Lurker > JigsawTDC

Anyone who thinks the U.S. justice system is fair is nuts. It's also structurally biased in many ways. I voted straight "no" though, because while it's more unfair to some, there are ways in which it is unfair to all as well.

Make Graffiti Great Again

Muscles posted...

More like, "you can like whatever you want but don't lose sight of the fact that what you like isnt some grand masterpiece"

And that's ok, I like simple stuff, Blink 182 wasn't especially talented or that great of song writers and that's ok, not every band is going to be a group of virtuosos and you may not like them but you should at least recognize their virtuosity

But again, you're the one setting the parameters for what constitutes a masterpiece. Why can a "masterpiece" only be something that a virtuoso creates? And why should I recognize the virtuosity of musicians I don't find appealing (not saying I don't, this is a hypothetical), especially when you don't recognize other ways in which musicians can be talented outside of technical musicianship? In your world, Daniel Johnston never created any masterpieces and I think a lot of musicians would completely disagree with you on that.

Hell, people can even make the case for Blink-182 making a masterpiece:
https://youtu.be/4KVhqtL6dKY

TheWorstPoster posted...

Learn to photosynthesize

One time in high school I jokingly told a girl I photosynthesized and she believed me. She is still not particularly bright today. Nice gal though.

Muscles posted...

1. Catchiness isn't inherently bad but you shouldn't be writing just to be catchy
2. I didn't say or mean to imply that pop as a whole is bad, I actually quite enjoy certain parts of pop, but that's mostly 80s stuff which was definitely more original, I even enjoy Lorde and Adele to some extent
3. I never said there is anything wrong with liking pop music, even the more basic pop, hell you can even like kid rock if you want, I just think people should admit what they like is simple and manufactured art and not all that impressive compared to a symphony or funk song or prog song, etc

1. Why not?

2. What makes 80's pop more original in your eyes?

3. "Admitting" that something is simple or "manufactured" isn't the same as saying it lacks artistic merit. Not everyone finds the same things impressive. There are people out there who are amazed by the elaborate stage production and delivery of a Taylor Swift performance, but may be bored to sleep by a classical symphony.

Sarcasthma posted...

You're allowed to like things I don't like, but you have to say that that stuff you like isn't actually good.

-Muscles

This should be his signature lol. I'm honestly surprised he's still trying to continue the conversation at this point.

OniRonin posted...

wow, how lucky for you that the women you know think your jokes are funny. because otherwise they would be bitches^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hkarens

No? What makes someone a Karen is their behavior, not what jokes/memes they find funny. It's solely based on how someone chooses to act and treat people in service positions.

DrYuya posted...

"Karen" seems like one of those crap tier memes some guy who is always cooking up crap tier memes made while in his mothers basement. All of his other memes didnt ever stick and he got lucky this one time because people are tired of COVID news so anything seems funny.

It's a name...just a womans name. How is it funny? Moreover...if your actual name is Karen and you're a very nice woman do you suddenly now deserve all this crap because some guy in a basement thought your name was gold star meme material?

It's not even a weird name...or one that ever even carried this "crazy lady" stigma before this. The meme is just trash and came with no thought. Its popularity is a real shame.

I don't think you've ever worked customer service before. The popularity of the meme comes less from its humor and more from the fact that a large segment of the United States population finds it relatable. We're laughing more from experience of having delt with problem customers who fit that stereotype than at the name Karen. I don't know where the name comes from, but we in customer service were definitely calling them Karens before it became an Internet meme. No one is actually giving real people named Karen crap because they share their name with a stereotype. The few Karens I have known have always took the meme in good humor than personal attacks.

You two are having the dumbest argument about nothing and you both look ridiculous right now.

Zareth posted...

Sounds like a "ha ha look at the weirdos" show. No thanks.

Yeah, pretty much is, which is why I was disappointed. It does it more subtly than like a TLC show, but that's arguably worse.

FatalAccident posted...

was this for a particular meal? Or is this a regular thing ...

thats not sustainable

Yeah, I feel like this is an important question. I'm generally a frugal person when it comes to weekly groceries and my everyday eating, but I also have a strong interest food culture, fine dining, and trying new things, so I'm not opposed to splurging on the occasional caviar or Wagyu steak or tasting menu experience.

Having worked for too many years in customer service (thank god I'm out!), we still call the male Karens by the name Karen.

kukukupo posted...

Everything you do as a musician falls under those things I mentioned. What your argument boils down to is that someone who can do basic algebra but has neat handwriting is just as talented (or possibly more) than someone who can do differential equations.

We're not talking about quantitative skill like math though, we're talking about art, which is a qualitative skill, so that's not the best analogy. But going off your analogy, we could say that the person with the nice handwriting is more talented in that particular aspect, and it's just as valid reason to judge and critique their work, because there's no correct answer in music as there is in math. Technical musicianship is quantitative, but it's not the only criteria in which people judge music by.

Production quality and how it influences aesthetics is an inherent part of music and a valid way to assess talent. As is curating who you choose to work with to create your work. You can ignore all that if you want, but you're narrowing the scope of how to assess and critique music, which is disingenuous.

kukukupo posted...

No. You are wrong. Talent isn't just technique. It is how you hear things, the pitches you can/can't sing or play, hearing intervals, being able to copy someone, being able to hear something and play/sing it back instantly, etc. it is so much more than just technical - it is knowing your craft, its history, etc.

If you want a great example - one of the best things to happen to pop music in recent years is when Harry Connick Jr was on American Idol. Just type Harry Connick Jr explains Pentatonics to Jennifer Lopez into Google, watch the video, and you can instantly see the difference between a more talented musician that isn't more successful (but still successful) and someone who is very successful but not nearly as talented.

I never said anything about technique, I said technical musicianship, which all that falls under, aside from knowing your craft and history, which I'd argue Taylor Swift certainly does. You are setting parameters to define talent as almost solely technical aspects, and there's plenty of other ways one can judge talent, it's not just about skill. I already gave you examples of other forms of talent that you ignored.

kukukupo posted...

You can say that but it isn't true. The skill level needed to play something like Jazz is SO far above and beyond the level of talent needed for someone like Taylor swift it isn't even close. It would be like comparing a college professor in physics to a 4th grader for example. Someone like Bjork might come close to that skill level (she actually has done some jazz in the past, has actual music training, can scat, etc) but still would pale in comparison to someone like Billy Holiday.

You would be correct that the more talented musicians aren't necessarily more original, artistic, creative, etc. But they are without a doubt more talented. Just like everything else in life, talent doesn't equate to money.

Also - people like Taylor swift are surrounded by musicians who actually have training and are very, very good at their jobs. The 'headliner' in most pop acts (if a single person/singer) is usually one of the weaker musicians on the stage.

You are judging talent solely by technical musicianship, and I don't think that's only parameter we can judge talent by. As I said, talent can be creating a simple work that resonates with people globally. It can be in how you utilize production for aesthetics. Those are a different kind of talent than being skilled at your instrument. Also you used a very obvious circular logical statement in that "talented musicians... are without a doubt more talented."

Taylor Swift picks who produces her work and who she works with. Talent can be being an excellent curator. You're the one setting the parameters for talent to judge musicians solely on their technical instrumentation, and that's just not how most people judge or connect with the music they listen to.

Muscles posted...

I CAN appreciate pop but it has been going downhill since the 90s and it started going towards more catchiness and less substance

You can point out whatever lesser known artists you want but the big artists have been writing less of their own music over the past few decades and it has been getting more similar

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse-8173368/ #:~:text=That%20means%20that%20songs%20are,different%20melodies%20has%20gone%20down.

What are you defining as "substance" and why does "catchiness" mean that a song isn't good?

Lol, you're the one who said there's no pop artists pushing the boundaries of music, when there's plenty. Many of whom I mentioned, such as Lana Del Rey and Kacey Musgraves, are not "lesser known" and 100% part of the mainstream.

You can't scientifically prove that music is getting "worse". Let's look at the actual abstract instead of your sensationally headlined article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00521

While this implies music is becoming more homogenized, it's pretty easy to see that they are only judging that based on three criteria. And at only just over 400,000 songs, I'd say that's a pretty limited dataset considering the conclusions they're trying to imply. Regardless, my point isn't that mainstream music isn't getting more similar, because I think there's some truth to that, especially in mainstream country. My point is that there's plenty of mainstream artists that *don't* fall into that trap, Taylor Swift being one of them, and that trying to imply a whole genre lacks artistic merit is disingenuous, especially when you don't actually engage with that genre of music. You also seem to be under the impression that mainstream pop encompasses the whole of pop, when it doesn't. Pop music as a whole is not getting more similar, there are plenty of artsits pushing boundaries, and you don't have to look that far to find them. Also, a quote from another article covering the same study that I think is relevant:

"In the end, music is all about personal preference. While music may be becoming less refined, if the listener likes it, that's all that really matters. For me, music is best when it brings me joy, not when it lends to my feeling of self-importance for liking what I consider to be elite. So as you recount this study to your friends with that feeling of vindication, remember no one like a music snob."

