[vantt1]

  multi-thousand dollar rig for K-ON vinyl
 

 
Needs a tube amp.

 

[NLNH]

I'm down! I'll read it! I just won't reply for a while since I will probably be busy tomorrow.
It's a B&O somethingorother. I forgot the full name already though :/
Dammit man, you're the only other person here with a tt though! Guess I'll go to some turntable forums when I'm ready to throw down money.

 
 
That's b&o begram rx, first tt from b&o, not the best but is fun : 3
 
well I'm not reli into tt though....
 
we do have some tubies btw 

 

[Tilpo]

Since I'm currently sufficiently bored, I'll express some of my philosophical thoughts as promised.

First I wish to discuss whether or not all propositions have a pre-determined truth value or not. That is in a less formal sense, whether or not every question has an answer.
I personally believe that this is indeed the case -- every statement can be either true or false, and it always takes on exactly one of those values. (I'm not an intuitionist. Those people believe that a statement can be true, false, or neither of the two, in a broad sense.)


However this leaves us with a slight dilemma. Because it makes sense that to assume that there are statements which can be both interpreted as true or as false without altering the consistency of the rest of the system. That is, there are things which are simply not provable in any way.

Most of such things are either completely independent of our reality (e.g. we cannot prove or disprove the existence of alternate universes that cannot interact with our own, or we wouldn't be able to measure the existence of a particle that does not interact with any other particle).
Or for example we can have a system that does interact with our reality, but it only manifests part of it. For example we can measure the difference in voltage between two points, but we cannot asses the actual voltage of a point without using something else as a reference. You could even say that such a thing is not defined, but it does exist mathematically -- it's just that the actual value doesn't have any influence on anything.
Furthermore there is Godels incompleteness theorem, which basically states that in any system which can express arithmetic there must be proportions that are true but not provable to be so. Now of course, reality doesn't deal necessarily with any arithmetic and can be completely independent of arithmetic, but we could extrapolate this to a more general setting where we can conclude that any system has propositions that are true but not provable.


If we see reality as all the set true propositions that we can interact with, (seems like a bit of weird definition, but I believe it has its own elegance), then we can conclude that our reality is a subset of the set of all true propositions. Furthermore, and this is extremely important, us humans have the ability of observing/measuring things about reality and we have the ability of using logical deduction to transform one true statement into another. However not all things that happen in reality can be deduced before they actually happen. That is our knowledge is the set of all the things we can measure and consequently applying our laws of logic to it a finite amount of times.
It should be clear that the set of our knowledge is a subset of reality which is a subset of all true propositions. Simply because we can never make definite predictions about the future, but things in the future happen regardless of our ability to predict them.

Now this may sound rather boring but it has implications. Consider for example any statement about the future, e.g. "this ball will drop from the table somewhere between 2 and 4 seconds from now". With my theory, this statement is either true or false. And since the truth value of this is observable (it interacts with reality), it must have a predetermined value.
Now let's be careful. I never said that the truth value of this statement could be deduced by us, but it is clear that either the ball will or will not fall in the given time interval (disregarding any ambiguity of measuring time or assessing when exactly the ball falls).

Furthermore, even though there is the law of cause and effect, if we know perfectly the current state of the universe we still would fail to predict the future simply because our tools of deduction themselves are limited. The laws of logic alone are not enough to prove everything, and if we would be able to prove everything then things would become inconsistent.

Every observable event does have a definite cause and effect, but its only possible to asses the effect and not the cause. We can only model the cause in a limited way, even though the cause does exist. (it exists but may not be constructible by our logic)


From these rantings we can conclude that the universe is indeed deterministic, but acts like it's not. Reality is fundamentally indistinguishable from being deterministic or random.
We can also come up with the following important question:
Whether or not reality is deterministic is not provable, so why bother assuming it is? This is a tough matter and indeed I admit only assuming determinism through aesthetics and Occam's Razor. It's also like asking, 'why are we using mathematics when we know that it's impossible to prove mathematics is consistent or not?', with the answer being: it seems to work pretty well, so why the hell not?

Also since we have concluded determinism, we can also conclude that there is no free will. However it does appear to us as if there is, simply because our consciousness is a formal system of it's own, and as such cannot deduce what it will do itself. As such, free will is apparent, but not actually true.

 

[DefQon]

  I think philosophy is something everyone can talk about if he just turns turns his brain on.

 
I don't think my brain is turned on atm, almost 2am and finally finished my briefing paper, damn thing took effort. 1500 word limit, precise and concise to the point, ended up with 3.5k words. Worked my way down to 1560, calling it quits and already submitted. :/
 
I've got a fuzzy brain atm.

 

[214324]

Quote: Tilpo

 From these rantings we can conclude that the universe is indeed deterministic, but acts like it's not.

Absolutely.
 
