Parallel postulate Puns

I recently saw a comment here suggesting there's a line of thought that tries to explain that there is no genuine disagreement between classical and intuitionistic logic, despite the former affirming (p or not-p) and the latter denying it: Given that the two logics offer different descriptions of what it means for a disjunction (p or q) to be true, we should better think of them simply talking about different things. One is OR-in-classical-logic, the other is OR-in-intuitionistic-logic. So to say that they disagree about (p or not-p) as a validity is like saying two people disagree about "it's snowing outside" when they live in different places. Of course there's no real disagreement, they're not talking about the same statement.

This made me think, can't we take this to an extreme and only speak like this, and thereby avoid pluralism in logic and math? We could cease to speak about the parallel postulate, and only speak of the parallel-postulate-for-Euclidean-spaces and the parallel-postulate-for-Hyperbolic-spaces, and assign a unique truth value to each?

This just seems like a clearer manner of speaking and also defuse some philosophical puzzles. But given how simple this thought is, are there any relevant objections why this isn't a good idea?

Is the proposition that two parallel lines intersected by a transversal have congruent corresponding angles a postulate or a theorem? I read "postulate" as "assumed to be true" and "theorem" as "can be proven true."

A bright 12 year old who has a feel for geometry showed me the following "proof" of "only one parallel line through a point".

1. You can draw only one perpendicular through an external point P to a line L, because all the other are longer and tilted.

2. Then you take your compass, stretch it to the length of the perpendicular.

3. Then construct another perpendicular of the same length on that line.

4. Connect the tops of the two lines by another line, which must be parallel because the two distances are identical.

This kid then said: I know I must be wrong somewhere because the Great and Powerful Euclid said its a postulate, and what could a 12 year old know about it anyway :-)

I thought of pointing out that "perpendiculars are not unique on the sphere" using the Bear on the North Pole riddle, or saying something about "flatness == one parallel line == equal distance throughout", but this kind of answer seems sort of thought-terminating.

Ideally I would like a sketch for a longish discussion where we can end up learning something neat about the the core axioms, non Euclidean geometry with examples, without being tiresome or too lecture-y. Anybody here know of a book that has such a discussion, or can /r/math help create one?

Edit: Inspired by /u/InfanticideAquifer's response below. Are there interesting completely non-geometrical interpretations of Euclidean Axioms? That is, not even Taxicab or Finite Point geometries.

Full Question:

Sarai loves music and decides to paint a music staff on her bedroom wall. She knows that it is important to make the lines parallel, or the end result will not look correct. She pencils in the image below, but before she uses paint, she wants to make sure the lines are parallel. Remembering what she has learned in Geometry class, she uses a piece of tape to make a transversal and decides to measure some angles.

Using Sarai’s measurements, Line 1 must be parallel to Line 3 according to which postulate or theorem?

This one has a lot to unpack I think I understand the general of what it's saying, it's just a lot to unpack and a lot of definitions to go through. I'm thinking it's Converse of Alternate Interior Angles Theorem (Answer 2) but I'm just not quite sure. Thanks in advance kind Redditors

Image: https://imgur.com/a/yrpR8Gw

I understand that it is not intuitive as postulates should be but how does this exactly affect the foundations of euclidean geometry?

How might I identify which of Euclid's propositions require the parallel postulate? I know the postulate, but even after looking at the list of "Yes" and "No" as to whether or not the PP is required, I am still confused. Some of them don't even seem to be involving parallel lines.

I look up the definition and it mentions Euclid. The best information I've gotten so far was from Wolfram alpha but even that wasn't much help. I kind of need to visualize it Also: what is its relationship to physics and dimensions if any?

In my college geometry homework, I am asked to show that Euclid's proposition 30 (the transitivity of parallel lines) is equivalent to his fifth postulate. In general, I know that I need to use prop 30 to prove the fifth postulate and vice versa, but I don't even know where to start. Any help is appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Edit: I think I may have found how to show that proposition 30 implies the fifth postulate, but I still need help in the other direction.

In standard euclidean geometry, if you move some length, let's say L, forward, and then spin 90°, and repeat three more times (4 in total), you'll land at where you started.

In spherical geometry, you only have to do the process three times to get back at the point where you stared. In hyperbolic geometry you'll have to repeat it five times.

My question is, are there any more of these "geometries"? Is there some weird "surface" on which you'd have to do this eg. seven of eight times to get where you started?

I suppose there is a sort of surface where it's true for one. Imagine a L×L square, where every distance is "modular" to L, that is if we move 2L units right we land on the same spot as if we had move L units, or not moved at all. I guess a cylinder with circumference L would have this property, but only in one direction, and a "donut" would have this property in two directions, but never in all directions.

