File 162458560329.jpg - (80.53KB , 639x960 , Craig.jpg )

It's scary sad how many people think this guy is actually intelligent. He's a good public speaker and has a highly polished script but any time he used to try to go off script to address novel rebuttals to his arguments and he sounded like an autistic NPC.

File 169572839620.jpg - (24.06KB , 640x307 , lightning-1158027_640.jpg )

If we come to think about it everyone is operating based upon blind faith to one degree or another. I mean, for a start, let's take what we all consider to be historical "facts". Let's consider two people arguing over a historical "fact". One sites one "source", the other sites another. Both are convinced 100% that what they believe(only believe) to be historically true is true indeed. But none of them were present/alive when the historical "fact" they are discussing happened, none of them observed it with their own senses, so in the end it is just "faith". They calculated in their brains a "plausible" reason to put their "blind faith" in whatever historical source they chose to believe.

Same is true for a lot of science and scientific "facts". People observe a few things mentioned in their science textbooks/websites/papers/whatever, and then choose to put "blind faith" in whatever other things mentioned in their scientific sources that they didn't observe themselves(through experiments or their senses). I mean I am a Christian, and I am sure the most of Bible deniers could find at least 1 or 2 things in the Bible they agree with, but they would counter, test, and try to confirm everything else mentioned in it(no problem with that, they should). But not with the historical and science sources. We observe some things to be true in the history or science sources, and then by nature consider everything else in them to be true, we all end up putting blind faith to varying degrees in our sources. I am not saying that those sources are invariably wrong, they may be right, but blind faith is inevitable.

Same with geographical "facts". No one has traveled the whole world for themselves, and confirmed things for themselves that what is shown on the maps is true, like let's say Asia is to the east of North America(just an example let's not get stuck at this point). Again, not saying that the maps are false, but we all do take them to be true blindly.

I'd go as far as to say, most of what a human being is composed of, what he is, is based on blind faith(which in no way implies that what we believe is untrue).

File 151438616963.jpg - (230.49KB , 1080x1350 , 20171227_030527051.jpg )

Learned from experience.... terrible ones, people were just not meant to live together.

Never, ever ever ever, pursue a relationship. It is never worth it.

Hire a prostitute but dont pretend its more than that.

File 170033842293.jpg - (340.17KB , 1536x2048 , 1662219561941782.jpg )

If there is such thing as reincarnation, I dont wanna come back as a human ever again.

Nope.

Even if God Himself promises that I will never suffer from poverty, slavery, disease, etc again.

I may not, but someone else will.
How can we truly enjoy human life when it comes at the expense of others?

All the luxuries enjoyed by any class of people have always been at the cost of exploiting other classes.

I would rather be an astral being roaming the cosmos, enjoying the wonders of thousands of stars and planets.

The pleasures of human existence are nice but sirely limited. The only thing that motivates humans is imagination.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Will time exist at higher dimensions? Or it would be the point of eternity? What if there are more dimensions of time, and we haven't just discovered them yet?

According to the superstring theory, the so called theory of everything, there are 10 dimensions of time and space. According to boson string theory there are 27. We have M theory as well. All these talk about finite time dimensions. But what if the number of time dimensions in infinite?

"Carroll writes that, from a quantum perspective, the Universe ‘evolves in a mathematical realm with more than 10(10^100) dimensions’ – that’s 10 followed by a googol of zeroes, or 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeroes. It’s hard to conceive of this almost impossibly vast number, which dwarfs into insignificance the number of particles in the known Universe. Yet every one of them is a separate dimension in a mathematical space described by quantum equations; every one a new ‘degree of freedom’ that the Universe has at its disposal.

In simple words, consider this analogy, water molecules themselves are not wet. But when they come together they are. Same goes for spacetime, many dimensions come together on a quantum level to make it."

Presenting an abstract from another research paper:

"A simple numerical argument is presented which suggests that quantum space-time may very well be infinite dimensional. A discussion of the repercussions of this new paradigm in Physics is given. A truly remarkably simple and plausible solution of the cosmological constant problem results from the new relativity principle: The cosmological constant is not a constant, in the same vein that energy in Einstein's Special Relativity is observer dependent. Finally, following El Naschie, we argue why the observed D=4 world might just be an average dimension over the infinite possible values of the quantum space-time and why the compactification mechanisms from higher to four dimensions in string theory may not be actually the right way to look at the world at Planck scales."