If the theory of the multiverse is indeed true and same with the idea of the many  worlds theory (there exists a world for every single difference and combination of those differences. For those who don't know this theory, say, for example, you are faced with the decision of choosing the red or the green apple. The world would diverge there so there would be two different worlds, one which you choose the green apple and one which you choose the red apple), then all of what will happen is indeed already predetermined. We can only examine the world we are in as of now and we don't have any other world to reference to show if our lives right now are random or predetermined (again, if the two hypotheses I stated earlier are true, then predetermination is what holds true).

 

[NLNH]

 
Hong Kong today.... rains like.... tropical forest!? 

 
This is the train station btw....

 

[jgray91]

Having a blast with this lately. http://www.edenofthewest.com/

I think I've shared this before though.

 

[BucketInABucket]

 
 
Hong Kong today.... rains like.... tropical forest!? 

 
This is the train station btw....

Don't forget festival walk...

 

[Exesteils]

 
 
Hong Kong today.... rains like.... tropical forest!? 

 
This is the train station btw....

That seems normal, at least where I come from anyway.

 

[NLNH]

  Don't forget festival walk...

 

 
Makes my day

 

[Exesteils]

Having a blast with this lately. http://www.edenofthewest.com/

I think I've shared this before though.

They were playing Yui's Ichiban no Takaramono when I looked into it. Faved.

 

[NLNH]

http://kissanime.com/Anime/Gyagu-Manga-Biyori/Episode-009?id=17708 《－－－ for those who like mahou shojo

 

[jgray91]

Well, well, well. KILL LA KILL can't end in a more weird ending than a Gainax ending, the good ones. Still, for Gainax endings, TTGL is still better.

 

[bowei006]

  quite nice indeed.... I got some cds as well and will do an AB test some time soon : 3
 
No hissing/noise/wtever btw, the vinyls play nicely

I see you are using that cart I sent
 

Haven't seen that guy in ages I --
-- Why hello there. Happy birthday.
How's your band doing?

 
Yeah!! HAI HAI!

We may not be enjoying controversial conversation about politics, but what about philosophy? Anyone up for that?
I have some things I would love to discuss with others, but since it takes some time to write out my thoughts in a clear manner, I'm not going to do it if nobody wants to talk back to me.

 
I'm good with philosophy Give me some

  WUG was everything I had hoped for in an idol anime. Growth, turbulence, and an a**hole CEO you can legitimately hate. 7/10. Would have been an 8/8.5 if they had gone that extra mile for the last dance scene

 
Yeah, wUG was pretty decent watch
 

Lol, no. I don't even read much philosophy books. I have tried several times, and usually there are some interesting things noted in such books, but most of it is just stuff I truly do not agree with. Most of my philosophical thoughts are stuff that I came up with myself (but have not been the first person to come up with).

Well, I'd maybe use some results from mathematical logic, but if I do I'll be sure to carefully explain it. For example I am of the opinion that Gödel's' incompleteness theorems has profound implications on philosophy. Perhaps it's a given with my background that I may provide a different perspective on some philosophical things.

I recommend trying them. I thought the same as you before, that I didn't need to read them.
 
But once you read even 4 philosphical theories, it will change your mind on how philosphy and ethics work. 
 
I mainly dealth with Ethics and morality.
 
John Rawls State of Nature, and John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and Hobbes Natural Law are good places to start.
 
 

Since I'm currently sufficiently bored, I'll express some of my philosophical thoughts as promised.

First I wish to discuss whether or not all propositions have a pre-determined truth value or not. That is in a less formal sense, whether or not every question has an answer.
I personally believe that this is indeed the case -- every statement can be either true or false, and it always takes on exactly one of those values. (I'm not an intuitionist. Those people believe that a statement can be true, false, or neither of the two, in a broad sense.)


However this leaves us with a slight dilemma. Because it makes sense that to assume that there are statements which can be both interpreted as true or as false without altering the consistency of the rest of the system. That is, there are things which are simply not provable in any way.

Most of such things are either completely independent of our reality (e.g. we cannot prove or disprove the existence of alternate universes that cannot interact with our own, or we wouldn't be able to measure the existence of a particle that does not interact with any other particle).
Or for example we can have a system that does interact with our reality, but it only manifests part of it. For example we can measure the difference in voltage between two points, but we cannot asses the actual voltage of a point without using something else as a reference. You could even say that such a thing is not defined, but it does exist mathematically -- it's just that the actual value doesn't have any influence on anything.
Furthermore there is Godels incompleteness theorem, which basically states that in any system which can express arithmetic there must be proportions that are true but not provable to be so. Now of course, reality doesn't deal necessarily with any arithmetic and can be completely independent of arithmetic, but we could extrapolate this to a more general setting where we can conclude that any system has propositions that are true but not provable.


If we see reality as all the set true propositions that we can interact with, (seems like a bit of weird definition, but I believe it has its own elegance), then we can conclude that our reality is a subset of the set of all true propositions. Furthermore, and this is extremely important, us humans have the ability of observing/measuring things about reality and we have the ability of using logical deduction to transform one true statement into another. However not all things that happen in reality can be deduced before they actually happen. That is our knowledge is the set of all the things we can measure and consequently applying our laws of logic to it a finite amount of times.
It should be clear that the set of our knowledge is a subset of reality which is a subset of all true propositions. Simply because we can never make definite predictions about the future, but things in the future happen regardless of our ability to predict them.

