Doesn't disprove what I just said, nor Hamlet's fear. 
Yours is an unfalsifiable hypothesis: it is equivalent to claiming that, at death, one becomes Russel's teapot.
Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 101. (Read 345758 times)
Yours is an unfalsifiable hypothesis: it is equivalent to claiming that, at death, one becomes Russel's teapot.
Did epicurus come back from the dead to tell you this? Or did he make a big old fat presumption without any evidence? If there is no sense of time when you pass, you could very easily be trapped in what seems an eternal state (very easily a nightmare state) though physically to the outside observer this moment could be less than fractions of a second. Why don't you go test it and tell me what you find?
Quote from: David Konstan, “Epicurus,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014
[Epicurus] regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires.
Because nothing exists beyond my own mind.
Doesn't disprove what I just said, nor Hamlet's fear.
Did epicurus come back from the dead to tell you this? Or did he make a big old fat presumption without any evidence? If there is no sense of time when you pass, you could very easily be trapped in what seems an eternal state (very easily a nightmare state) though physically to the outside observer this moment could be less than fractions of a second. Why don't you go test it and tell me what you find?
Quote from: David Konstan, “Epicurus,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014
[Epicurus] regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires.
Because nothing exists beyond my own mind.
Quote from: Epicurus
Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.
Did epicurus come back from the dead to tell you this? Or did he make a big old fat presumption without any evidence? If there is no sense of time when you pass, you could very easily be trapped in what seems an eternal state (very easily a nightmare state) though physically to the outside observer this moment could be less than fractions of a second. Why don't you go test it and tell me what you find?
Space-time refers to a 4D space. Entropy knows no such limit in dimension. It is dimensionless and occupies all dimensions simultaneously. Choose your illusion (space) frame-of-reference.
Do you care to elaborate on the nature of (your) "[e]ntropy" (TPTB_need_war) as it exists to a Hilbert space (which is the space of this universe as it is modelled in "Cosmology from Quantum Potential")?
You got it. Entropy subsumes space-time.
Entropy is a logarithmic measure of multiplicity. Multiplicity referes to the number of microstates a system could assume that would, ultimately, precipitate a given macrostate. Thus, a space (Euclidean, Hilbert, or otherwise) is presumed with "[e]ntropy" (TPTB_need_war), not "subsum[ed]" (TPTB_need_war), for, therewithout, the system would not exist to bare states (neither micro- nor macro-).
Space-time refers to a 4D space. Entropy knows no such limit in dimension. It is dimensionless and occupies all dimensions simultaneously. Choose your illusion (space) frame-of-reference.
You got it. Entropy subsumes space-time.
Entropy is a logarithmic measure of multiplicity. Multiplicity referes to the number of microstates a system could assume that would, ultimately, precipitate a given macrostate. Thus, a space (Euclidean, Hilbert, or otherwise) is presumed with "[e]ntropy" (TPTB_need_war), not "subsum[ed]" (TPTB_need_war), for, therewithout, the system would not exist to bare states (neither micro- nor macro-).
Now Hamlet let it all go and drove himself as far as anyone in his time and probably ever since, but he was smart enough to value his existence in that he talked himself out of suicide by the knowledge that worse nightmares may follow--that's valuing your life.
Quote from: Epicurus (341‒270 BCE)
Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.
You got it. Entropy subsumes space-time. The latter is just a "convincing illusion" within certain frames-of-reference within the former.
Thus yes entropy is theoretically reversible as an illusion in a frame-of-reference.
Can't you fucking read:
Thus the goal is not anti-money, but rather a technological advance into the Knowledge Age wherein capital is knowledge creation which is inherently not a homomorphism to spacetime, thus can't be financed with usury.
"eloved" (Plato) does not appear anywhere in that post.
I = space + time.
I = spacetime
I am non-trivial, why are you?
I = spacetime
I am non-trivial, why are you?
Quote from: University of Victoria (The Department of English), Argument of the Beard, The UVic Writer's Guide, 1995
This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.
A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.
(There is not particular point where probability waves become a human; therefore, the "I" is an element of the hyperreal - a symbol that references other symbols (namely, those of a self-concept) yet not the real.) "Non-trivial," however, as "I" used it, indicates that the investment - whatever form it could assume - was of a nature that left imprudent an attempt upon the PoW of the PoW-coin therewith.
