Hey /X/ ITT: Tell me some deep psychological/philosophical/will keep you up until 5 am kinda shit. The more it makes you think, the better.
/x/ or /x], but never /X/
You of course have read every single thread before your request to have content hand delivered to your own private thread, right?
I'm a deeply depressed person but I'm so scared of death it keeps me up at night.
The idea that my consciousness with all of its quirks and loves will some day be permanently gone fills me with such an existential dread, it has begun crippling my ability to care. At the same time, I'm so frustrated that I care so much about the inevitable that I have no control over. Why can't I just get over it?
I'm only 23 years old and already I'm scared of the infinity of nothing I will face.
The law of thermodynamics is a fucking dick.
>>17493224
disclaimer: I have no idea what will happen to me after death, which may be why I feel so ok with death. Anywho; here's my point of view.
I don't view my life as significant at all. With the whole cosmos in persepctive, if I died nothing would happen. I'm surprisingly ok with that. I think thats why I'm so happy with my life right now. I just don't care all too much.
1/3 of 100 is 33.333(recurring)
but 33.333(recurring) times three is only 99.9999(recurring)
where did the other 0.1111111(recuring) go? another universe, perhaps?
>>17493342
Um. Think of 1/3 of 100 as 33 and 1/3. Then it adds up.
Roko's Basilisk.
Good night.
>>17493224
Why would you be afraid of something that you will never experience?
>>17493342
It wouldn't be .1111111 (recurring.) It would be .00000000000(infinitely recurring) with a theorhetical 1 at the end.
As for the topic:
We are all aware of the wave/particle duality of quantum particles, right? When you don't observe them, they act as a wave, when you do observe, they act as particle. One famous experiment is the double-slit experiment, in which quantum particles are launched at a screen with 2 slits in it. When you don't observe which slit the particle goes through, an inteference pattern is produced (indicating waves.) When you do observe which slit the particle goes through, two simple bars show up, indicating particle nature.
Well, there's a way to entangle quantum particles. The practical upshot of this is if you know what one particle is doing, you can tell what the other particle is doing. So there is an experiment where they launch two streams of entangled particles, each at separate double slit setups. The upshot of this is: If you observe the particle going through setup B, setup A will still show the double bar pattern, despite not being observed at all, simply because you can derive information from setup B.
Now here is where it gets really freaky. Change the setup a bit. The idea is to change it so the stream of particles are no longer going through their respective slits at the same time. Change it so that we can observe the particle from stream B entering the slit only AFTER the particle from stream A has already hit the detection screen. That way, even if the particles are communicating in some way, particles from the A stream shouldn't hear that particles from stream B are being observed until it's too late, and stream A should produce an inteference (wave) pattern despite us being able to tell which slit the particle went through. Right?
Well, no. It STILL produces a double-bar pattern. The only explanation we can think of is that the history of particle A is not even created until it is observed (1/2)
>>17493505
That observing it, by proxy, through the particle in stream B actually calls particle A into existence from some quantum state where it's nothing but a collection of possibilities.
Now here's the real kicker. There are some things in the universe - the light of a sun bending around a galaxy in a certain way - that simulate the double-slit experiment. If what we think is true, humans could be creating billions of years of history and calling parts of the universe into existence simply by observing the light from these suns.
>>17493380
Dumb as fuck.
>>17493544
all these techno-futurist things are retarded
not to go all /pol/ but when you look at demographic birth-rates across the globe, there wont' be anyone left in a couple hundred years who knows how to make a computer, let alone an AI.
Nerds think they're so smart as they sit around mulling the techno version of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' while not reproducing and importing tons of <90IQ foreigners to do their menial labour, and then they think we're headed towards a techno-utopia.
>>17493564
Actually, Asia's doing fine in the IQ department. They're even embracing eugenic to make future generations smarter.
What will most likely happen is that the intelligentsia and scientists of the west will flee to Asia as western countries become more unlivable. There may well be a techno-utopia. Just in east Asia.
>>17492543
Your grandchildren will be Muslims.
>>17493505
>>17493515
Where can I read more about this phenomenae?
It ties in with the idea that the universe NEEDS and "observer" so that it can experience itself.
There is at least one person on the planet that has had not only every thought that you have had, but probably the ones you haven't as well. In. The vast collection of ideals, thoughts, and perspectives you share these exact traits with reasonably speaking at least one other person. However with those very odds in place. You probably won't ever meet this person.
>>17493342
>>17493368
>>17493505
.999... = 1
This is not an approximation.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/math-for-fun-and-glory/vi-hart/infinity/v/9-999-reasons-that-999-1
There may be an infinite amount of alien civilizations but once they reach a technological singularity, they stop looking for life beyond their own planet. They just become endlessly entertained by their own existence instead and any further technology developed only engenders more of the same.
>>17492543
free will is an illusion because everything in your brain is the result of probabilistic interaction between quantum particles
>>17493224
This is something you will never grasp. There is no "I", there is the illusion of it. Once you lose sense of reality and consciousness, there will be nothing to experience.
>>17493611
There are a number of physicists writing books that explain these issues and try to grapple with the implications without getting bogged down in the math.
Look up Biocentrism. Although written by a biologist, it addresses a lot of these issues.
What if the universe isn't an infinite vacuum? What if it's contained in a bubble in a liquid? And what if it could pop at any moment?
>>17493515
Reminds me of those randomly generated levels in games like Diablo. You can only see parts of a level that have been in your range of vision, and the level generates as you explore.
>>17493564
Wow, thank you. That is exactly how I feel about outsourced labor.
>>17493505
>>17493515
what do you think the implications of this are? in terms of cause and effect, time and reality?
>>17493832
There are some extreme theories (Biocentrism is one of them) that postulate that the world is actually exactly like that. That, without a conscious observer, thing do not meaningfully exist. When you step outside of your kitchen, and stop observing it, your kitchen is, in fact, no longer there - it returns to some quantum state that is merely a cloud of possibilities. EVERYTHING that is not being observed by a conscious being is like that.
>>17493918
Why would it disappear? We've seen with the dbl-slit experiment this observer effect works even with machine detectors. If that's all it takes to collapse the waveform, then any pet, any bird, any bug, any plant, perhaps even the microbes are causing the observer effect.
When a tree falls in a forest, the FOREST is there to hear it.
>>17493918
>hat, without a conscious observer, thing do not meaningfully exist. When you step outside of your kitchen, and stop observing it, your kitchen is, in fact, no longer there - it returns to some quantum state that is merely a cloud of possibilities. EVERYTHING that is not being observed by a conscious being is like that.
As interesting as this is, it's also somewhat meaningless.
Of course, you can say that if you don't observe your dog while you're at work he might not "be there" until you get back, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter: the second you observe (physically with the eyes, or think/wonder about something), it'd have to exist. Or, if you're not observing it in even the most minimal of ways, it doesn't matter if it doesn't exist.
I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. This shit is way too abstract sometimes.
>>17493914
Well, the way I see it, there's a few possibilities.
1. Biocentrism - history is not created until it is observed
I'm not sure how much I believe this, though. For example, if CONSCIOUSNESS was what was needed for observation, we should be able to do the following experiment: Automatically collect data from a double-slit experiment, but then delete it automatically so no human ever sees it, and then we'd still receive the wave inteference pattern since no conscious observer observed the data. But actually, the double bar still shows up. It seems merely observing - even without getting the actual data - changes the particle. So either a mere measuring instrument can be considered "conscious" or a conscious observer is not actually necessary - the ACT of observing is what does it. This would suggest that information has some physical property (which actually, we know is true, it's been proven it takes heat to create information) and we just don't know how well to describe it.
2. Time travel - quantum particles can somehow communicate backwards through time
3. Space and time are utterly meaningless at the quantum level, and two 'entangled' particles, across space and time, are actually two halves of the same particle.
>>17493957
>If that's all it takes to collapse the waveform, then any pet, any bird, any bug, any plant, perhaps even the microbes are causing the observer effect.
>When a tree falls in a forest, the FOREST is there to hear it.