Now this may sound rather boring but it has implications. Consider for example any statement about the future, e.g. "this ball will drop from the table somewhere between 2 and 4 seconds from now". With my theory, this statement is either true or false. And since the truth value of this is observable (it interacts with reality), it must have a predetermined value.
Now let's be careful. I never said that the truth value of this statement could be deduced by us, but it is clear that either the ball will or will not fall in the given time interval (disregarding any ambiguity of measuring time or assessing when exactly the ball falls).

Furthermore, even though there is the law of cause and effect, if we know perfectly the current state of the universe we still would fail to predict the future simply because our tools of deduction themselves are limited. The laws of logic alone are not enough to prove everything, and if we would be able to prove everything then things would become inconsistent.

Every observable event does have a definite cause and effect, but its only possible to asses the effect and not the cause. We can only model the cause in a limited way, even though the cause does exist. (it exists but may not be constructible by our logic)


From these rantings we can conclude that the universe is indeed deterministic, but acts like it's not. Reality is fundamentally indistinguishable from being deterministic or random.
We can also come up with the following important question:
Whether or not reality is deterministic is not provable, so why bother assuming it is? This is a tough matter and indeed I admit only assuming determinism through aesthetics and Occam's Razor. It's also like asking, 'why are we using mathematics when we know that it's impossible to prove mathematics is consistent or not?', with the answer being: it seems to work pretty well, so why the hell not?

Also since we have concluded determinism, we can also conclude that there is no free will. However it does appear to us as if there is, simply because our consciousness is a formal system of it's own, and as such cannot deduce what it will do itself. As such, free will is apparent, but not actually true.

 
 
 
Your theories and usage of philosphy differ from how I use mine. You use your philosophy as a way to answer the actions and true causes of the world while I see and use philosphy as a way to explain human action.
 
So let me write my own
 
First a prenote on the three philosphical theories I will use.
 
John Rawls Original Position is held that if you were to ever decide on a topic. You should therefore be in a state of nature in where you know nothing about yourself. In that say you and thousands others were to decide on women's suffarage or on a declaration to give foodstamps to the poor. In this case, nobody in the room would know who they were and thus it provides to them, a way to make fully objective decisions to the best of their ability
 
Mill's Utilitarianism, whichever action provides the most happiness is best with some exception.
 
Hobbe's state of nature is a fundamental aggreement to governmental rule and society. Stating that governments and civil rule are needed and are pre-agreed to. Where society can not operate without such things for any person out there can do terrible things to another person. Without any civil law or govt, this will be allowed to happen. And thus nobody will want to work, get stuff done, innovate, and will fear for their lives. Thus a government is needed. HOWEVER the more important part of this is that this pact with society is thus pre-agreeded to. In where you doing something 'wrong' by the laws standards doesn't mean that it is wrong, but rather a violation of the agreement to follow the rules of nature that you yourself decided to join into. That everyone here today does something and should do something that is acceptable within the agreement that they signed. This agreement does not have to by physically signed but is something that you automatically are thrown into just by joining society.
 
We see many arguments against the former Communism in the Eastern bloc and about freedom of choice and oppurtunity. An example being an entrepreneur that came from Romania because he couldn't raise capital over there to fund his project. Whereas the West, and America does.
The first statement being that this is not Communism vs Capitalism. Those two words are words that only sheep need to care about. It's just another us vs them mentality.
 
But rather that the two systems used different institutions of thought. Communism did many things that were valuable and beloved in the Eastern bloc (the majority of people who lived in the soviet union wish for its return, and the people you hear spouting about it are the children of those who escaped) however it didn't capitalize on the institution of human want and need

Where you can better control people by giving them something to work for, to institutionalize them into your state of nature. (debt, housing, familial duties) and create a blindness there. The Communist bloc didn't do this as efficently, and rrelied on the collective's want rather than the individual's. Therefore it be held that creating a situation or institution where you make people believe in what they are doing, and make them 'happy' in that sense is the best way of controlling them. This is a perversion of Mill's Utilitarianism but still holds true as one of the failures of the Communist bloc but one that countries such as China, Cuba, and Vietnam amongst others are adopting today(or have) into their Marxist/Socialist systems. 
 
And thus allows the .001% to not need to even use John Rawl's Original Position because the sheep are too blind in their institutionalized happiness to care about how objective, moral, or innately good the actions their countries are doing.

---

 
My train of thought has evolved from this to one of where it thus be that every country should seek Absolute Dominion over its competitors by any way possible irregardless of its morality, humane-ness, or will to an extent of acceptance as a way of providing its people a better life using that blind happiness on them. 

 

[Exesteils]

Kira*Kira 5th Anniversary Live Anime: Kick Start Generation

 
Got Translated! Yessss. Time for some Overdrive nostalgia.