I wrote a poem about a man who lived out the idea of being a symbol. https://generalizethis.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/4/ He made one of the most powerful album covers of all time--but I'd hardly call it success. Now Hamlet let it all go and drove himself as far as anyone in his time and probably ever since, but he was smart enough to value his existence in that he talked himself out of suicide by the knowledge that worse nightmares may follow--that's valuing your life. now Socrates was so set on the value of being right that he talked himself into drinking poison--Hamlet was quantum, Socrates was binary. For Hamlet everything was possible and nothing. For Socrates the question became,: If nothing can be proven, then nothing can be certain. Hamlet would have talked Socrates out of suicide only to talk him back into it once he realized Socrates couldn't value anything but the idea of being right, that he couldn't accept that everyone's perception was playing out a quantum cosmos where words, desires, genius, and madness where all singular moments of the observer--all equally valid and equally absurd. So you can keep repeating your mantras, but remember each word has its own histories, presents and futures and we are combining them here, not with the idea that ideas can be pinned down and robbed of their mulltiness, but that thoughts can launch forward to new destinations, new paths, new memes or worse--at least that is why I'm here. Not really sure what your agenda is, not sure i care. If you want to talk about how economic totalitarianism might emerge, you should probably start doing that--I believe corporations will swallow governments and those corporations will be swallowed up by DACs. What is your theory or stance?
The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the [capital] or [money] is beloved by the [1‱] because it is [money], or [money] because it is beloved of the [1‱].
Can't you fucking read:
Thus the goal is not anti-money, but rather a technological advance into the Knowledge Age wherein capital is knowledge creation which is inherently not a homomorphism to spacetime, thus can't be financed with usury.
The masses don't love money enough to hoard it (thus the power-law distribution of wealth), yet they need money as a unit-of-exchange (and thus as a unit-of-account and a reasonably stable store-of-value) in order to maximize the division-of-labor which is essential to maximizing production and efficiency (the inexorable march of entropy which can not be reversible per the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Einstein even said was the most fundamental law of nature).
(Einstein on quantum mechanics: "God does not play dice.")
Quote from: Plato, _Euthyphro_, 380 BCE
Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the [capital] or [money] is beloved by the [1‱] because it is [money], or [money] because it is beloved of the [1‱].
(Germaneness mine.)You still have not addressed "[t]he point" (Plato), Euthyphro.
I think (and so do many others) that they are 100% intentionally dividing the people. That is why the only issues they focus on are issues that dont matter much, but ones that people get the most worked up about.
Quote from: Martin Gilens, Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens." _Perspectives on Politics_ (2014). 576. Web. 22 July 2015.
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
Substantive discourse circa the real is unbecoming of plutocracy.
uselessname18333,
The masses don't love money enough to hoard it (thus the power-law distribution of wealth), yet they need money as a unit-of-exchange (and thus as a unit-of-account and a reasonably stable store-of-value) in order to maximize the division-of-labor which is essential to maximizing production and efficiency (the inexorable march of entropy which can not be reversible per the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Einstein even said was the most fundamental law of nature). Even the Bible says employ honest weights and measures of which an anti-money would be a violation.
Thus the goal is not anti-money, but rather a technological advance into the Knowledge Age wherein capital is knowledge creation which is inherently not a homomorphism to spacetime, thus can't be financed with usury.
Q.E.D. End of discussion. I have work to do.
You are entirely missing the point.
Value is not a homomorphism to spacetime. Value is a diverse (n-dimensional) fitness landscape (entropy) where the relationship to time and space is such that they are not just dilated but not even structurally preserved.
The masses don't love money enough to hoard it (thus the power-law distribution of wealth), yet they need money as a unit-of-exchange (and thus as a unit-of-account and a reasonably stable store-of-value) in order to maximize the division-of-labor which is essential to maximizing production and efficiency (the inexorable march of entropy which can not be reversible per the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Einstein even said was the most fundamental law of nature). Even the Bible says employ honest weights and measures of which an anti-money would be a violation.