That's kind of the point, I think. The world itself has a kind of observational consciousness, thanks to the collective observation of everyone and every living thing here. The collective unconscious is a thing that's been discussed in other ways, but it could apply here too.
What'll happen when all is purged from the Earth when the Sun begins to expand? If there's not even a microbe to observe it, will it even still 'exist'?
>>17493957
Yes, on earth, it's difficult to think of a situation when something isn't being observed by SOME form of life or something that has the ability to detect something else. But the kitchen was just an example. Think of a lifeless hunk of rock outside of our observable sphere of the universe itself, with nothing - machine or biological - that could possibly observe it.
>>17493242
I have the exact same point of view.
I still feel that, albeit in a small and irrational way, that I still need to do better than my peers to recompense for previous mistakes.
I want my life to be generally successful, you know? Even if it is mostly useless it truly is all I have.
>>17493224
youre a human. so you get to have ideas, have valuable memories, make decisions, ponder things, eat bacon, do nice things for the sake of it etc. were the only ones who get to do this (that we know of) which means were literally the best things in the universe. which is pretty much a massive explosion. And youre on /x/ at the moment so we can assume youre not being raped/tortured/oppressed so right there you have it better than a HUGE chunk of people . Just try to realise the reason we don't feel comfortable or happy is because we have retarded priorities. we are subconsciously stressed the fuck out over problems that WE FUCKING MADE UP. we separated ourselves from the the actual world and now pay rent and worry about other financial bullshit WHICH IS MADE UP. learn to separate whats actually real and which phenomenas only exist because of the importance we put on it... we've fooled ourselves into thinking theres a reason to life but there isn't. youre supposed to feel good just being alive
>>17493224
>>17494041
i just know exactly how you feel so i was just sharing what helps me i know its not mind blowing "keep up all night " stuff
>>17493999
>Think of a lifeless hunk of rock outside of our observable sphere of the universe itself, with nothing - machine or biological - that could possibly observe it.
By definition, such a thing doesn't exist. But trips deserve more of an answer. Let's discount aliens or gods or other things not considered in a terra-centric viewpoint. Observation is only happening on Earth.
Well, we observe parts of the universe, and those parts of the universe are connected to or affecting in some way other parts of the universe - even parts we may not observe. Isn't that kind of the description of dark matter? There's "stuff" we can't observe, but affects the stuff we can.
My point is that the observer effect would "ripple" throughout the universe, so even the unobserved waveforms out there will collapse in some way.
Extrapolating on this, it could be said the waveform potential for the universe has existed for 14 billion years, but the universe as it is has only been around 4.5 billion years or so. To come full circle, as anon said
>>17493515
>humans could be creating billions of years of history and calling parts of the universe into existence simply by observing the light from these suns.
The observable universe is literally all the universe there is. And outside of the universe is not "nothing" but rather the potential for everything. It is substantial The Unknown.
Makes me think if there is a point when "I wonder what we'll find?" becomes "I wonder what we'll create?"
I suppose it already has.
>>17494041
This.
FKnowing we choose to stress over little things that will eventually take up time to be happy is just depressing.
But we can choose to let it effect us, and this is why I am a Stoic. Feels good mang.
>>17493918
This is retarded. Things cannot simply cease to exist when no longer being observed, it defies the law of thermodynamics.
>>17494049
If it's no bother, could you extrapolate on this? And explain it to me like I'm dumb (I am).
>>17494088
Sure...which part? The observed parts connected to unobserved? The age of the universe? The substantial Unknown? Creating?
>>17494055
>>17494055
dubs confirms it. nothing lasts forever dude except death so if something isn't directly affecting you, gotta learn how to let it go. of course me just SAYING this shit isn't exactly something you can directly apply and be magically happy right away but
>nothing lasts forever
>learn whats real and whats pretend real
>youre apart of nature too. maybe stop and appreciate not being in food chain
>try to see big picture instead of your personal experience (may require psychedellic help)
Everything is a dream. The "real world" is the dream for souls who can't handle the responsibility of being God.
