a mere artisan or specialist, and here you are barging into a discussion between real seekers of truth. Nobody made any claims, only speculation, and your issue with it is profoundly absurd.
You're still mistaking the practice of intentionally or unawarely walking back progress with philosophy.
Asking "Maybe earth isn't really round" is as philosophical as it is scientific.
Same goes for the shit going on in this thread.
>You said that?
I sure did, right in the text you quotes. Is English not your first language? You just have to read between the lines. "What he had already proven was impossible" - just what do you think I'm talking about?
>You're still mistaking the practice of intentionally or "unawarely" walking back progress. Please, point to the progress being walked back. Nobody is making absurd falsifiable claims like your example. In fact, the closest to it are your own claims.
>You are clearly a mere artisan or specialist
What happened to that philosophical background, what gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation, from which most scientists are suffering? Artisan? Specialist? Are you not aware that the thing you'd ham-fistedly quoted, in an attempt to fish for ignoble pearls, is saying that artisans and specialists are
>not
real seekers of truth?
Did you not just say you said he'd already proven relativity? Beyond anything else, besides anything else, there is your claim.
Fie. I hope entropy accelerates in each and every water molecule in your skin.
My theory is based off of the age old question "what came before everything?" and gives meaning to the universe's chaotic undertakings in the form of the search for the impossible(nothing) I fail to see how this is unscientific in the least bit. Op
Fucking larping faggot
>not real seekers of truth?
I see, so it is just your poor reading comprehension that is at issue here. I apologize for wasting your time, this discussion is above you and I should have recognized it sooner.
> In black we are submerged in a viscous fluid with sound waves mimicking muscle spasms giving the illusion of movement tiny glow in the dark mites make us hallucinate the reality.
Claiming that we hallucinate reality thanks to magic glow in the dark mites.
> Not walking back progress
> Not challenging the current understanding of reality
> Not being an absolute looney
> Not ignoring the very OP of this whole damn thread to prove a point and try and flip the narrative
Who said glow in the dark creatures were magic, I didn't. You should look at those glow in the dark fish, them suckers glow. Op
>Claiming that we hallucinate reality
I take it you've never heard of boltzmann brains?
These are speculations, many of them from legitimate scientists, and your inability to recognize them as such makes me fear for you.
Imagine thinking light and dark are forces the world cares about.
Nature and the world as a whole is pretty indifferent
You claim everything we know is a hallucination. Dem glow in the dark fish? Hallucinated. The concept of light? Hallucinated.
But yeah, mites somehow aren't. As are tanning beds.
How peculiarly specific.
I'd rather assume op hasn't given that he needs concepts from inside the hallucination to explain the processes outside the hallucination.
Concepts can be cohesive in hallucinations. It's possible that those would be hallucinations as well, yes. Op
You assume incorrectly, but now you're starting to think like a philosopher. These are exactly the questions we pose ourselves in order to seek the truth.
Which makes your cute little fever dream impossible to falsify.
m.youtube.com
In this song eyedea quotes Plato. Very relevant. Op
That's the whole point, yes. This is philosophy not science, but that doesn't mean it's useless or totally invalid. It is a necessary aspect of science.
Read between the lines...
You mean read the lines you'll invent whenever pressed about it. Einstein also said that you should be able to explain particle physics to a bunch of drunkards at a pool table. But you need to invent new stories to play coy.
You don't even seek the "between the lines" I've given you in that paragraph alone. You did not pick up on the implicit footnotes grossly embedded in that paragraph, done in the same way you play at. You had typed a number of self-inconsistent statements, in the exact same reply.
The exact same reply. And when pressed, you acted as if nothing had happened, while simultaneously attempting to slide the conversation away from it with another tangent. Another figurative trinket. Verbatim, "there was no falsifiable hypothetsis in this thought experiment". Do you know how wrong that is? Especially after making the claim that Einstein did a thing. After, then also making replies further invoking an appeal to Einstein's character and mythos. That is the crux of it. That is the crux of what I chose to address, to level at you. And what did you do? Offer up a piss-poor attempt at drudging the sea floor for gold.
The entirety of the implication is this: you can't use your appeal to authority's quotation to defend yourself, when you've already betrayed the sense it provides through your actions in the thread. You can't say scientists are what they are implied to be, immediately after making out all of this to be inextricable from science, and a goddamn scientist. You claim I am something clearly, so there is your wisdom. It pairs well with your reluctance to notice that I'd never called you OP. You'd never pressed me on it- and that figures, since I made it painfully clear, with mention of turds. So where is your implicit knowledge, user? Don't concede defeat, truth-seeker. Engage me in that good, old-fashioned masturbatory nonsense that's supposed to produce something.
It's turds all the way down. Run, you ape.
The allegory of the cave is very inspiring for the scientists who speculate the simulation hypothesis.
I'm sorry user, but I missed nothing. The things I did not acknowledge in your posts were not worth my time. I prefer to discuss things that are rational. In this post alone I counted at least 15 things that were either blatantly false or misconstrued. I don't have the time to be your professor, I've got enough students as it is.
No. Asking if Boltzmann brains could pop into existence which does not by definition contradict the rest of reality and everything that is established to describe reality in a reliable way.
The voodoo bullshit OP claims completely ignore everything we meticulously worked towards.
How to turn from light to dark? Do the mites fart and turn into tanning beds? fucking lol. Yeah, that's some high caliber philosophy. Pat yourself on the back.
Sorry it's this one m.youtube.com
Op
No voodoo, just stimulatory elements. nothing crazy.
>which does not by definition contradict the rest of reality
Boltzmann brains do in fact contradict the rest of reality in exactly the same was OPs speculation does. In fact, the justification for them is even rooted in the infinite paradox and as such is highly suspect.
>The things I did not acknowledge in your posts were not worth my time
There were worth your time until you could no longer keep up the act. You fidget idly with nothing, being able to pull from nothing, no longer addressing anything. Just giving out placid remarks, generalities that are broad enough to cover all of the bases.
"Oh, ah, woe, look at the time, I must be going, I cannot. Ah, but alas".
You worm.
I'm still making specific points user, like . I just don't address you when you don't make sense or use logic. This post for instance made its argument by way of ad hominem and suffered from the same accusations it made.
Eyedea - Powdered water slaps and you know it. Op
>This post for instance made its argument by way of ad hominem and suffered from the same accusations it made
Oh, and I have need to read between the lines? Oh, good.
>I just don't address you when you don't make sense or use logic
"No" is not an illogical response.
A detailed sentence explicitly contrasting two things that you flapped out on the keyboard uses logic.
And you will never pony up. You can't.
>Oh, and I have need to read between the lines? Oh, good.
Yes, it's a basic element of reading comprehension. By way of context you should be able to interpret implied meaning. My message followed conversational maxims, you were just unable to follow.
>And you will never pony up. You can't.
I already did, you just didn't understand. I'm adding this point to the list of things I won't repeat.
>it's a basic element of reading comprehensio
Is sarcasm a basic element of reading comprehension?
>By way of context you should be able to interpret implied meaning
Oh, really?
>My message followed conversational maxims
It did? And mine didn't? No way. How quaint. What a coincidence.
>you just didn't understand
Explain, galaxy brain. Repetition is beyond effortless. Repetition demonstrates familiarity.
The Boltzmann brain reframes reality in an intentionally absurd way.
The OP pulls shit out of his ass and calls it philosophy. Fucking magic space mites that turn into toasters and stimulate muscle of an imaginary body is what you're defending.