Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
5 posts
0 votes

Lessons in Apathy


Posts: 4588

The site has gone down, but it will always exist in my heart as one of the funniest places I've encountered. For the love of the work, I will post a few entries.


Free Will is an Illusion

Should I have taken surface streets instead of the highway? Why did I eat all those cupcakes? What if I spent that one weekend last year learning a foreign language instead of planting bombs inside all those farmers' mailboxes? All stupid questions, because the people asking them are presuming they had a choice in the first place. This is wrong. You are a passive observer of your own life. You have as little say over your fate as a theater full of screaming black people have over that of the teenage nymphomaniac in the next slasher film you see, and saying otherwise is as pointless as criticizing the ignorance of racists, people who resort to cheap racist stereotypes to make points about their powerlessness to resist doing so, or taking the time to point this out (i.e. what I'm doing now).

As unpopular a sentiment as it might be to anybody who's ever done something they believe to have been clever, or been the victim of an evil act they derive pleasure from hating someone for, it matters as much as their opinion of the words on this page: zero. What is, is, the same way it is whenever anyone does something incredibly stupid - not their fault.

Consider the fact that, since our universe erupted from the super hot, tremendously dense butthole of some parallel universe 14 billion years ago, a 400 quadrillion second long string of events, considered random only by people who have yet to figure out that there's no such thing, has preceded the present, making your sitting there in your little chair picking your nose the culmination of a magnificently intricate and complicated web of gazillions of reactions.

Every particle involved in an event as seemingly chaotic and random as an explosion follows the laws of physics, and will behave accordingly. The inability of your limited brain to predict the outcome such events just because they're highly complicated doesn't make them "random".

 Posted Image

Still think you have the ability to quit drinking coffee if you "decide to" and "exercise your will power"? You'll quit if your body just happens to while experiencing the sensations associated with these hallucinations, but the gratitude and pride you attribute to yourself and Steve Pavlina or whatever dopey self help blog you read regularly will be grossly misplaced.

Of course, none of this means you can't root for yourself as long as you remain under the influence of the facts of this article, which probably won't be long anyway, so who cares.


February 9, 2011 - Super Bowl Ad Rundown: My obligatory take on a number of Super Bowl ads, and how I'd have made them better:

Doritos: Best Part – Some freak sucking Doritos cheese off coworkers' fingers and having orgasms. Don't get it. The guy seems to have a pretty decent job, and a bag of Doritos costs like, 75 cents. Buy a bag.

Would've been much better if: The guy's male coworkers dipped their penises in Doritos cheese, then laughed as this poor, sick freak washed their dicks clean with his tongue through tortured sobs, unable to stop himself.

Chevy Cruze (+ Facebook) – After kissing his first date goodnight, a young man immediately checks his Facebook page – implanted in his car's rearview mirror – to discover the girl logged on her own account within two milliseconds of the date being over to give him a favorable review.  Good Lord.

Would've been much better if: The Chevy Cruze the guy was operating while staring at his Facebook page in his rearview mirror ran over Mark Zuckerberg, then straight into a brick wall.

Best Buy: Ozzy vs. Bieber - Its easy to point to a combination of age and his rapacious, calculating wife as the causes for Ozzy turning into such a douche bag, but the fact is, he always kind of sucked. The only real difference between Ozzy and my grandpa who thinks he's an astronaut living in the year 1963 is my grandfather never lucked his way into being the front man for one of the most famous metal bands of all time.

Would've been much better if: 150 million people were made to say in unison, "Who are these two people I’ve never seen or heard of before in my life?"

PepsiMAX: Love Hurts – Airing with 13:12 seconds left in the first quarter, Pepsi misses the record for quickest crotch-shot ad by fifty-five seconds.  Maybe if the Steelers had thrown it more on their opening three-and-out...

Would've been much better if: The man getting hit in the nuts was really hit in the nuts, only instead of being some guy it was Pepsi Co.'s chief executive of sales and marketing, and instead of getting hit with a Pepsi can it was giant barn shovel.

Budweiser: Wild West – Rugged, implicitly violent outlaw drinks Bud, reinforces gay cowboy stereotypes by breaking into Elton John song.

Would've been much better if: the character was flamingly gay, only to morph into a Slayer shrieking neanderthal after chugging a Pabst Blue Ribbon.

 

Posts: 798
0 votes RE: Lessons in Apathy

Correct.

Though randomness does exist and it dictates reality, quantum mechanics.jpg

Posts: 2266
0 votes RE: Lessons in Apathy

Correct.

Though randomness does exist and it dictates reality, quantum mechanics.jpg

It depends on what you mean by randomness, it does exist but you have to be very careful when saying 'it dictates reality'. What reality? If you mean our perception, then yes, if you mean randomness is inherent to reality itself outside of us then not necessarily. 

last edit on 11/19/2020 8:39:14 PM
Posts: 798
0 votes RE: Lessons in Apathy

I don't think anyone is in a position where they can say something about reality outside of their perception. 

But solipsist shitpost aside, what do you mean by that, my rudimentary understanding is that when a quantum thingy has a state defined by probabilities, it's everywhere at once, with the particular probability weights, rather than it being in a single place from the get go before we observe it. Is that not correct? So that randomness would be a part of the world outside our perception too.

Posts: 2266
0 votes RE: Lessons in Apathy

I don't think anyone is in a position where they can say something about reality outside of their perception. 

Yes, this fucks me up quite often when I choose not to ignore it. 

But solipsist shitpost aside, what do you mean by that, my rudimentary understanding is that when a quantum thingy has a state defined by probabilities, it's everywhere at once, with the particular probability weights, rather than it being in a single place from the get go before we observe it. Is that not correct? So that randomness would be a part of the world outside our perception too.

 There is MetaMathematical arguments, Mathematical arguments, and then Physical arguments. 

Metamathematical argument:

Randomness is a mathematical abstraction that results from formalities of   axiomatic thinking that makes up Probability Theory. 

As such randomness is merely a human language construct as all mathematics is and cannot be said to be inherent to reality outside of the construct of human mathematics. As this relates to physical knowledge, given mathematics is the language in which this knowledge is expressed and known, we can only have knowledge of physical phenomena in so far as it is expressible by mathematical language. 

Mathematical Argument: 

Randomness is a property of a system for which we lack enough information to determine its outcome to a degree of uncertainty. 

In studying probability theory one finds that it is the study of systems, what we know about the system, and how that knowledge relates what we can say about the outcomes of that system. Systems that are said to be random or puesdo-random are systems we have uncertainty about and as such randomness as a property is not inherent to the system itself but rather an expression of the epistemological status of that system. 

Physical Argument: 

The argument concerning to 'randomness' in quantum mechanics is derived from Borns rule (I will not focus on as it is not the nail in the coffin of determinism) and Bell's Theorem. The Hidden variables argument is one proposed by Einstein when he says "God doesn't play dice", he is saying what seems to be 'random' in QM is a epistemological problem, the idea being there are hidden variables that if we knew would make the quantum system we are interested in deterministic. Bells Theorem did away with this and is considered QM canon but may fundamentally be incorrect. The arguments around the validity of Bells theorem have to do with the the relationship between the ontological status of the QM system superpositional status of the system. This relationship is played around in crack pot ways and in rigorous ways that actually have begun to show cracks in the theorem. 

 

Upshot: It depends on what you mean by random and it depends on what interpretation of QM you subscribe to. 

5 posts
This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.