Any (preferably somewhat approachable) help would be really appreciated. I've only done high-school maths so far :)

Once again, a post reply grew into a tangent that I think stands on its own as its own topic.

>a show called Discovery about a ship called Discovery

...and they don't discover anything! They have a space-magic go literally fucking anywhere drive and they do literally zero exploration with it over the course of three seasons now. In a Star Trek show! Hell, they managed to do more exploration on DS9 and that was literally focused on a set location. This is utterly inexcusable.

It comes down to the fact that the show is being produced by and for people who consider science fiction to be, at best, a metaphorical lens for examining modern day reality and at worst simply a setting for otherwise conventional action-adventure and drama stories. Even if it were competently written, it couldn't escape this fundamental disinterest from both its production team and its core audience in anything beyond our world as it is.

They don't tell stories of space exploration because the very idea of it bores them to tears. They aren't interested in serious speculation about the future, or worldbuilding what alien societies might be like, or delving into new ideas or playing with concepts. They lack even the most basic understanding of science let alone how space works so they aren't interested in stories about speculative scientific or space concepts, either. None of that is relatable to them, because it lacks the direct relevance to mundane modern reality that is the only thing they understand and all they want to think or talk about.

In Isaac Asimov's classic short story Nightfall, the focus is on a planet that exists in a globular cluster and has not seen night in over two thousand years. As its scientists recognize the ultra-rare conditions that will see half the planet without sunlight for the first time since well before the dawn of advanced civilization on their world, they are deeply troubled at the realization of the mass panic and resulting chaos this will incite in the less-educated populace. In particular they fear mass violence sparked by a religious myth dating back to the last time this phenomenon occurred, written as a supernatural explanation of events the primitive people of the time had no other context to understand. As night closes in, all they can do is get the word out as best they can and hunker down to ride out the chaos to come.

So what's the

I know that there are alternatives to propositional logic, like modal logic and intuitionistic logic – but these alternative logic systems still model our intuitions more or less.

Are there any other logic systems which intentionally disagree with our intuitions, but are still internally consistent? For example, our intuitions say that the modus ponens must be true. We can’t even fathom a world where “if p then q” is true and p is true, but q isn’t true. But is there a logic system where modus ponens could not be true?

To motivate this question, consider non Euclidean geometries. The parallel postulate is intuitive the same way that modus ponens are intuitive. It’s extremely difficult to fathom hyperbolic worlds (which aren’t embedded in Euclidean space.) It took mathematicians centuries before they even considered rejecting the parallel postulate, which led to them developing non Euclidean geometries like spherical geometry and hyperbolic geometry, which are both fundamentally incompatible with our intuitions of space. But it turned out that studying these unintuitive systems led to interesting and rich discovers.

Could there (or are there) similarly “unintuitive” logical systems? Maybe a logical system where p and not p can simultaneously be true? Could we explore systems like that and eventually discover rich worlds, analogous to non Euclidean geometry?

Hi fellow retards!

My hypothesis and granted this may have already been postulated here is that the hedgers had enough liquidity in Jan to short GME and temper the price back down. Now it appears that they’ve run out of liquidity and are forced to sell their income generating securities to continue to short in an act of desperation.

As a parallel - consider it from a mortgage perspective they’re trying to stave of foreclosure by first burning through savings and now they’re selling off their valuable possessions. So they can’t borrow off margin, they are out of cash and now they’re selling off their source of income. Which by the way hurts the passive investors that like their ETF stocks, but the hedges don’t give a shit. They just want to short GME no matter the cost.

The mortgage allegory reminds me of say the 2008 crisis - I used to be a loan officer and the exotic sub prime mortgages were horse shit. You could qualify for a mortgage back then with a DTI (debt to income ratio) of 65%. For those unaware DTI is the ratio of your GROSS income vs the PITI of your home and all revolving and installment debt on your credit report. It does not factor in payments for utilities, food, gas. So they assume people can afford a house with the 35% of gross fucking income after their monthly debt is paid? No. Now the opposite is happening again. They deserve this for their insatiable greed and lack of compassion for anyone but themselves.

Hedgies have no cash and selling their income generating stocks to continue this fight. Eventually they’ll run out of those and will have no choice but to cover no matter the price. They fucking deserve it. From their ashes I hope we can build a market that is free and open without their influence and heavy shorting a float will be illegal. If I want to pay x dollars for a stock, that’s my business. Shorting is bullshit. Think a company is overvalued? Then close your position and find another fucking stock. The government should be appalled. Trying to BK a company not only puts thousands out of a job, but reduces the income tax stream from them to the gov’t. Not only that but now they’re on the govt payroll via unemployment. All this so they can profit off of destruction. Fuck. You. Long post I’m sorry.

TLDR: hedgies are going to burn for their atrocities.