Thus the goal is not anti-money, but rather a technological advance into the Knowledge Age wherein capital is knowledge creation which is inherently not a homomorphism to spacetime, thus can't be financed with usury.
Q.E.D. End of discussion. I have work to do.
You are entirely missing the point.
Value is not a homomorphism to spacetime. Value is a diverse (n-dimensional) fitness landscape (entropy) where the relationship to time and space is such that they are not just dilated but not even structurally preserved.
That is a great read, chilling, but 100% verifiable with only a small amount of searching online.
Those who have been following "alternative media" sources probably know the majority of these things, but this gives a good summary to anyone who may not follow anything but the lamestream media.
The problem with some of these is the fact that people (especially Americans) are so divided against themselves. They need to wake up and realize that just because they white house shines some rainbow colors on the building doesn't mean they are on your side. I think (and so do many others) that they are 100% intentionally dividing the people. That is why the only issues they focus on are issues that dont matter much, but ones that people get the most worked up about.
Once you can see what they are doing, it makes the martial law warnings all that much clearer. They want division, becasue a divided people cannot stand against the govt. ONLY if people start to band together can the gvt forces be stood up to.
I = space + time.
I = spacetime
I am non-trivial, why are you?
I = spacetime
I am non-trivial, why are you?
Quote from: University of Victoria (The Department of English), Argument of the Beard, The UVic Writer's Guide, 1995
This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.
A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.
(There is not particular point where probability waves become a human; therefore, the "I" is an element of the hyperreal - a symbol that references other symbols (namely, those of a self-concept) yet not the real.) "Non-trivial," however, as "I" used it, indicates that the investment - whatever form it could assume - was of a nature that left imprudent an attempt upon the PoW of the PoW-coin therewith.
Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.
So we don't want an anti-money (whom can free-for-all coinbase nilly-willy debase faster race into the abyss) shitcoin that is designed to perniciously, self-destruct into a mutual chaos.
Since you so deride "anti-money" (TPTB_need_war), you would (directly) address the post below if your grievances were genuine.
So his "solution" is NIRP and a cashless society to prevent anyone from escaping paying negative interest rates on their wealth. And use this resource extraction to continue to backstop the $250 trillion of debt in the world. In order words, Summers thinks we are stupid enough to be a dog chasing our tail wherein the excess "capital" is money we are expropriating from ourselves to prop up "capital" that would otherwise evaporate in a contagion of defaults. And then claim this excess capital that we stole from ourselves (via NIRP) is what is causing the excessive market demand for return of capital (aka safe haven) and thus NIRP.
Quote from: Plato, _Euthyphro_, 380 BCE
Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the [capital] or [money] is beloved by the [1‱] because it is [money], or [money] because it is beloved of the [1‱].
(Germaneness mine.)
I have bigger fish I am trying to fry: protecting my worthwhile assets in the perilous times to come.
As I said, very relevant to this thread:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-immoral-to-download-music-illegally/25125#25125
Quote from: me
...
Thus the the only possible operative definition of morality is self-interest.
(Edit: you might choose it is in your self-interest to consider the interests of others. That is still self-interest, even if you characterize it as sacrifice obviously you didn't do if it wasn't to your benefit overall.)
...
You asked whether it is moral to violate laws. Usually it would only be in one's self-interest to consider doing so when society has become unreasonably coercive and not consent with free will, i.e. when choice of jurisdiction is effectively nullified. I would again argue the self-interest of that tradeoff has to be weighed by each individual. Smaller communities impinge less on the degrees-of-freedom of jurisdiction.
Thus the the only possible operative definition of morality is self-interest.
(Edit: you might choose it is in your self-interest to consider the interests of others. That is still self-interest, even if you characterize it as sacrifice obviously you didn't do if it wasn't to your benefit overall.)
...
You asked whether it is moral to violate laws. Usually it would only be in one's self-interest to consider doing so when society has become unreasonably coercive and not consent with free will, i.e. when choice of jurisdiction is effectively nullified. I would again argue the self-interest of that tradeoff has to be weighed by each individual. Smaller communities impinge less on the degrees-of-freedom of jurisdiction.
Quote
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants— Thomas Jefferson
Quote
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety— Ben Franklin
Jump to: