the thread in which to post and respond to miscellaneous thoughts unrelated to other things but are not worthy of a thread. there was an older thread called the important thoughts thread, but it has not been used for several years so beginning a new one seems appropriate
earlier today i was milking a goat with mastitis that developed from her kid only using one of her teats and the substance that came out was thick and smelled awful, but seemed similar in composition to curdled milk before you separate the whey to make cheese. it made me wonder if the first interactions mankind had with cheese was from a similar situation
earlier today i was milking a goat with mastitis that developed from her kid only using one of her teats and the substance that came out was thick and smelled awful, but seemed similar in composition to curdled milk before you separate the whey to make cheese. it made me wonder if the first interactions mankind had with cheese was from a similar situation
I imagine a conversation which proceeds something on this wise:
Alice: "I have discovered the existence of a program halts? p that returns true when program p halts, and false when program p loops forever."
Bob: "But you know something like that just isn't possible! After all, the existence of halts? p would imply the existence of another program, trick, whose definition might be something like this:
Alice: "Not so fast! You haven't proven that halts? cannot exist. All you have done is prove the existence of an unsatisfiable pair. In other words, you have proven that the existence of halts? and trick form an inconsistent set. But that doesn't mean we have to declare halts? does not exist. After all, it may well be that trick does not exist."
Bob: "But that doesn't make any sense. After all, I even gave you a definition of trick! What makes you think you can just go and say it can't exist? After all, there isn't anything about trick that seems impossible, other than its invocation of halts?, which I am trying to prove cannot exist. Nothing says I can't invoke trick on some other program, even something simple that returns the empty set or true all the time. All that's changed is I invoked halts? instead."
Alice: "Ah, but this depends on something questionable, like David Lewis's Patchwork Principle. You are trying to prove that just because trick might exist under other circumstances, it can also exist and try to invoke halts?. But that doesn't follow merely from the definition of trick."
Bob: "So what happens if I try to invoke trick really? Nothing is stopping me from typing the program into my computer."
Alice: "Hell if I know. Maybe Louis the Bald necessarily revives from the dead and smashes your computer before it can run the program. Anything to prevent the contradiction after all!"
Now obviously, there is something wrong with Alice's line of reasoning in this conversation. IN fact, I would like to think that she deserves some kind of lobotomy but maybe someone else might not be as harsh as myself. But there is a point to my very silly story. This sort of reasoning is the same idea people try to prove the existence of time travel and other absurdities. When it is demonstrated that, if time travel could exist, then some contradictory scenario (such as the grandfather-killing scenario) could exist, most rightly conclude this makes time travel logically impossible. However, some people hold on and accept instead the UPD. So my question is, what makes the time travel supporter's reasoning any different from Alice's in this case?
Alice: "I have discovered the existence of a program halts? p that returns true when program p halts, and false when program p loops forever."
Bob: "But you know something like that just isn't possible! After all, the existence of halts? p would imply the existence of another program, trick, whose definition might be something like this:
(define trick
(cond ((halts? trick) (loop-forever))
(t nil)))Alice: "Not so fast! You haven't proven that halts? cannot exist. All you have done is prove the existence of an unsatisfiable pair. In other words, you have proven that the existence of halts? and trick form an inconsistent set. But that doesn't mean we have to declare halts? does not exist. After all, it may well be that trick does not exist."
Bob: "But that doesn't make any sense. After all, I even gave you a definition of trick! What makes you think you can just go and say it can't exist? After all, there isn't anything about trick that seems impossible, other than its invocation of halts?, which I am trying to prove cannot exist. Nothing says I can't invoke trick on some other program, even something simple that returns the empty set or true all the time. All that's changed is I invoked halts? instead."
Alice: "Ah, but this depends on something questionable, like David Lewis's Patchwork Principle. You are trying to prove that just because trick might exist under other circumstances, it can also exist and try to invoke halts?. But that doesn't follow merely from the definition of trick."
Bob: "So what happens if I try to invoke trick really? Nothing is stopping me from typing the program into my computer."
Alice: "Hell if I know. Maybe Louis the Bald necessarily revives from the dead and smashes your computer before it can run the program. Anything to prevent the contradiction after all!"
Now obviously, there is something wrong with Alice's line of reasoning in this conversation. IN fact, I would like to think that she deserves some kind of lobotomy but maybe someone else might not be as harsh as myself. But there is a point to my very silly story. This sort of reasoning is the same idea people try to prove the existence of time travel and other absurdities. When it is demonstrated that, if time travel could exist, then some contradictory scenario (such as the grandfather-killing scenario) could exist, most rightly conclude this makes time travel logically impossible. However, some people hold on and accept instead the UPD. So my question is, what makes the time travel supporter's reasoning any different from Alice's in this case?
the popular writer and public speaker David Icke recently posted the following on his X account:
"No, mate. Constantly recurring maths and geometry confirms that we live in a virtual reality simulation created by anything, but 'God'. If you are looking for a creator of this Matrix try the symbolism of the Old Testament bloodthirsty tyrant that we are supposed to believe is a God of Love.
I have been writing about this simulated reality for more than 20 years and you are trying to make a simulated reality fit your biblical belief system when it never will. See my book, The Dream..."