So even people reporting on this study think you're being elitist lol.

Muscles posted...

Come on, you can't say pop music is on the level of prog, funk, jazz, classical, etc. As far as originality and talent go. You can like whatever you want but don't act like modern pop artists are some virtuosos pushing the boundaries of music

"On the level" is, again, your own personal parameters. I can appreciate King Crimson, Miles Davis, and Funkadelic "on the level" I appreciate Taylor Swift and Carly Rae Jepsen. I think those genres you listed generally require a technical level of musicianship to accomplish their intent, but I don't think that necessarily equates "originality" and "talent" (I personally find Dream Theater dreadfully dull and not interesting at all, for example). Talent can be making a simple song that resonates with people around the globe. And there *are* pop artists pushing the boundaries of music and I already gave you examples. FKA twigs and Grimes are a couple more examples. Bjork and Robyn have been pushing the boundaries of pop for decades.

You don't listen to pop and you don't know what you're talking about as a result. You're letting your dislike of a genre prevent you from understanding and appreciating it, which is fine, you do you. But it's wrong to say pop music lacks artistic merit just because you don't get it. Any professional critic worth engaging with is going to back me on this.

Lokarin posted...

I am, and I don't watch TV just because 'muh representation'... that's for dumbs

I don't think it's dumb to be concerned about how your identity is represented in the media. You don't have to care about it, but media representation has a large impact on how others perceive people different from them. I was more curious about this one because I wanted to get some insight into myself though, not because of representation.

Muscles posted...

I never said songwriting isnt important, it's the most important thing in fact, Floyd wrote better than they were technically (though they were gods at their instruments too, but not on the level of, say, dream theater) but taylor swift isn't even a writer, she gets her songs from song writing agencies like most pop artists.

When I say mass produced I mean their songs are written for them by Max Martin/dr. Luke/whatever agency, you know pop music is all getting more similar and less original

This just shows how little you actually know about Taylor Swift and is exemplifying that you are putting your personal opinion above anything else when judging "artistic merit" just because you don't like pop music. Taylor Swift has always written her own songs and is pretty well-known for it. It's something that sets her apart from most other popstars and mainstream artists. Her music has always come from a deeply personal place, which is partly why I think it resonates so much with a large audience. Producing =/= songwriting. She also hasn't worked with Max Martin for her last two albums, nor do I think she's ever worked with Dr. Luke.

Pop music is not getting more similar and less original. You only need to go as far as PC Music, Charli XCX, and 100 gecs to see the originality that is flourishing in the larger pop scene. I also don't think mainstream pop is headed in that direction either. Billie Eilish is huge and she also writes her own songs, pretty much all of which are produced by her brother out of his bedroom. Her impact is definitely going to resonate within the larger mainstream more than it has. People like Lana Del Rey (also a songwriter) and Kacey Musgraves (also a songwriter) have been incorporating psychedelic sounds in their pop music to a degree that hasn't hit mainstream pop before. These are just a few examples.

You obviously don't listen to pop, which is fine, but as a result you also don't know what you're talking about here.

These poll results are ridiculous but also unsurprising. I don't really know the actual percentage, nor do I care to look it up, but I've never personally been cheated on. It's not someone's gender that makes them more likely to cheat, but their values. Assuming you value monogamy and commitment, as long as you find someone with the same values and a strong sense of self, I don't think you have to worry much about getting cheated on.

I read and loved all the books in high school, and I thought the television show adaptation was pretty well-done and captures the feel and events of the book. Much better than the movie. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the series.

From what I remember daemons are for sure their on unique and sentient beings, with the caveat of being eternally tied to their human and thus their personalities largely complement their human counterpart.

I'm sure I'm not the only person on the autism spectrum here, so I was curious if any other people on the spectrum have checked out this show? I was curious, because despite having several girlfriends in the past, they have all said similar things about me being autistic (which is how I found out I was on the spectrum) and I think certain autistic traits I have are responsible for most my relationship failures.

I was hoping to gain some insight from this show, and while I found some of it relatable, it just felt too "reality TV show" forced to me. Having worked on reality television in the past it's pretty easy for me to spot staged scenes (and I'm sure most people who haven't worked in the industry can recognize them too). The show feels like it was made more for neurotypicals to gawk at the quirks of autistic people, rather than give any sort of insight to people like me.

Also, at least in the episode I saw, they were only interested in pairing them other autistic people. Though they've all had their fair share of mental divergency (mostly bipolar or borderline), I have never dated an autistic woman and I don't think I would be particularly interested in doing so.

Are on you on the spectrum and have you watched this show? If so, what did you think of it?

Muscles posted...

How is it being elitist to say what I like isn't the best/most skilled? Idc if people like low quality stuff but at least admit it, I like pop punk, and I can admit it's low quality, if you like simple mass produced music admit it. I'm not saying it's wrong to like swift but be honest about it.

It's disingenuous because you are confining "skill" solely to instrumentation, when there's a lot more that goes into a song than just the skill level of the instrumentation: songwriting (as in the composition as a whole, not just instruments), production, lyrics, emotional appeal and impact, just to start. What's more, you are also the one defining that "low skill" equates "low quality" or lack of "artistic merit". These are all parameters you are setting yourself, and its only purpose is to put your personal opinion on a pedestal. That's elitist.

Furthermore, what do you mean by "mass produced"? That term generally applies to quantity, not quality. Plenty of indie records are produced in the same exact manner as bigger name artists' records. A bigger budget allows for more expansive production, but I don't think "mass produced" is the right term for that, especially since a lot of popular artists try to emulate lo-fi or indie production techniques.

Sure, I like "simple" and popular music, I never claimed otherwise so I've got nothing to "admit". I think it is you who is being dishonest by trying to put your personal interpretation of art as the "correct" way to view it.

Muscles posted...

I get your point but you're wrong because I'm not just saying what I like is good and what I don't like is bad. I'm not a fan of classical/orchestral but it is the genre with the highest level of skill, funk is right up there too, and those are genres I don't like, I also like pop punk and that's pretty low on artistic merit

You are the one setting parameters for "artistic merit" and thus defining what is "good" and what is "bad" and setting the standard that "skill" (which you are limiting to technical instrumentation skill) is what warrants "merit". It's a false way to put your personal views of art on a pedestal. In reality it's completely arbitrary. I went to film/art school and had a senior seminar in critique. I know what I'm talking about here. Elitism serves no one but yourself.

Taylor Swift is well-regarded and praised for a reason. If you don't "get it" that's totally fine. No one is saying you have to like her or her music. But stop pretending like you've got some developed opinion on her work because you think it lacks "artistic merit".

Revelation34 posted...

That's not how it works at all.

Complete disagree. If you are monetarily supporting a neo-Nazi band, you are directly contributing to neo-Nazi causes, up to and including militant action. If you unfamiliar with NSBM, M8L8TH, Azov Battalion, and their various festivals and associates, I strongly recommend the following articles and thread:

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/09/04/the-hardcore-russian-neo-nazi-group-that-calls-ukraine-home/

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/black-metal-antichrist-kramer

https://mobile.twitter.com/Underdarkuk/status/1246873594375950337?s=20

Republicans and Democrats are two sides to the same coin, but the coin belongs to Two-Face and one of the sides is clearly more fucked up than the other. I think they're both shitty options, but I'd prefer Biden over Trump. I am pessimistic and don't think there's enough enthusiasm or unity on the left to give Biden the push he needs though. I strongly expect this country to continue its steady descent into authoritarianism and fascism.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

i cant enjoy watching those concerts anymore knowing that theres some poor 14 year old girl locked in his changing room :(

Separating the art from the artist isn't particularly easy a lot of the time. But my view is I'm not going to let *their* actions ruin *my* enjoyment. And as long as I'm not monetarily supporting them and finding other outlets to listen, I see nothing wrong morally either. I listen to Burzum, who murdered a man in cold blood and has some awful and radical ideas. I think he's a despicable person, but his first few albums are works of beauty and I'm not going to let his shittiness as a person ruin something I enjoy. I get that's not possible for everyone to do though and I respect anyone's decision to not listen to musicians who have done shitty things.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

how many of the songs are about her boyfriends that dumped her?

I'd say this album is a lot more conceptual, and while there's definitely some personal songs and few that probably hit on old exes, a lot of it is more in the tradition of folk ballad storytelling, with fictional characters and whatnot. Taylor Swift has been in the same committed relationship for her last three albums, so including some break-up type songs in this one was actually kinda unexpected.

