You aren’t understanding. Your notion that the behavior of natural phenomena isn’t consistent (regular, deterministic) is untestifiable and indistinguishable from lying. Worse, we know there’s no undiscovered means of information transmission at physical scales. It’s Game Over.
Reply addressees: @HenryMalcom4 @KSI_HEADHUNT3R @Nationalist7346
Theme: Causality
-
You aren’t understanding. Your notion that the behavior of natural phenomena isn
-
Why black Swan? — small unpredictable things are more influential that all the p
Why black Swan? — small unpredictable things are more influential that all the predictable things. https://lap78.ask.fm/igoto/45DKECPW7B667HQMHN2IG6NM56NTFPI7SDTOLGVZD7SKZ7FI2MV5MIYLPJE4WRBQJDSKEVKGCYXXSTSRQR23EL7VHO7PVSDB5FFABFKQHVYTSM7CBGMGOOPVV22PLWTESSLYGBAY43MGBUUWIWLBSSKB5GIGRY4S2HOUR63FT6V3AYGHAZZHRW7M6FB3LNNB3F77ME24UF54ZBDSDEWV4CXSECGBOFRC2FI5ANDEUXHH4XAEOYBSPKCAJFZC7DQ=
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-15 01:30:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272340547114598401
-
Why black Swan? — small unpredictable things are more influential that all the p
Why black Swan? — small unpredictable things are more influential that all the predictable things. https://t.co/xnDDYsHGLh
-
And… the term is escaping me at the moment, but it means that the universe is
And… the term is escaping me at the moment, but it means that the universe is continuous and nothing in the universe is insulated from anything else. And, recently, there is no ‘room’ for additional forces post-quantum scale, so no ‘magic’ there.
Reply addressees: @IgnotusRex -
And… the term is escaping me at the moment, but it means that the universe is
And… the term is escaping me at the moment, but it means that the universe is continuous and nothing in the universe is insulated from anything else. And, recently, there is no ‘room’ for additional forces post-quantum scale, so no ‘magic’ there.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-14 01:27:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1271977628828872705
Reply addressees: @IgnotusRex
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1271975978135412736
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@IgnotusRex (Scientists ignore philosophers)BA like all paradoxes is false. Evidence is that we can and do choose even under marginal indifference by ever smaller competitions for our attention. (might need more explanation). PSF: realism, naturalism, regularity(soft determination), entropy.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1271975978135412736
-
It has nothing to do with Trump. It has nothing to do with Israel. And suggestin
It has nothing to do with Trump. It has nothing to do with Israel. And suggesting so is a very …. trivial … understanding of causality, demographics, and behavioral determinism.
Reply addressees: @Lurker157724598 @TheWitn25016851 -
It has nothing to do with Trump. It has nothing to do with Israel. And suggestin
It has nothing to do with Trump. It has nothing to do with Israel. And suggesting so is a very …. trivial … understanding of causality, demographics, and behavioral determinism.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-13 10:00:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1271744308757086211
Reply addressees: @Lurker157724598 @TheWitn25016851
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1271742132290813952
-
كلمة الله مكتوبة في نسيج الكون. لا يذكر البشر. تقول كلمة الله: هذه قوانين فيزيائ
كلمة الله مكتوبة في نسيج الكون. لا يذكر البشر. تقول كلمة الله: هذه قوانين فيزيائية. هذه قوانين طبيعية. هذه قوانين تطورية. إذا لم تطيعهم ، فستعاني وتتدهور وتختفي. لا يوجد دين يطيع هذه القوانين. لذلك ، لا يوجد دين يطيع كلمة الله. وكذب جميع الأنبياء. فقط أرسطو لا يكذب.
-
كلمة الله مكتوبة في نسيج الكون. لا يذكر البشر. تقول كلمة الله: هذه قوانين فيزيائ
كلمة الله مكتوبة في نسيج الكون. لا يذكر البشر. تقول كلمة الله: هذه قوانين فيزيائية. هذه قوانين طبيعية. هذه قوانين تطورية. إذا لم تطيعهم ، فستعاني وتتدهور وتختفي. لا يوجد دين يطيع هذه القوانين. لذلك ، لا يوجد دين يطيع كلمة الله. وكذب جميع الأنبياء. فقط أرسطو لا يكذب.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-13 09:23:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1271734927810232320
-
If I want to write analytically I can make your eyes bleed. If I want to explain
If I want to write analytically I can make your eyes bleed. If I want to explain causality I can make your ears bleed. If I want to get a message across quickly, the aphorism or epigram does us better service. I know when to use each. Follow me and you’ll see the consistency. 😉
Reply addressees: @Salamandrens @yat_es @Outsideness