My position: 914 shares of GME and one 3/5 $100 call. The shares I’d be willing to part with for say a minimum of 4 figures per share. Maybe 5 who knows? 42,069 per share

*I just want to preface this as conjecture, and a "what if" discussion. Not anything remotely definitive.

I'm sure most die hard researchers here are aware that there might be a connection with aliens and cryptids. Besides the fact they're both in the category of the paranormal, there has been reports of UFO sightings either immediately before or after an encounter with a cryptid. Its been postulated that Bigfoot might actually be an Extraterrestrial, or Ultraterrestrial in nature. Also the Mothman of Point Pleasant folklore was reported to have precognition of events, something that is also associated with encounters with ET. A strange parallel in my opinion. Also the Varginha, Brazil event, where a large number of citizen saw ETs roaming the city, described what most commonly associated with the description of a Chupacabra. The ETs had horns, brown skin, talon like feet, and red eyes. Very suspiciously similar to a chupacabra.

Ok, so what if there is some connection. It's just a thought but what if most crytids encounters are just encounters of ET that have somehow crossed into our world. Anybody who has researched Skinwalker Ranch will know what I mean. I mean there just seems to be circumstances around both phenomena that seems peculiar to me. Also something to consider is the reports with contactees saying they want DNA, or obsessed with our genetic material. Could it be possible that some cryptids are just science projects and that these advance beings are just mad scientist playing with life?

Again, this post is just food for thought. I'm pretty bored lately. Again I feel back into the rabbit hole after being out of it for a long time. I don't feel strongly either way, since we don't have any concrete evidence any how. The only thing I can say for certain is that there is some high strangeness in this world, and the reductionists out there that think everything can be quantified or explained away by our current understanding of physics is in for a rude awaking.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RBL24Z1HY93MM

R4: The author claims that Non-Euclidean geometries are believed to be consistent due to the failure of attempts to derive the parallel postulate from Euclid's other axioms. Of course this is not the case: the argument is actually that we can construct a model of non-Euclidean geometry assuming the consistency of Euclidean geometry, and therefore the consistency of non-Euclidean geometry follows from the consistency of Euclidean geometry.

One would be inclined to direct the author to Hilbert's quote about beer mugs. However, they are clearly aware of this line of argument and reject it because 'one cannot make an inference about something, presently the postulate, by changing meanings of words in it. One is then speaking about something else.' I can't comment on how this relates to Euclid's understanding over 2000 years ago, but from a contemporary perspective this is nonsense.

Edit: How I feel after making this post

So in the latest episode of Wonder Egg Priority one of the trauma's posed a question to Neiru and one of the egg girls. The question was to find the radius of the circle that circumscribes that intersects the points A, B, C, and D. Now this crazy looking professor dude claimed that it was impossible with a zero percent success rate...I immediately pressed X to doubt. The girls said that no such circle exists, but is that really the case? Well I will find the answer to that question.

The full written proof will be found in the following four photos:

1. Proof Part 1
2. Proof Part 2
3. Proof Part 3
4. Proof Part 4

Or hopefully this formatting works out and I can directly add the images:

First, as seen in proof part 1 we are given a generic non-representative look at a 4-gon (4-gon is a polygon with 4 sides, aka a quadrilateral) inscribed in a circle and we are given the length of each of the sides of the 4-gon. The length of the sides are: A_B = 7, B_C = 11, C_D = 11, and A_D = 9. This is all the information we need to solve this problem.

Solving this problem requires us to find out 3 things

1. Is there a circle that circumscribes points A, B, and C?
2. Where is point D located?
3. If there is a circle that circumscribes points triangle formed about points A, B, and C, will it also contain point D on the circle's perimeter?

So LET'S GET STARTED!!!!!

First let us establish the coordinate system that we will be working in. The most convenient coordinate system, I believe, is the one centered on point B with the central axes aligning with lines A_B and B_C because A_B and B_C are perpendicular. This makes the coordinates of points A, B and C:

A = (0,7)

B = (0,0)

C = (11,0)

Proof part 1

Next we move onto Proof Part 2 where we want to find the circle that intersects points A, B, and C. The stand equation for a circle is as follows:

(x-h)^2 + (y-k)^2 = r^2 (or)--> x^2 - 2hx + h^2 + y^2 - 2ky + y^2 - r^2 = 0 (1)

Where h and k are constants t

What are your thoughts on the common explanation og Gödel's theroem as meaning that there will always be statements that are true but unprovable?

Personally, I rather hate this explanation as it seems to me to be patently false: my understanding is that the theorem says that any formal language will result in contradictions and/or have statements which can be proven neither true nor false from within that language.