Lol this topic went to some weird places. Judging musicians by their "artistic merit" but writing off Taylor Swift is frankly just out of touch and shows a bias to whatever your personal tastes are. Not everyone has the same tastes. Not everyone needs to be into Taylor Swift, but to claim you're judging "artistic merit" to justify your taste is just disingenuous.

Personally, I'll give anything a shot and I have a pretty eclectic taste as a result. Country, pop, metal, punk, rap, hip-hop, R&B, jazz, noise, experimental, etc. I love it all. And I think if you're preemptively closing yourself off to any genre or artist then you're not going to have an informed opinion. Which, again, is fine, but you look silly if you just want to rant about how superior your taste is just because you like Led Zeppelin and not Taylor Swift.

Far-Queue posted...

I heard she did a song with The National, whom I enjoy. I'll definitely check out that song, at some point. Maybe the rest.

She didn't do any songs directly with The National, but over half the album is produced by one of the members! If you enjoy The National, I definitely think you can find things to enjoy about this album. You can tell Taylor reached out because she is a fan of their music and wanted to capture a similar aesthetic.

PK_Spam posted...

Does she have a Kanye diss track?

I don't think there's a direct diss on this one, but I think doing a collab with Bon Iver (who Kanye has worked with) and releasing this on the eve of when Kanye said *his* new album was coming out (it's been pushed back now) was very purposeful and kinda like a meta-diss.

Mad Woman could be interpreted to be about Kim and Kanye, but I think it's more likely about Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta.

I think this might be my favorite album of hers! Even if she's not typically your style, this might be one to give a shot. It's largely produced by one of the members of The National and features a guest appearance by Bon Iver.

A spiritual successor to Suikoden with much of the same development team!

https://www.ign.com/articles/suikoden-spiritual-sequel-eiyuden-chronicle-hundred-heroes

papercup posted...

Yes, but to answer that, we need to talk about parallel universes

What is your view of parallel universes? The proposed many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a deterministic view, but it's also not the only theory of the multiverse to arise from physics or philosophy.

Thank you for the very detailed answer! You definitely make the strongest and most compelling arguments for your views of anyone I've talked to about this (I've made this topic in a few other areas). I definitely agree that if we are in a deterministic system, we still need to act as if we have free will.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If you could somehow build a computer with infinite knowledge of the past and present, and infinite calculating speed, you would be able to predict every facet of the future.

Have you seen the TV show Devs? That is the entire premise for it.

If you're interested in UFOs, I strongly recommend the YouTube channel It's [redacted]. They cover declassified CIA files, most of which have to do with UFOs. They keep a skeptical but scientific viewpoint, though sometimes they do lean in heavy to extraterrestrial explanations and ignore Occam's razor. Definitely the best coverage of UFOs I've found that isn't just crazy conspiracy and unsubstantiated claims. UFOs have been around and documented to be observed globally for a long time. Whether they're extraterrestrial is another question entirely, but at this point I think it's fairly undebatable that UFOs exist, many of which have been documented to have technology seemingly beyond what humanity is currently capable of (or at least beyond the technology that's been disclosed to regular citizens).

Also, it's fiction, but I also recommend the The Three-Body Problem series by Liu Cixin. It's probably my favorite first encounter story out of all the books I've read.

some things never change

PMarth2002 posted...

Even if that's true, it doesn't change my answer. I don't believe we have enough data to do more than speculate

I would lean towards something like procedural generation. Not literally, just a similiar principle of random outcomes within defined parameters. I think thats the rpg nerd in me talking though, i'm not a scientist.

Being on a video game message board, I'm sure most of us have considered or toyed with the idea that all of reality is synthetic. The idea of procedural universe reminds me of that. Not that it'd matter if this reality isn't the "true" reality, since it's real enough to all of us.

Muscles posted...

I think it'll be a combination of both tbh, probably more on the technological side though because it'll just be faster

Yeah, technology is exploding at an exponential rate. Just looking at what things were like when my grandparents were children, I can only speculate how far we could possibly get when I am an old man.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I believe the universe is far more deterministic than most people are willing to admit, but less deterministic than hardcore determinists would argue it is.

Any particular things that have led you to those ideas, or just a theory you like?

Idk what strain I get from guy, but it's cheap and strong! Based on my experience, it's definitely an indica-dominant hybrid.

Muscles posted...

Probably somewhere in between both, I don't think it is fully determined or random but we are limited in knowing for sure until we evolve further

Do you think evolving further will happen naturally, or do you think with the advent of artificial intelligence and a technological singularity that we will be forced to hybridize with machines to evolve?

