Titanomachina, Maybe you should read this: Epicurus and happiness]No, there is something wrong with the field in general. This is just his opinion and a very limited one at that. He speaks nothing about wondering whether there is an external reality or not, whether other people exist or are just figments of the mind. If they are just figments then it doesn't matter how you treat them if they aren't real. Such questions cannot be answered. He speaks of knowledge when knowledge is impossible (according to the very same field), you cannot know something you can only believe in it. Knowledge isn't a pleasure, it just creates upsets without solutions (just like philosophy). If it can't even answer the question that is the foundation for everything else (if the outside world and other people exist) then it's useless. I don't think you actually understand the consequences of knowledge or the study of philosophy. It doesn't bring knowledge it just brings doubt. There isn't anything stable about knowledge, so he is also wrong there. You should pick a better argument next time. Epicurus clearly didn't know better."When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and the aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, that produces a pleasant life. It is rather sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs that lead to the tumult of the soul." Based on this conception of happiness, it is the philosopher who is the happiest of all people, for he chooses the stable pleasures of knowledge over the temporary and volatile pleasures of the body.Bold by me. There is something wrong with your philosophy.
It is rather sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs that lead to the tumult of the soul." Based on this conception of happiness,it is the philosopher who is the happiest of all people, for he chooses the stable pleasures of knowledge over the temporary and volatile pleasures of the body.Go with the flow. Groovy. Don't know about titano, but I like it. :) Except that statement is false and not grounded in reality. All philosophy is is uncertainty, you would have to believe in lies (like he did) to be happy with its study. As I have said, you cannot know anything but only believe it, and that is philosophy's undoing. The philosopher is the most unhappy and lonely of all people. He also lied about pleasure of the body, as that is more stable than knowledge. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2015/02/depressive-thinking-styles-and.html?m=1
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy?
Not that there is such a thing as truth, it’s just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy? That is a baseless statement. New discoveries of how something works always makes the discoverer happy.
Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.Of course there is an objective truth. the universe functions mathematically and every equation (x + x = 2 . x} is looking at the same things, but from a different perspective.. It is when one claims to *know* the truth (a constant) from all perspectives, one is expected to provide evidence.by means of equations. Is anyone unhappy to know that *c* is a constant?. Or E = Mc^2? , Most of our science is based on just those two constant Truths. Did we live in a better world when Gods ruled the universe? The word God itself is a metaphor for that which is "nknown". To my knowledge, no one has ever gone to war over 2 + 2 = 4 . On the contrary, knowing something from all perspectives, including from the inside leads to *understanding*
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy?That is a baseless statement. New discoveries of how it all works always makes the discoverer happy.
Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.Of course there is an objective truth. the universe functions mathematically and every equation (x + x = 2 . x} is looking at the same things, but from a different perspective.. It is when one claims to *know* the truth (a constant) from all perspectives, one is expected to provide evidence.by means of equations. Is anyone unhappy to know that *c* is a constant?. Or E = Mc^2? , Most of our science is based on just those two constant Truths. Did we live in a better world when Gods ruled the universe? The word God itself is a metaphor for that which is "nknown". To my knowledge, no one has ever gone to war over 2 + 2 = 4 . On the contrary, knowing something from all perspectives, including from the inside But what is 2 though? That's just a number that we made up, it does not exist beyond us. It's just a concept that humans created, it's not objective, it's a subjective value to us. You're statement about new discoveries about how it works is false, they don't bring joy, also you aren't talking about philosophy then. Your entire point isn't discussing philosophy. There is no such thing as objective truth. Truth only exists within our subjective framework, even if that applies to humanity its still a frame work. So no, there is no objective truth. Math cannot "prove' anything definitively, it cannot prove the existence of a universe or other humans. The numbers don't exist outside of humanity and therefor they are subjective, so anything you get from them is subjective. So no, there is no objective truth.
Also that video is worthless. Learning about different perspectives does not get me any closer to an answer or truth. That an empathy is a lie, as you cannot understand the world from another's perspective (if others even exist). http://ankank.blogspot.com/2009/12/empathy-does-not-exist.htmlPhilosophy, phi·los·o·phy. NOUN 1.the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy. •a particular system of philosophical thought: "Schopenhauer’s philosophy" •the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: "the philosophy of science" synonyms: thinking · thought · reasoning •a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: "don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy" powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press ·· And this is how you begin: http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy? Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.You're funny. Nobody cares about the answer to that question except you. Why would you do something if it makes you unhappy? According to you, you should go make others unhappy or convince them they shouldn't be happy. Not that there is such a thing as truth. At least you can't prove it exists. You can't prove you exists. Ha ha.