>>17494070
One of the biggest problems in physics is how quantum physics seems to contradict our classical view. But the thing is, quantum physics is not merely theory. It's been proven by experiment, and everyday objects such as your computer have to take quantum effects into account during design. Having a theory that reconciles quantum with classical is a huge goal of modern physics.
>>17494103
Tje age of the universe part. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I went down a rabbit hole of thought for a while haha.
>>17494160
Current age of the universe is estimated at around 14 billion years, as per the cosmic microwave background we observe. However, if things only "exist" in the classical sense when we observe them, then the first time the universe could be observed is the first time some form of awareness came about. Which - stemming from our Earth-centric assumption - was around 4.5 billion years ago when life began. (perhaps we should say it began when the first sensory apparatus evolved, if that was later).
So the universe and its then 10 billion year history existed, but only in some
quantum potential waveform superposition thingy that is above my level of knowledge to really talk about.
Really.
Our bodies are just squishy, dense balls of highly charged, coiled flesh split hemispherically to polarize the charge. Organic magnets, will you, that have developed several different methods to interact with whatever they can sense and understand what sensations were going on around them. Over time, when the conductive mass grew large enough, sensations began being banked according to the polar nature of the magnet. A core language had to be born between the poles. This.. This is you. You are a language.
>>17493342
L2math, nigger. .9 repeating equals 1. The number does terminate...and it equals 1.
Heres a sad thought, mankind will never contact alien life, even if it does exist. Even if we had the technology right NOW to magically communicate with aliens billions of lightyears away, its impossible for us to ever meet each other. No, black hole wont just transport us there. Both of our star systems would be dead long before we could even reach each other at the speed of light.
All those potential civilazations out there are all going to die, their stars will explode and rub out all evidence of their existence and we'll never know about each other.
>>17494187
Ahhh okay, I understand. Thanks!
>>17493918
That's just lacking the concept of object permanence, which even babies eventually master.
>>17494259
It doesn't really have anything to do with object permanence, but the reality is you're just using it as an easy excuse to not think about things, rather than having any interest in the facts or possible implications of these phenomena.
Two of my favorite thoughts:
1. "I" don't exist. Yes, my physical body exists, all the way down to my neurons, but my self, my identity, is only the result of organized electrical signals firing between said neurons. "I" have no mass, "I" am just data, data that can be wiped clean.
2. Humans are only capable of comprehending a 3 dimensional universe, yet scientists have theorized (or confirmed, I forget) up to 11 spatial dimensions. With that in mind, think about this: take a cube, shine a light on it from overhead and observe it perpendicular to the lightsource, and what do you get? A square shaped shadow; a two dimensional object. Do the same with a square piece of paper, and you get a line; a one dimensional object. Again, with a line, and you get a dot, which has no dimensions. It doesn't extend into any of the higher dimensions. No think about this, bearing both prior points in mind: What kind of place is the fourth dimension like if, according to the shadow experiment, we are just the shadows of it?
I believe that what we believe to be shadow people are just the shadows of fourth dimensional beings, as they are solid, three dimensional shadows. It goes into string theory a bit, in that while these beings' strings vibrate in four dimensions, we can only perceive three, and because they don't natively vibrate in three dimensions, we occasionally see the incomplete picture.
>>17494342
You're poorly and inaccurately misrepresenting quotes. Data cannot be destroyed, only altered. That's science 101.
This is a much more accurate >>17494195 representation of your first quote.
And if beings did exist in other dimensions, they'd control every aspect of your life as your misinterpreted "free will".
You're already a fourth dimensional being given all the time a body can offer. But everyone only knows how to look out into space, when no one realizes that you only see back in time when you look out into space. And space doesn't only go infinitely outward.
>>17493224
>>17493625
and to that extent you are basically the same as many other people, given that you have never had a truly original thought in your whole life. All humans are just an extension of the same consciousness and always have been
>>17493578
yeah last I heard Japan's birth rate is in the toilet and China has a surplus of men looking for AZN GRRFRIEND because their one-child policy led to massive sex-selective abortion of females.
Indians? I've met a lot of Indian immigrants, supposedly the upper class from their country and while a couple are nice, none are what I'd call 'bright'.
>>17493224
I will say that you are raised to believe in life and death to be as black and white. It's not the case. The two aren't a part of the same pairing, or aren't a rational pairing. This is backed by the fact that we don't know what death really is. We just know we die. And that whatever goes, isn't our bodies. The point here is that you aren't actually afraid if death but of the event horizon, the idea of death. So this means the polar opposite of life is fear, since life isn't a tangible thing. It's generated by a tangible thing. And as such, the polar opposite of death would be love (entirety; wholeness). This checks out since they share a core function (fear/love) and the resulting functions are their growth.
All that says is that death and life are both entirely what you make OF them, regardless of what they are.
>>17494482
"Everything only is because it's missing its other half."
>>17492543
>Hey /X/ ITT: Tell me some deep psychological/philosophical/will keep you up until 5 am kinda shit. The more it makes you think, the better.
It's probable that you will have to relive this same life for all of eternity, always as if it were the first time. Eventually, the universe will likely crunch back together and things will begin all over again, resulting in the exact same galaxy, solar system, earth and the exact same you. This is the only way that you can live after you die. Eventually.
TL;DR: Life is hell
And in my last moment here, I leave this.
Close your eyes for this when you try it.
Imagine a planet floating in space. Give it some density to really ground it. Now, while keeping the mass, make the planet completely transparent, so only the outline is visible. Gravitate towards the center and place your body in the core, keeping it relative to the actual size the planets core would be. The remaining empty space in the sphere is your mind. At the top and bottom of the spheres, imagine the poles are connected to your body, since the brain runs binary/polar functions. So the poles would be two dotted lines (similar to the outline of the sphere) expanding out from and around the pllanet. To simplify, make the north pole 'yes' and the south pole 'no'. The space between the polar barrier containing the atmosphere and the surface of the sphere would be the entire realm of possibilities that stem from whatever you designate the poles to be, such as: yes/no , up/down , good/bad , rebublican/democrat , 1.1 / 1.2 , you/me. The lines, being only different by their wholeness, indicate the realm of possibilities based off the globe of what you already know and the polar boundary of your minds understanding. Once you're used to imagining this setting as organic, you start to see patterns that stem from the precipitation of thought experiments within this world that grow. And don't forget, that since mind isn't solid like the globe, that time between the two areas plays a part in the polar process.
And with that, I say good bye as much as I say, Welcome!
>>17494523
you know that blue smoke that electronic stuff makes when it fries?
I think my brain just produced that.
Either we are the most intelligent life in the universe, or we are alone in the universe
Poop
>>17494055
Second.
How's the straight and narrow path to virtue coming, my friend?
>>17494055
That picture is more biased than Fox News, holy shit. Wage slave jobs are a necessary byproduct of a social civilization, even if they aren't necessary for everyone to have.
I mean hell, I think wage slave mentality is archaic, but this image is utterly egotistical and boorish. The arguments put forth by the opposition has no actual logic behind it (when there is) and they favored argument is using base concepts over much more articulated processes which much more astutely portray theit side.
Learn to see their side before you paint yourself as literally blonde hair and blue eyed you Hitler/Trump wanna-be.
>>17495830
I'm still getting used to it, I haven't reached a certain Stoic mentality yet. I think it's possible, Ive read stories of stoic POWs in the Pacific that has helped them avoid destructive emotions. It feels good not having hope to be honest, and it's one that a Stoic must stay away from. Ive always used to live as if there was some sort of expectation for life to hand to me, and it always let me down. Unreasonable hope is just an opium.
>>17495894
>you Hitler/Trump wanna-be.
TAKE ME IN OH TENDER WOMAN
>>17494505
Where you getting this?
>>17493505
What is observing?
Seeing?
This life is a correctional sentence.
Have you figured out what crime you've committed?
>>17492543
Many people, when they hear about the multiverse theory, that there are infinite universes with every possible variable between them, immediately jump to "That must mean my favorite game/movie/show exists somewhere."
Lets take a few steps back. Invert this. If something fiction can be real, then something real can be fiction. In some of those universes, your life is fiction. "Some" of an infinity still being infinity.
Infinite creatures are watching and judging you every moment of every day.