Equivalently, if a given formal language does not result in contradictions, there will be at least one statement within that language, call it S, such that there will be at least one model of that language where S is provably true and at least one model where it's provably false. The standard example is that the parallel postulate is independent of Euclid's other 4 postulates - there are consistent models of those four axioms where it's true -- Euclidean geometries -- and others where it's false -- non-Euclidean geometries.

Hence, seeing as any such statement will necessarily be true in some models and false in others, I really don't understand why incompleteness is so often characterized as meaning an incomplete system/language will contain true statements which are unprovable. What's with the emphasis on truth? We could as easily say it will contain statements which are false but can't be proven false, though that's not accurate either, as the true value of such a statement is simply independent of the relevant system.

However, I've heard this explanation so many times and often by people who really should know what they're talking about that it makes me wonder if I'm missing something. Anyone want to weigh in?

Protestantism, liberalism, socialism, feminism, etc. are all similar errors regarding the the legitimacy and nature of authority.

Protestantism is the denial of the legitimacy of Popes’ and bishops’ authority on the basis that all the baptized are priests (universal priesthood), and so all ministers are merely laymen who happen to carry out the role of priest for the convenience of the rest of the assembly and serve from and by their consent. As Martin Luther put it:

>>How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry and consented to by us? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

Meanwhile, liberalism parallels Protestantism: if Protestantism is the application of these ideas to the Church, liberalism is their application to the political realm. If Protestantism is “all are priests,” liberalism is “all are kings.” Thus, all men are created equal, which Jefferson explains means this:

>>I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. that form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. a

Hi,

The following is an extract from a discussion on youtube about the nature of Consciousness, particularly, whether or not it is scientifically possible that Consciousness is an intrinsic property of physical Energy.

Flair: Personal Speculation

Obection:

"No, you have not solved the hard problem, you have just moved it one level down; now the problem is how is it that particles and energy are Conscious? This seems like you have made the hard problem even harder to solve, because we cannot ask particles for their subjective experience as we do for humans."

Thanks for your comments. Let’s analyse this technically according to the strictures of the scientific method. Scientific theories are built upon postulates. Postulates are simple, logical assumptions upon which a scientific theory is built.

With respect to Consciousness, ( and assuming Consciousness exists, which we implicitly do whenever we attempt to construct a theory of Consciousness ) there are two possible scientific postulates concerning the existence of Consciousness.

According to modern science, all that has physical existence in our Universe, is physical Energy ( and physical matter, and physical matter formed out of physical Energy according to E = mc^2 ) existing within the dimensions of spacetime, as technically defined by Einstein in his General Relativity.

Then, we are formed out of nothing except for physical Energy existing within spacetime, and we are conscious. Thus the two possible postulates are,

1. The basic Energy created in the big bang, was, and remains, non-conscious. And Consciousness discontinuously switches on, or “emerges”, around special configurations of non-conscious Energy, such as our brains.

Our, my perfectly logical and scientific alternative postulate,

2. The basic Energy created in the big bang possessed, and still possesses, Consciousness as an intrinsic property.

This second is provably a valid scientific postulate; Energy must have possessed some fundamental properties at the point of creation or else it wouldn't have existed; something with no fundamental physical properties, doesn't physically exist. And science already postulates that Energy has some fundamental properties, I'm just adding Consciousness to this set.

And postulating intrinsic Consciousness has exactly the same status as a scientific theory as the current canonical interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is known as “the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Copenha

started: 3/04/21

----

DEFINING OUR TRAPEZOID STRUCTURE

b=p-a-c-d

(trapezoid) b=y

(trapezoid) a=u

u=b=(p-a-c-d)

u=b-a=(p-a-c-d)-a

a=(t)b-p-c-d

y=(2[(t)b-p-c-d]-a)/([p-a-c-d]-a)-a

y=(2u)/(B-u)

t=(2o)/(B-o)

y=(2u)/(B-u)

RECURRING OUR LINES TO PENTAGONS

P of pentagon=S+S+S+S+S

In our equation u=S

P=u+u+u+u+u

360°/5=72°

180°-72°=108°

Define each u with points u⎯A-B, u⎯B-C, u⎯C-D, u⎯D-E, u⎯E-A

Reduce each u from line with points A-B, B-C, C-D, D-E, E-A

∠ACB=∠CCD=∠CDE=∠DEA=∠EAB=108°

P of pentagon=S+S+S+S+S

In our equation y=S

P=y+y+y+y+y

Define each y with Points y⎯A-B, y⎯B-C, y⎯C-D, y⎯D-E, y⎯E-A

Reduce each y from line with points A-B, B-C, C-D, D-E, E-A

∠ACB=∠CCD=∠CDE=∠DEA=∠EAB=108°

P of pentagon=S+S+S+S+S

In our equation o=S

P=o+o+o+o+o

Define each o with Points o⎯A-B, o⎯B-C, o⎯C-D, o⎯D-E, o⎯E-A

Reduce each o from line with points A-B, B-C, C-D, D-E, E-A

∠ACB=∠CCD=∠CDE=∠DEA=∠EAB=108°

P of pentagon=S+S+S+S+S

In our equation t=S

P=t+t+t+t+t

Define each t with Points t⎯A-B, t⎯B-C, t⎯C-D, t⎯D-E, t⎯E-A

Reduce each t from line with points A-B, B-C, C-D, D-E, E-A

∠ACB=∠CCD=∠CDE=∠DEA=∠EAB=108°

----(b does not equal B, a does not equal A)