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy? That is a baseless statement. New discoveries of how it all works always makes the discoverer happy.
Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.Of course there is an objective truth. the universe functions mathematically and every equation (x + x = 2 . x} is looking at the same things, but from a different perspective. It is when one claims to *know* the truth (a constant) from all perspectives, one is expected to provide evidence.by means of equations. Is anyone unhappy to know that *c* is a constant?. Or E = Mc^2? , Most of our science is based on just those two constant Truths. Did we live in a better world when Gods ruled the universe? The word God itself is a metaphor for that which is "nknown". To my knowledge, no one has ever gone to war over 2 + 2 = 4 . On the contrary, knowing something from all perspectives, including from the inside But what is 2 though? That's just a number that we made up, it does not exist beyond us. It's just a concept that humans created, it's not objective, it's a subjective value to us. Really ?
You're statement about new discoveries about how it works is false, they don't bring joy, also you aren't talking about philosophy then.Then neither do you!. You really need to read up on Max Tegmark and the feeling of "discovery" felt by cosmologists and mathematicians. Are you suggesting they are liars? p.s. How do I know that the enlarged statement is literally (mathematically) incorrect?
Your entire point isn't discussing philosophy. There is no such thing as objective truth. Truth only exists within our subjective framework, even if that applies to humanity its still a frame work. So no, there is no objective truth. Math cannot "prove' anything definitively, it cannot prove the existence of a universe or other humans.Therefore the universe and humans do not exist independent of an observer? Check out the definitions of *objective*
ob·jec·tive 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality. b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.and *subjective*
sub·jec·tive 1. a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman). b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment.
The numbers don't exist outside of humanity and therefor they are subjective, so anything you get from them is subjective. So no, there is no objective truth.You are right, the "numbers" don't exist in reality but the values which the numbers represent do.
Also that video is worthless. Learning about different perspectives does not get me any closer to an answer or truth. That an empathy is a lie, as you cannot understand the world from another's perspective (if others even exist). http://ankank.blogspot.com/2009/12/empathy-does-not-exist.html Perhaps you lack imagination?Philosophy, phi·los·o·phy. NOUN 1.the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy. •a particular system of philosophical thought: "Schopenhauer’s philosophy" •the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: "the philosophy of science" synonyms: thinking · thought · reasoning •a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: "don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy" powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press ·· And this is how you begin: http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy? Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.You're funny. Nobody cares about the answer to that question except you. Why would you do something if it makes you unhappy? According to you, you should go make others unhappy or convince them they shouldn't be happy. Not that there is such a thing as truth. At least you can't prove it exists. You can't prove you exists. Ha ha. Actually the question is why search for truth if it makes you unhappy, you clearly don't understand words. But I guess your misreading makes it seem funny, that's the only way it could be. As for the people who care, you clearly don't but a great others do, your opinion does not count for much. It search for truth when it cannot know truth, that is why its a treadmill.
Also that video is worthless. Learning about different perspectives does not get me any closer to an answer or truth. That an empathy is a lie, as you cannot understand the world from another's perspective (if others even exist). http://ankank.blogspot.com/2009/12/empathy-does-not-exist.html Perhaps you lack imagination? No I am realistic in that I know I cannot understand where someone is coming from, imagination is just a pretty word for " I guess". If I don't know exactly how someone feels in regards to a matter I won't pretend to do so just to make them feel better. That would be greatly overestimating human mental ability. But humans try and fail at this while calling it the virtue of "empathy". It's honestly incredibly presumptuous. I posted a link as to why it this is so. Besides, learning about other perspectives is what got me into this. Learning that nothing is concrete and instead relative is how I got here. That we can't prove the existence of other minds and an outer reality. The numbers are the same as well.Philosophy, phi·los·o·phy. NOUN 1.the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy. •a particular system of philosophical thought: "Schopenhauer’s philosophy" •the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: "the philosophy of science" synonyms: thinking · thought · reasoning •a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: "don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy" powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press ·· And this is how you begin: http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy?That is a baseless statement. New discoveries of how it all works always makes the discoverer happy.
Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.Of course there is an objective truth. the universe functions mathematically and every equation (x + x = 2 . x} is looking at the same things, but from a different perspective. It is when one claims to *know* the truth (a constant) from all perspectives, one is expected to provide evidence.by means of equations. Is anyone unhappy to know that *c* is a constant?. Or E = Mc^2? , Most of our science is based on just those two constant Truths. Did we live in a better world when Gods ruled the universe? The word God itself is a metaphor for that which is "nknown". To my knowledge, no one has ever gone to war over 2 + 2 = 4 . On the contrary, knowing something from all perspectives, including from the inside But what is 2 though? That's just a number that we made up, it does not exist beyond us. It's just a concept that humans created, it's not objective, it's a subjective value to us. Really ?
You're statement about new discoveries about how it works is false, they don't bring joy, also you aren't talking about philosophy then.Then neither do you!. You really need to read up on Max Tegmark and the feeling of "discovery" felt by cosmologists and mathematicians. Are you suggesting they are liars? p.s. How do I know that the enlarged statement is literally (mathematically) incorrect?
Your entire point isn't discussing philosophy. There is no such thing as objective truth. Truth only exists within our subjective framework, even if that applies to humanity its still a frame work. So no, there is no objective truth. Math cannot "prove' anything definitively, it cannot prove the existence of a universe or other humans.Therefore the universe and humans do not exist independent of an observer? Check out the definitions of *objective*
ob·jec·tive 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality. b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.and *subjective*
sub·jec·tive 1. a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman). b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment.
The numbers don't exist outside of humanity and therefor they are subjective, so anything you get from them is subjective. So no, there is no objective truth.You are right, the "numbers" don't exist in reality but the values which the numbers represent do. No, the values that the numbers represent also don't exist in reality. They only exist in the mind and can be whatever people want them to be. We cannot prove an objective reality exists, not even with math. I can suggest they are liars, who knows. Who knows if they are even real? As I have said, your statement is incorrect, plus it's not even in regards to philosophy having a use. Your definitions are beside the point, philosophy cannot prove anything or answer the questions it raises.
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy?That is a baseless statement. New discoveries of how it all works always makes the discoverer happy.
Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.Of course there is an objective truth. the universe functions mathematically and every equation (x + x = 2 . x} is looking at the same things, but from a different perspective. It is when one claims to *know* the truth (a constant) from all perspectives, one is expected to provide evidence.by means of equations. Is anyone unhappy to know that *c* is a constant?. Or E = Mc^2? , Most of our science is based on just those two constant Truths. Did we live in a better world when Gods ruled the universe? The word God itself is a metaphor for that which is "nknown". To my knowledge, no one has ever gone to war over 2 + 2 = 4 . On the contrary, knowing something from all perspectives, including from the inside But what is 2 though? That's just a number that we made up, it does not exist beyond us. It's just a concept that humans created, it's not objective, it's a subjective value to us. Really ?
You're statement about new discoveries about how it works is false, they don't bring joy, also you aren't talking about philosophy then.Then neither do you!. You really need to read up on Max Tegmark and the feeling of "discovery" felt by cosmologists and mathematicians. Are you suggesting they are liars? p.s. How do I know that the enlarged statement is literally (mathematically) incorrect?
Your entire point isn't discussing philosophy. There is no such thing as objective truth. Truth only exists within our subjective framework, even if that applies to humanity its still a frame work. So no, there is no objective truth. Math cannot "prove' anything definitively, it cannot prove the existence of a universe or other humans.Therefore the universe and humans do not exist independent of an observer? Check out the definitions of *objective*
ob·jec·tive 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality. b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.and *subjective*
sub·jec·tive 1. a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman). b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment.
The numbers don't exist outside of humanity and therefor they are subjective, so anything you get from them is subjective. So no, there is no objective truth.You are right, the "numbers" don't exist in reality but the values which the numbers represent do. No, the values that the numbers represent also don't exist in reality. They only exist in the mind and can be whatever people want them to be. We cannot prove an objective reality exists, not even with math. The universe did not physically exist before there were living things? The Table of Elements is just a mathematical illusion?
I can suggest they are liars, who knows. Who knows if they are even real? As I have said, your statement is incorrect, plus it's not even in regards to philosophy having a use. Your definitions are beside the point, philosophy cannot prove anything or answer the questions it raises.Philosophy (theoretical logic) does not need to provide answers, only suggestions. Providing *Proof* is the task of the physical (mathematical) sciences.
Philosophy, phi·los·o·phy.·
NOUN
1.the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
•a particular system of philosophical thought:
“Schopenhauer’s philosophy”
•the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience:
“the philosophy of science”
synonyms: thinking · thought · reasoning
•a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior:
“don’t expect anything and you won’t be disappointed, that’s my philosophy”
powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press ·
And this is how you begin:
Roger Antonsen: Math is the hidden secret to understanding the world | TED Talk
Also that video is worthless. Learning about different perspectives does not get me any closer to an answer or truth. That an empathy is a lie, as you cannot understand the world from another’s perspective (if others even exist).
http://ankank.blogspot.com/2009/12/empathy-does-not-exist.html Perhaps you lack imagination?
No I am realistic in that I know I cannot understand where someone is coming from, imagination is just a pretty word for " I guess". If I don’t know exactly how someone feels in regards to a matter I won’t pretend to do so just to make them feel better. That would be greatly overestimating human mental ability. But humans try and fail at this while calling it the virtue of “empathy”. It’s honestly incredibly presumptuous. I posted a link as to why it this is so.
Besides, learning about other perspectives is what got me into this. Learning that nothing is concrete and instead relative is how I got here. That we can’t prove the existence of other minds and an outer reality. The numbers are the same as well.
Your rant contains one truth. You posited that our reality is subject to SR, and that is true. But that does not invalidate QM.
@ Titano,
You may want to watch this to understand the mathematical nature of the universe and how everything works in accordance to just a few numbers (values and equations) and how they interact to produce consistent and testable results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwY1Ws5sd58&index=2&list=PLlHanBMNk-DKQzkktkFKGvJR_9gSRDhBr
Titano said,You need to learn the difference between empathy and sympathy
No I am realistic in that I know I cannot understand where someone is coming from, imagination is just a pretty word for " I guess". If I don’t know exactly how someone feels in regards to a matter I won’t pretend to do so just to make them feel better. That would be greatly overestimating human mental ability. But humans try and fail at this while calling it the virtue of “empathy". It’s honestly incredibly presumptuous. I posted a link as to why it this is so.
Here is a little test of your Mirror Neuron System. Enjoy or be miserable. But be honest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLAp3PMDIQY
@ Titano, You may want to watch this to understand the mathematical nature of the universe and how everything works in accordance to just a few numbers (values and equations) and how they interact to produce consistent and testable results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwY1Ws5sd58&index=2&list=PLlHanBMNk-DKQzkktkFKGvJR_9gSRDhBrThat test was pretty easy, the only part that made me sweat a little was stage 5, but it wasn't terribly difficult. I cleared every stage. I remember doing that on a video game many times before. But how does that prove or measure anything? You get loads in the comments who made it all the way through? It's just a YouTube video, how can it prove or test your mirror neurons? Don't you need to see a neurologist for something like that? The one on Brain Age was harder, and you couldn't pause it (not that I did, I always accept a challenge in a game). But all you had to do was focus on the center of the screen and ignore the word while noticing the color.Titano said, No I am realistic in that I know I cannot understand where someone is coming from, imagination is just a pretty word for " I guess". If I don’t know exactly how someone feels in regards to a matter I won’t pretend to do so just to make them feel better. That would be greatly overestimating human mental ability. But humans try and fail at this while calling it the virtue of “empathy". It’s honestly incredibly presumptuous. I posted a link as to why it this is so.You need to learn the difference between *empathy* and *sympathy* Here is a little test of your Mirror Neuron System. Enjoy or be miserable. But be honest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLAp3PMDIQY
Also that video is worthless. Learning about different perspectives does not get me any closer to an answer or truth. That an empathy is a lie, as you cannot understand the world from another's perspective (if others even exist). http://ankank.blogspot.com/2009/12/empathy-does-not-exist.html Perhaps you lack imagination? No I am realistic in that I know I cannot understand where someone is coming from, imagination is just a pretty word for " I guess". If I don't know exactly how someone feels in regards to a matter I won't pretend to do so just to make them feel better. That would be greatly overestimating human mental ability. But humans try and fail at this while calling it the virtue of "empathy". It's honestly incredibly presumptuous. I posted a link as to why it this is so. Besides, learning about other perspectives is what got me into this. Learning that nothing is concrete and instead relative is how I got here. That we can't prove the existence of other minds and an outer reality. The numbers are the same as well. Your rant contains one truth. You posited that our reality is subject to SR, and that is true. But that does not invalidate QM. Are there words or just cryptic abbreviations? Again this doesn't answer the point about how this is all moot if they can't validate the existence of and external reality and other people (or real world to be honest).Philosophy, phi·los·o·phy. NOUN 1.the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy. •a particular system of philosophical thought: "Schopenhauer’s philosophy" •the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: "the philosophy of science" synonyms: thinking · thought · reasoning •a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: "don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy" powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press ·· And this is how you begin: http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy? Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.You're funny. Nobody cares about the answer to that question except you. Why would you do something if it makes you unhappy? According to you, you should go make others unhappy or convince them they shouldn't be happy. Not that there is such a thing as truth. At least you can't prove it exists. You can't prove you exists. Ha ha. Actually the question is why search for truth if it makes you unhappy, you clearly don't understand words. But I guess your misreading makes it seem funny, that's the only way it could be. As for the people who care, you clearly don't but a great others do, your opinion does not count for much. It search for truth when it cannot know truth, that is why its a treadmill. It doesn't make me unhappy. It doesn't make anyone on this forum unhappy. Just you. If you can't even be sure I exist, why do you care if I care?
Titanomachina said;No I am realistic in that I know I cannot understand where someone is coming from, imagination is just a pretty word for " I guess". If I don't know exactly how someone feels in regards to a matter I won't pretend to do so just to make them feel better. That would be greatly overestimating human mental ability. But humans try and fail at this while calling it the virtue of "empathy". It's honestly incredibly presumptuous. I posted a link as to why it this is so. Besides, learning about other perspectives is what got me into this. Learning that nothing is concrete and instead relative is how I got here. That we can't prove the existence of other minds and an outer reality. The numbers are the same as well.
W4U said; Your rant contains one truth. You posited that our reality is subject to SR, and that is true. But that does not invalidate QM.
Are there words or just cryptic abbreviations?Special Relativity deals with the mathematical results and effects of relative motion. IOW, reality appears just a little different when observed from different spacetime coordinates. Quantum Mechanics deals with the mathematical function and interaction of physical particles at quantum scale.
Again this doesn't answer the point about how this is all moot if they can't validate the existence of and external reality and other people (or real world to be honest).But your argument is false, reality can be viewed from different perspectives and quantified, confirming that both observers are looking at the same thing, when all the mathematical factors are considered. There are a few examples of realities which we can observe but not quantify to any exactness, like the air and ocean wave interference patterns. The mathematical functions involved are just too overwhelming to model with confidence. You think life is worthless because we cannot predict the weather? But Science is beginning to know a little about meta-physics as we go own deeper into the quantum world. Thus the fabric of the universe itself still escapes detection, except in an indirect way. But there are a few promising directions, using abstract mathematics, such as Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) which models how spacetime *unfolds* via a fractal function.
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent. This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation If nothing of this interests you, I am curious to know what it is you are interested in.
Titano said; It doesn’t make me unhappy. It doesn’t make anyone on this forum unhappy. Just you. If you can’t even be sure I exist, why do you care if I care?Because I am an *empath* ( well developed MNS). Try one experiment for me: put on a smile and keep it there for 30 seconds. You'll feel better, guaranteed.Your brain will respond to the muscle action which symbolizes happiness.
Or to point out another hole in it, why search for truth if it makes you unhappy? Not that there is such a thing as truth, it's just personal opinion influenced by experience and bias.You're funny. Nobody cares about the answer to that question except you. Why would you do something if it makes you unhappy? According to you, you should go make others unhappy or convince them they shouldn't be happy. Not that there is such a thing as truth. At least you can't prove it exists. You can't prove you exists. Ha ha. Actually the question is why search for truth if it makes you unhappy, you clearly don't understand words. But I guess your misreading makes it seem funny, that's the only way it could be. As for the people who care, you clearly don't but a great others do, your opinion does not count for much. It search for truth when it cannot know truth, that is why its a treadmill. It doesn't make me unhappy. It doesn't make anyone on this forum unhappy. Just you. If you can't even be sure I exist, why do you care if I care? We don't.