(he then posted a link to his book)
But I have to wonder, what are we really going to infer properly on the skeptical scenario? It's contended that a God of love, ultimate unfailing and ineffable and supreme goodness could not possibly create such a terrible simulation, full of suffering, as we see in this world. But if the simulation theory of Icke is true, then we have never seen any such thing as true love. We have only seen artificial simulated love between non-existent persons. So that simulated love could take many forms. Perhaps simulated love is quite different from real love; I know the Hollywood conception of love is at least as far off. And if indeed a "bloodthirsty tyrant" created the simulation, it seems to me that he would have no motivation for making simulated love anything like real love. On the other hand, an omnibenevolent Creator would have good reason, if He were to make such a simulation, to turn simulated love into something like real love. Of course, it's that kind of resemblance that Icke's point really needs to get through.
"No, mate. Constantly recurring maths and geometry confirms that we live in a virtual reality simulation created by anything, but 'God'. If you are looking for a creator of this Matrix try the symbolism of the Old Testament bloodthirsty tyrant that we are supposed to believe is a God of Love.
I have been writing about this simulated reality for more than 20 years and you are trying to make a simulated reality fit your biblical belief system when it never will. See my book, The Dream..."
(he then posted a link to his book)
But I have to wonder, what are we really going to infer properly on the skeptical scenario? It's contended that a God of love, ultimate unfailing and ineffable and supreme goodness could not possibly create such a terrible simulation, full of suffering, as we see in this world. But if the simulation theory of Icke is true, then we have never seen any such thing as true love. We have only seen artificial simulated love between non-existent persons. So that simulated love could take many forms. Perhaps simulated love is quite different from real love; I know the Hollywood conception of love is at least as far off. And if indeed a "bloodthirsty tyrant" created the simulation, it seems to me that he would have no motivation for making simulated love anything like real love. On the other hand, an omnibenevolent Creator would have good reason, if He were to make such a simulation, to turn simulated love into something like real love. Of course, it's that kind of resemblance that Icke's point really needs to get through.
honestly i've always found the simulation hypothesis incredibly boring and unreasonable because it blatantly steals the axioms of the most generic deism and platonism but then postulates that the creator of this universe is finite, the basis of the finite creator claim being that because modern humans have created relatively fast electronic computers (which really are just extremely glorified slide rules) that therefore that it would be possible for some greater finite being to create what to us in all observation is infinitely complex both in the macroscopic as well as the microscopic. even if you find conventional theism to be absurd, the notion of such a disparity in this idea being so profoundly ridiculous that it requires significantly more faith in the finite being capable of emulating the cosmos as compared to the infinite creating an infinitely complex universe of seemingly infinite space. it reminds me of that particular group of true believers in moores law that thought it would be true going forward forever, ignoring obvious physical constraints because of their mystical faith in the scientific arts
in regards to the issue of morality, i've found that any man that claims the "god of the old testament" to be a bloodthirsty tyrant has read neither the old nor the new testament but relies solely on the same tired, lazy canards invoked similarly by those too feebly minded to understand that a narrative to describe the entirety of creation throughout all time may not be as linear as their poor projections from the current age are, nor that a truly timeless writing given from an infinite god would deviate from their extremely limited perspective. if all of creation is merely a simulation from some random finite being, why not go murder everyone around you and satisfy yourself carnally with their corpses? they don't actually exist in the real physical space, they aren't actually real, so what's the problem? this is yet another pathetic reasoning among a sea of many idiotic philosophies that exist only to justify the base, ignoble nature of man and serve no further purpose, being neither reasonable, nor predictive, nor commutative in any honest way. i wonder who might be behind it...
in regards to the issue of morality, i've found that any man that claims the "god of the old testament" to be a bloodthirsty tyrant has read neither the old nor the new testament but relies solely on the same tired, lazy canards invoked similarly by those too feebly minded to understand that a narrative to describe the entirety of creation throughout all time may not be as linear as their poor projections from the current age are, nor that a truly timeless writing given from an infinite god would deviate from their extremely limited perspective. if all of creation is merely a simulation from some random finite being, why not go murder everyone around you and satisfy yourself carnally with their corpses? they don't actually exist in the real physical space, they aren't actually real, so what's the problem? this is yet another pathetic reasoning among a sea of many idiotic philosophies that exist only to justify the base, ignoble nature of man and serve no further purpose, being neither reasonable, nor predictive, nor commutative in any honest way. i wonder who might be behind it...
on a lighter note i've found it interesting that because of the mild winter this year that all deciduous growth has started leafing out much earlier than usual, even drastically so. a benchmark i always use to judge the seasons here comes from the spring of 2020 in which i visited devil's lake state park in southern wisconsin on mother's day, and on that day i distinctly remember the trees there just beginning to set out their initial leaf buds, and i especially remember the beautiful buds of the many shag bark hickory trees which grow in abundance there but not here. because mother's day is fixed on the calendar it's a useful metric for botanical comparison year by year, and oddly enough the trees even here are budding to that same degree now a week before that same date. typically the flora lags behind here by about two weeks compared to southern wisconsin, which says to me that the weather in wisconsin this year is offset backwards by nearly an entire month. it makes me wonder how much these things vary year by year over decades and centuries, and it especially makes me wonder how much such fixed things like plants and trees can readily adjust to changes in their environment. i should start keeping better records