Kilted Weirdo’s (Paul Dean Charlton 2) Golden Geometric Beginning Postulate

A=u

B=y-u

y=(2u)/(B-u)

t=(2o)/(B-o)

u+v=w+v=Φ where v=1

y+x=z+x=Φ where x=1

o+q=p+q=Φ where q=1

t+r=s+r=Φ where r=1

u-v=w-v

y-x=z-x

o-q=p-q

t-r=s-r

yπ=o

xπ=q

zπ=p

([yπ+π]+x=[zπ+π]+x where x=1)=(o+q=p+q where q=1)

zπ+π=o

t=s=p+π=o+π

o=p=zπ+π=yπ+π

y=z=w+π=u+π

u=w=s+π=t+π

----

(sphere design starter)

Kilted Weirdo’s (Paul Dean Charlton 2) Golden Pie Paradigm

A=u

B=y-u

y=(0.5u)/(B-u)

t=(0.5o)/(B-o)

u+v=w+v=Φ where v=1

y+x=z+x=Φ where x=1

o+q=p+q=Φ where q=1

t+r=s+r=Φ where r=1

u-v=w-v

y-x=z-x

o-q=p-q

t-r=s-r

yπ=o

xπ=q

zπ=p

([yπ+π]+x=[zπ+π]+x where x=1)=(o+q=p+q where q=1)

zπ+π=o

t=s=p+π=o+π

o=p=zπ+π=yπ+π

y=z=w+π=u+π

u=w=s+π=t+π

----

(matter compressor design starter)

Kilted Weirdo’s (Paul Dean Charlton 2) Golden Ouroboros Theorem (including GHOT)

----

A=u= originating input measurement

B=y-u

y=2u/B-u

t=2o/B-o

u+v=w+v=Φ where v=1

y+x=z+x=Φ where x=1

o+q=p+q=Φ where q=1

t+r=s+r=Φ where r=1

u-v=w-v

y-x=z-x

o-q=p-q

t-r=s-r

yπ=o

xπ=q

zπ=p

([yπ+π]+x=[zπ+π]+x where x=1)=(o+q=p+q where q=1)

----

Kilted Weirdo’s (Paul Dean Charlton 2) Golden Hearted Fibonacci Theorem

Connecting Fibonacci:

u+v=(a+b)/a=b/a

A few years ago, I wrote this history and lore of House Darklyn of Duskendale, mostly because I was disappointed that AWOIAF did not have a proper Crownlands chapter to delve into the history of the region. Over the years, the Darklyns have become my favorite secondary house in Westeros (I blame the CK2 mod for this obsession, from which I take inspiration). I have written a lot about them and developed a rather unique lore that is canon-compliant, but expands the canon all the same.

Today I figured, what the hell, maybe there are some weirdos like me out there who would enjoy to have a look at what I've come up. So, I've decided to share this write-up containing the basics of how I imagine Darklyn history could have been, to fill the canon void while following all canon hints and tracing them back to reverse engineer what could have been, given what we know of Darklyn imagery and their regional history. Naturally, this is all speculation, but still a fun exercise.

Enjoy! It would be cool to have a discussion in the comments, though that's probably asking too much.

Base COA by TiltschMaster on DeviantArt

Excerpt from Maester Darrelin's "Dusker Chronicles: Annals of the Darklyns of Duskendale from the first to the last Shadow King"

[...]

Beyond a doubt, Shadow Will Fall, the Darklyn words since times immemorial, are one of the most ominous house words in the Seven Kingdoms. They have often been compared to the better known Stark words, Winter is Coming, and not without reason. They are both warnings of dire times to come, as well as the implication of a threat to their house's enemies. Northerners, however, are always more literal and straightforward than the Andals and First Men south of the Neck, lacking the refinement and prosperity of the spring and summer courts. Their simplicity is mirrored in the bluntness of their words - clear for all to hear and see. By contrast, the Darklyn words take a more enigmatic form, and are open to multifaceted interpretations. What is the Shadow? Where will it fall? What does its fall mean? As the Starks are winter's personification, is the Shadow to be understood in correlation with the Darklyns?