So

The infiniteness of time dimensions makes us question the idea of eternity.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

if a religion does not have a god or entity how does it work

File 157037674547.jpg - (22.69KB , 832x468 , medium-athah-anime-your-name-kimi-no-na-wa-mitsuha.jpg )

how do I cope with the fact that true love is an artificial concept that exists only in fiction.In reality we are all just animals looking to breed and we wont ever have a spiritual connection with anyone or a "special" bond with anyone.tfw no mitsuha gf

File 169234749594.jpg - (414.93KB , 1125x1081 , IMG_3863.jpg )

Dear 7chan ,

I finished my second manuscript in record time . It is actually revolutionary , and as such no one is allowed to read it unless I am handsomely rewarded . The leviathan that is threads is safeguarding it . I just happen to have a great trust in this leviathan and as such am not worried , for I doubt even a Mr zuck is capable of accessing my work either actually or figuratively and that coincidence being both factive and meaningful and distinctly and totally and partly so is exactly what my book is about , explains , and proves over and over and over again , kind of like how blind people don’t immediately assign felt gestalts to visual gestalts upon receiving sight , my book will blow not people’s minds into a new sense of gestalting and that’s both a joke and a prediction , which I know with much certainty to be quite possibly factive possibly —- but enough modal jokes and zauberbergian as published in English by those people in turkey references post side : i don’t present to any of you my second philosophy !

Bests ,

The author

Hey y'all

I finished my first philosophy manuscript . Here's almost the finished version . I figure y'all can handle it . My first philosophy manuscript is called Kinds and Degrees . I am currently working on my second philosophy manuscript . Neither of these manuscripts are my first or second , but they are respectively my first philosophy manuscript and second philosophy manuscript : the prior being my first first philosophy manuscript and the latter being my first second philosophg manuscript : i call this first second philosophy manuscript Ontic and Idaöntic : this first second philosophy manuscript of mine is possibly the first first second philosophy manuscript to ever been have written yet . This book took many years of research . I hope it will get me into a phd program . The pdf file was made by google drive and is 65 something MB large . It is well over 25000 words . But i'm not much of word count kind of guy . All art unless obvious is mine . All commentary is welcome . I love giving talks . I already have bachelors from a large state school . But they screwed me over with a shitty grandfather grading clause so i have a 2.0 instead of s 3.83 and my life has been a living hell . I figured if i rigorously solved every philosophy problem before applying i'd be a strong candidate for a phd in philosophy . I managed to solve basically every single problem a first philosophy calls to be questioned and resolved : i address historical arguments and arguments about the historical : i solve the einsteineian problem of loss of objectivity in science through a mathematical deduction based on a certain proof from graph theory . I then apply said application (which i call in [shorttitle] Ontics , a "morphic" a la morphisms but sidestepping import of category theoretic presuppositions and ideontics (which are distinct from concepts ( but that's second philosophy stuff ) ) toward a philosophy of sense ( distinct from Baumgarten but not entirely not ) for it is similar to Husserl's states goal of phenomenology in his entry for phenomenology's encyclopedia entry , but I distinguish my first philosophy from Husserl's , Aristotle's , Heidegger's , Sartre's (Herder 2(too) but that's in book too 2 ) , Wittgenstein's , Hegel's , and notably Kant's -- for i found a novel formal proof which refutes all of Kant and establishes a possibility for a speculative realism but without Meillassoux's self-contradictions he imported into his long form argument against Dogmatism ( which i also address in the book ) -- for the philosopher's who would agree with my work , I found that their work simply was of a slightly different consequent of similar enough trajectory to not outright completely dispute / refute ( hume and spinoza ) -- I turn Deleuze on his head -- I do not address much ethics outside of a support of a kind of logical utilitarianism but via Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

File 161540885227.png - (308.32KB , 1768x864 , ללא שם.png )

An argument for the absurdity of free will using a quantum particle:

1.If X is able to do action Y and simultaneously is able to not do action Y, X has free will.
2.X being able to do Y is equivalent to there being a probability greater than zero that X will do Y.
3.X being able to not do Y is equivalent to there being a probability lesser than one that X will do Y.
4.If there is an action Y that X has a probability to do that is not 0 (no possibility) and not 1 (only possibility) then X has free will.
5.A physical object changing its state is an action taken by the object.
6.If a physical object has a probability to enter state Y that is not 0 or 1, the physical object has free will.
7.A quantum particle can have a probability that is not 0 or 1 to enter a particular state.
8.A quantum particle can have free will.
9.A quantum particle is not alive, does not have consciousness, and does not have the capacity to think or feel.
10.Life, consciousness, and the capacity to think or feel are not necessary attributes to have free will.