Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Anyone who accepts simulation theory has a casual relationship with justice and meaning.
Is having a casual relationship with justice and meaning appropriate?
Justice and Meaning sound like stripper names, so I'd say yes, very appropriate. It's what BJ (baby Jesus) would have wanted.
Anyone who accepts simulation theory has a casual relationship with justice and meaning.
Is having a casual relationship with justice and meaning appropriate?
(Those who get it, get it).
Justice and Meaning sound like stripper names, so I'd say yes, very appropriate. It's what BJ (baby Jesus) would have wanted.
"When you strip naked without being ashamed, and take your garments and put them under your feet like little children and trample on them, then [you] will see the Son of the Living One and you will not be afraid"
Jesus wants you to be the stripper.
It's from the non-canonical 'Gospel of Thomas', one of the Coptic-language Nag Hammadi Manuscripts discovered in 1945 and dating from several centuries after the life of Jesus (assuming He did actually live), though possibly copying an older source. It's a collection of Jesus's sayings, most of which are known from the canonical Gospels -- but some of them, like that one, aren't, and are a bit weirder than the others and quite possibly fabricated by whichever sect produced the text.
It's from the non-canonical 'Gospel of Thomas', one of the Coptic-language Nag Hammadi Manuscripts discovered in 1945 and dating from several centuries after the life of Jesus (assuming He did actually live), though possibly copying an older source. It's a collection of Jesus's sayings, most of which are known from the canonical Gospels -- but some of them, like that one, aren'
You mean that **** was actually a purported real quote? Wow.
For me it depends what you mean by 'atheism'. If it's the absence of belief then I'm with you. I'm just in it for the philosophy/logic and stuck with the politics. The idea that people are worshipping some child who long neglected their sim toy to play with the box amuses me. I'd quite like it to be true but can't have belief it is.Long time ago but from class I recall a sugges
From what I have personally read of Descartes I don’t think that’s plausible. His ontological argument from God that led a lot of rationalists to doubt animal suffering due to being lower in “being” than us was predicated on God being the highest form of “being”. Seemed superfluous if he wasn’t actually committed to a God, and it’s not like anyone forced him to come up with a novel proof of God’s existence.
Simulation is another way to go on the god argument. Some are already arguing that if the universe is simulatable then it might be quite likely that we live in one. Among many such universes. Could some of the creators of such universes be considered a god who set some parameters and can intervene in their toy? Maybe gods are 10 a penny. Maybe even kids with quickly abandoned,
Picturing Donald Sutherland in Animal House at this point.
If I’m afraid to do what is right, then what do I do?
I become like an obedient child and I strip myself of the fear + trample on it.
"When you strip naked without being ashamed, and take your garments and put them under your feet like little children and trample on them, then [you] will see the Son of the Living One and you will not be afraid"
Jesus wants you to be the stripper.
This is actually a mistranslation. I went back to the Coptic text, and a more accurate translation is:
If you are a person who wears his clothes as if they were shoes and who unashamedly walks around with his cock out, then you probably will not be afraid if you see visions of Christ.
He said there's no need to feel ashamed of your naked body.
Well, either that or if you come home blind drunk, throw your clothes on the floor and trample on them enough you might eventually make creases that look a little like a hippy's face.
Simulation is another way to go on the god argument. Some are already arguing that if the universe is simulatable then it might be quite likely that we live in one. Among many such universes. Could some of the creators of such universes be considered a god who set some parameters and can intervene in their toy? Maybe gods are 10 a penny. Maybe even kids with quickly abandoned,
I can only imagine a debate between you and Craig.
Was my statement about being able to derive most or all the fundamental constants from the speed of light and the fine structure constant correct? I wasn't sure. I suppose the strength of gravity/big G is probably needed too? Planck constant?
I would say it's a little rosy. Ther standard model has 26 constants you have to put in by hand. Many of these are probably irrelevant for life, like neutrino mixing parameters.
That doesn't address my point. I have no problem that there might have been some census right before Jesus was born that we don;t have a record of. It's that there is no record of any census in Roman history that required people to travel to their patrilineal place of origin. It also strains credulity that Joseph could know that he is a descendant of King David and therefore needs to go to Bethlehem when David and Joseph are separated by 1000 years. Basically Joseph, an unremarkable laborer, in a society with no printing and limited literacy would have to know his lineage as well as King Charles knows his today.
yeah but you're not trying hard enough to misunderstand
From what I have personally read of Descartes I don’t think that’s plausible. His ontological argument from God that led a lot of rationalists to doubt animal suffering due to being lower in “being” than us was predicated on God being the highest form of “being”. Seemed superfluous if he wasn’t actually committed to a God, and it’s not like anyone forced him to come up with a n
I am skeptical about it but on the other hand how would it have gone if he had tried to produce his work including doubt of god?
'Forced' might be strong but there may have been a strong incentive to find a proof of god.
Essentially this is the Russel’s teapot objection.The issue with this objection is that it does cut both ways, because if you can appeal to the theoretical virtues of not positing certain entities, then others can appeal to the theoretical virtues of positing certain entities. For instance, most of the particles in particle physics were posited prior to being discovered. So if
Sure, but there are also an infinite number of particles that have been posited to exist in string theory for example that have not been found. Everyone agrees those might have to be rejected.
Chez, you seem to be obsessed with this simulation bollocks, you bring it up at every opportunity. I have a suspicion you're confusing it for a similar word with a second "t" in it.
Our experience of the world is a simulation of data. The brain doesn’t show us the world directly; it constructs a model from sensory data. What physics calls “light” isn’t actually luminous. The universe is pitch black. Electromagnetic radiation has no brightness in itself. Without conscious observers, the universe doesn’t look bright or colourful; it’s just energy and matter in interaction.
What I mean is that 3-D space as we experience it isn’t something “out there” waiting to be seen. It’s a structure the brain constructs to organise sensory input. Physics itself doesn’t actually require space to be 3-D in the way we perceive it. The underlying math doesn't contain spatial extensions as we experience them.
So without conscious observers, there wouldn’t be experienced 3-D space at all. There would only be whatever the underlying physical reality is, which doesn’t come with a built-in user interface. Our brain generates that 3-D simulation not the universe.