Perhaps other similarities between House Stark and House Darklyn may shed further light upon the subject. They are both ancestral houses of the First Men and of royal blood. They we

(1) Threshold

The very first alert of something unusual happening may take between 3 to 30 seconds after inhaling the DMT, depending on the dose consumed. Rather than a clear sensorial or cognitive change, the very first hint is a change in the apparent ambiance of one’s setting. You know how at times when you enter a temple, an art museum, a crowd of people, or even just a well decorated restaurant you can abstract an undefinable yet clearly present “vibe of the place”? There’s nothing overt or specific about it. The ambiance of a place is more of an overall gestalt than a localized feeling. An ambiance somehow encodes information about the social, ideological and aesthetic quality of the place or community you just crashed into, and it tells you at a glance which moods are socially acceptable and which ones are discouraged. The specific DMT vibe you feel on a given session can be one of a million different flavors. That said, whether you feel like you entered a circus or joined a religious ceremony, the very first hint of a DMT experience is nonetheless always (or almost always) accompanied with an overall feeling of significance. The feeling that something important is about to happen or is happening is made manifest by the vibe of the state. This vibe is usually present for at least the first 150 seconds or so of the journey. Interestingly, the change in ambiance is shorter-lived than the trip itself; it seems to go away before the visuals vanish quickly declining once the the peak is over.

Within seconds after the change in ambiance, one feels a sudden sharpening of all the senses. Some people describe this as “upgrading one’s experience to an HD version of it”. The level of detail in one’s experience is increased, yet the overall semantic content is still fairly intact. People say things like: “Reality around me seems more crisp” and “it’s like I’m really grasping my surroundings, you know? fully in tune with the smallest textures of the things around me.” Terence Mckenna described this state as follows: “The air appears to suddenly have been sucked out of the room because all the colors brighten visibly, as though some intervening medium has been removed.”

On a schedule of repeated small doses (below 4 mg; preferably i.m.) one can stabilize this sharpening of the senses for arbitrarily long periods of time. I am a firm believer that this state (quite apart from the alien experiences on higher doses) can already be recruited for a variety of compu

I stumbled across a review as well as several interviews with this female German biologist, regarding her new book. Sadly there is no translation available yet and very few English interviews/reviews exist so I'll try to give an unbiased recap first (the only other English source I found for comparison: Link ). Sorry for the wall of text, with the recap it exploded ... TLDR at the bottom.

##Recap

The book is named "Female Choice - Of the beginnings and the end of male civilization". Essentially her thesis is that during the last few thousand years of human history, thanks to the agricultural revolution, men ended up running the show due to the large amount of food and safety they could generate. When this changed society from a (more) egalitarian tribal society to large civilizations that had a seperation of public and private life, women ended up being locked into the "mother" role and haven't gotten out from that.

In nature however, the (title-giving) principle of Female Choice is the leading system. Females of a species are nondescript, while sexual dimorphism makes the males woo the females through elaborate strategies or expensive sexual characteristics (for humans: Height, Strength, Beard ...). Marriage/Monogamy has completely undermined this system: While in nature few men would successfully reproduce and the top men were basically responsible for fathering all the children (aka women sharing chad), in monogamy almost every male, regardless of sexual attractivity gets a chance at reproducing if he only does as society tells him: Grow up, (join the army, survive,) get a degree.

She goes further to say that with monogamy becoming less relevant these days men need to realize that it's not going to continue as it once has. You can't just get your degree and your free wife alongside. Many men will not be able to reproduce so we, as a society, need to learn to respect sexually unsuccessful men: 80% of women go for 20% of men but this doesnt mean that 80% of men are crap, it just means that 20% of men are special, the exception. She even says that if we were to revert to a female choice society the amount of incels would seriously increase so measures need to be put in place to "normalize" incels: The narrative needs to be changed from "You have sex? You are awesome? You don't ? You are a loser" to something that allows these men to be respected: It should not be i

Go post NSFW jokes somewhere else. If I can't tell my kids this joke, then it is not a DAD JOKE.

If you feel it's appropriate to share NSFW jokes with your kids, that's on you. But a real, true dad joke should work for anyone's kid.

Mods... If you exist... Please, stop this madness. Rule #6 should simply not allow NSFW or (wtf) NSFL tags. Also, remember that MINORS browse this subreddit too? Why put that in rule #6, then allow NSFW???

Please consider changing rule #6. I love this sub, but the recent influx of NSFW tagged posts that get all the upvotes, just seem wrong when there are good solid DAD jokes being overlooked because of them.

Thank you,

A Dad.

INTRODUCTION

This analysis seeks to determine whether or not human extinction can be attributed, in part or full, to an observed increase in global rates of species-locus-self-loathing (local nomenclature is misanthropy; partially interchangeable and highly co-incidental with nihilism). Note that observed increases in species-locus-self-loathing do not describe increases in individual-locus-self-loathing (interestingly, the inverse is true; although that relationship is not a focus of this research). Furthermore, unlike conclusions drawn by earlier extinction prognosis analyses befalling similarly advanced but unrelated dominant species, this paper will be unique in endeavoring to establish unidirectional causality; species-locus-self-loathing substantially contributed to the extinction of Homo sapiens, but pressures derived from other extinction-contributing-factors were not an underlaying cause of species-locus-self-loathing among Homo sapiens.

Descendants of a long and principally prokaryotic lineage, itself emerging from the unlikely fringes of the civilized galaxy on a planet with middling habitability metrics, humanity (Homo sapiens; humankind; mankind) should have developed an ample sense of self worth for having existed at all. Abiogenesis and mutative-incidence modeling create a sober view of prospects for organic diversity on Earth-like-planets; that is to say, mid-tier terrestrial worlds bathed in the homogenous light and heat of a single G-type main-sequence star. Generally, it is exposure to varied forms of electromagnetic radiation in conjunction with an array of hyperlocal geologic conditions that proves to be the hallmark of healthy abiogenesis and the cornerstone of multilinear (life derived from two or more abiogenetic ancestors) biological competition. This is empirically the case, testified to by the overrepresentation of life on worlds orbiting binary star systems, or orbiting temperamental M dwarf stars (M-type; red dwarf), or replete with a diversity of electromagnetic stimuli from various stellar phenomena so plainly germane to abiogenesis nearer the densely populated galactic center. The Earth therefore is nearly unique in its biological history. Few other examples of abiogenesis

"ECM + CIA = UFO" -or- How to Cause a Radar Sighting by Dr. Leon Davidson

Electronic CounterMeasures

By 1945, mechanical countermeasures against radar had become publicly known. Aluminum foil strips dropped from planes reflect radar waves and clutter up the enemy's radar screens. Further developments to electronic countermeasures (ECM).

A "black box" in our bombers would pick up the enemy's radar impulses; amplify and modify them; and send them back, drowning out the normal radar return from the bomber. The modification could be a change in timing or phase and could cause the "blip" on the radar screen to have an incorrect range, speed, or heading.

By about 1950, ECM was standard equipment on our advanced bombers and was being developed for missiles. Advertisements started to appear about 1956 showing that this equipment could be used for creating simulated targets for training radar operators. I quote from an article in Aviation Research and Development, March 1957, pg. 22:

"A new radar moving target simulator system -- which generates a display of up to 6 individual targets on any standard radar indicator -- has been developed … to train radar operators … and for in-flight testing of airborne early-warning personnel… Target positions, paths, and velocities can … simulate … realistic flight paths… Speeds up to 10,000 knots (about 11,500 mph) are easily generated… The target can be made to turn left or right… For each target there is … adjustment to provide a realistic scope presentation."

The reader should keep this quotation in mind when reading about radar sightings of high-speed UFOs.

The Central Intelligence Agency

The CIA is the chief foreign intelligence arm of the United States and is the successor to the O.S.S. (our WWII "cloak&dagger" agency). The mission of the CIA includes waging psychological warfare. Neither the public, the Congress, nor many people in the Government know how the CIA spends its funds (probably running over $100,000,000 [FY 1959] per year). Its working personnel never identify themselves publicly. It doesn't publicize its office locations, its activities, or its contact men.

The CIA's policies are guided by the "Operations Coordination Board" which consists of the White House Special Assistant for national Security (formerly Robert Cutler), the Under-Secretary of State, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense (now Donald A. Quarles).

The Director of the CIA in its early days was Admiral Hillenkoetter (now retired and

It is likely that if you had not heard of coronavirus before January 23, 2020, you found out soon after the first lockdown. That is now a historically significant date in Wuhan, a city of over 11 million people in Hubei province, China. The entry for that day in the Associated Press’s Timeline: China’s COVID-19 Outbreak and Lockdown of Wuhan is brief, but dramatic:

>— Jan. 23: The Wuhan lockdown begins with a notice sent to people’s smartphones at 2 a.m. announcing the airport and train and bus stations will be shut at 10 a.m. Construction begins on the first of two hastily built field hospitals as thousands of patients overwhelm the city’s health care system. Eventually, most of the rest of Hubei province would be locked down, affecting 56 million people. (2021)

It is hard to read those words today without understanding how ominous they are, but it is even harder to imagine that anyone learning about those events would not be immediately alarmed about the severity of the novel coronavirus and an imminent pandemic. 40,000 people had already travelled from China to the United States in the weeks between when the outbreak was first reported in Wuhan and the time the February 2, 2020 travel ban was put into place – and scientists think that Covid had been circulating for at least a month before that. (Bollysky & Nuzzo, 2020) The disease was spreading rapidly through the passenger population of the cruise ship Princess Diamond, from 10 cases on February 10, 2020 to 691 cases and several dead by February 23, 2020. (Nakazawa et al 2020)

It is impossible to ignore the gravity implied by these facts and figures. Yet people in the United States were not alarmed: public officials were telling everyone that the situation was under control and that there was nothing to worry about. Coronavirus censorship was the first official response to the disease and has been part of public policy throughout the pandemic. The Covid pandemic policy of utilizing social media censorship to combat the spread of misinformation was a net failure.

The outbreak in Wuhan had begun with the notorious censorship of Dr. Li Wenliang, who tried to use social media to warn his colleagues about the new disease:

>On 30 December, Li Wenliang, a young ophthalmologist in Wuhan, China, posted a message to colleagues that tried to call attention to a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like illness that was brewing in his hospital. The Chinese government abruptly deleted the post,

Once again, a post reply grew into a tangent that I think stands on its own as its own topic.

>a show called Discovery about a ship called Discovery

...and they don't discover anything! They have a space-magic go literally fucking anywhere drive and they do literally zero exploration with it over the course of three seasons now. In a Star Trek show! Hell, they managed to do more exploration on DS9 and that was literally focused on a set location. This is utterly inexcusable.

It comes down to the fact that the show is being produced by and for people who consider science fiction to be, at best, a metaphorical lens for examining modern day reality and at worst simply a setting for otherwise conventional action-adventure and drama stories. Even if it were competently written, it couldn't escape this fundamental disinterest from both its production team and its core audience in anything beyond our world as it is.

They don't tell stories of space exploration because the very idea of it bores them to tears. They aren't interested in serious speculation about the future, or worldbuilding what alien societies might be like, or delving into new ideas or playing with concepts. They lack even the most basic understanding of science let alone how space works so they aren't interested in stories about speculative scientific or space concepts, either. None of that is relatable to them, because it lacks the direct relevance to mundane modern reality that is the only thing they understand and all they want to think or talk about.

In Isaac Asimov's classic short story Nightfall, the focus is on a planet that exists in a globular cluster and has not seen night in over two thousand years. As its scientists recognize the ultra-rare conditions that will see half the planet without sunlight for the first time since well before the dawn of advanced civilization on their world, they are deeply troubled at the realization of the mass panic and resulting chaos this will incite in the less-educated populace. In particular they fear mass violence sparked by a religious myth dating back to the last time this phenomenon occurred, written as a supernatural explanation of events the primitive people of the time had no other context to understand. As night closes in, all they can do is get the word out as best they can and hunker down to ride out the chaos to come.

So what's th

Hi,

I'm the philosopher and physicist Saul Celere, who has written the basic Principles of the Physics of Consciousness.

In this essay I defend my principles in a debate in the comments of my videos on youtube where I outline them. Some really neat ideas here!!

Obection:

"No, you have not solved the hard problem, you have just moved it one level down; now the problem is how is it that particles and energy are Conscious? This seems like you have made the hard problem even harder to solve, because we cannot ask particles for their subjective experience as we do for humans."

Thanks for your comments. Let’s analyse this technically according to the strictures of the scientific method. Scientific theories are built upon postulates. Postulates are simple, logical assumptions upon which a scientific theory is built.

With respect to Consciousness, ( and assuming Consciousness exists, which we implicitly do whenever we attempt to construct a theory of Consciousness ) there are two possible scientific postulates concerning the existence of Consciousness.

According to modern science, all that has physical existence in our Universe, is physical Energy ( and physical matter, and physical matter formed out of physical Energy according to E = mc^2 ) existing within the dimensions of spacetime, as technically defined by Einstein in his General Relativity.

Then, we are formed out of nothing except for physical Energy existing within spacetime, and we are conscious. Thus the two possible postulates are,

1. The basic Energy created in the big bang, was, and remains, non-conscious. And Consciousness discontinuously switches on, or “emerges”, around special configurations of non-conscious Energy, such as our brains.

Our, my perfectly logical and scientific alternative postulate,

2. The basic Energy created in the big bang possessed, and still possesses, Consciousness as an intrinsic property.

This second is provably a valid scientific postulate; Energy must have possessed some fundamental properties at the point of creation or else it wouldn't have existed; something with no fundamental physical properties, doesn't physically exist. And science already postulates that Energy has some fundamental properties, I'm just adding Consciousness to this set.

And postulating intrinsic Consciousness has exactly the same status as a scientific theory as the current canonical interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is known as “the Copenhagen Interpretation