Judgmenl posted...

Any amount of arguing on this subject doesn't really impact the output of the problem, because the outcome is already predetermined by previously established biases. In fact, any continued discussion on this subject is pointless and a waste of everyone's energy.

I do agree that confirmation bias tends to push people towards their own preconceived notions, but I don't think that invalidates conversation nor means it is impossible to discuss this without analyzing our own biases. Sounds like you're definitely on the side of determinism though.

Judgmenl posted...

It doesn't matter why.

Why not?

blu posted...

stochastic.

source: Im a physicist

It's funny, because my motivation for creating this topic was a discussion I had with another physicist who was claiming determinism, while I was leaning more towards stochastic interpretations.

Yellow posted...

You can probably safely assume that any natural intuition you have for the word "random" is without a doubt a fundamental law of the universe in widely accepted quantum theory.

This is simply not true. There are plenty of deterministic models within quantum theory, and "randomness" is nowhere near viewed as a fundamental law of the universe. The de BroglieBohm theory, many-worlds interpretation, and many-minds interpretation are just a few of the accepted deterministic models within quantum theory.

PMarth2002 posted...

I don't believe we have enough data about the universe to do more than speculate.

I completely agree, and that's pretty much what I'm asking people to do here. Speculate on which, if either, we think is more likely.

ChimeraBlue posted...

Both and neither.

There are deterministic elements in the universe, like cause and effect, and repeatable experiments that will always yield the same result, but to say that the entire universe functions this way is not something I believe. For instance, quantum mechanics has shown that there is an aspect of unpredictability built into the way quantum objects function.

From a physical and psychological point of view, there are certainly prior causes and conditions that have a great effect in determining who you are at this moment. However, I don't see these things as belonging to people in solitary instances, but as the shared experience of all.

So it sounds like you lean more towards determinism, but are not satisfied with its explanation of quantum randomness?

Judgmenl posted...

I believe that reality is predeterministic.

Why?

Yellow posted...

Quantum mechanics dictate that the universe is random.

No, that's only some interpretations of quantum mechanics (most modern ones, to be fair). There are plenty of deterministic interpretations as well. We have yet to prove or disprove any.

Revelation34 posted...

No you're the one responsible for it when you make a thread for something.

If you're not familiar with the question posed in the title, why engage? If someone made a topic saying "What do you think of X movie/game/book?" and you had no experience with said work, would you go into the topic to give your opinion? Would you expect the opening post to explain the work in detail, or do you think the topic creator would expect the people who choose to engage to have a basic understanding of the work?

agesboy posted...

i've never really defined my views on extreme hypotheticals and looked up the terms around it, so i have no idea

fundamentally, my definition on the universe being deterministic relies on an non-provable (to us) supposition, so I always thought it was kinda moot to theorize any further. as we will never be able to observe the whole of existence from outside looking in, the universe is functionally random to us

So you believe we will never truly understand the fundamental nature of our universe? As a species we are inherently limited in our relationship with reality by our senses, so that definitely lends some credence to never truly understanding the universe. But what if in the future there was a way to transcend human limitations? Or is it truly impossible for us to ever observe reality objectively? I don't know, but curious what you think.

Lokarin posted...

"do your own research" essentially, the hallmark of the jibberjabber

Yes, do your own research. Your education is your responsibility, not mine. As I said, I'm not here to hold your hand. Plenty of people know exactly what this question means without me having to educate them. Your intellectual laziness is not my burden.

Lokarin posted...

Return to my first post - if you aren't going to define your terms, then you can't define mine.

If you're not familiar with discussions in quantum mechanics, the proposed interpretations, and questions in the philosophy of physics and reality, that's okay. But I'm not here to hold your hand. This is all easily searchable. The question is pretty clear to those familiar with what I'm asking, and it's directed at them.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

deterministic since the universe is a simulation

What if it is a stochastic simulation?

Lokarin posted...

Both are true, in accordance with quantum theory, according to how closely you observe them. You cannot simultaneouly measure the randomness (vector) or determination (speed) of anything.

No, that's only one interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are many popular interpretations that are deterministic and many that are stochastic. This is not a settled debate within quantum theory or the philosophy of physics.

agesboy posted...

deterministic but only a being that exists outside of the universe would be able to treat it as such

I believe that is the idea of superdeterminism. Would you say your views are panentheistic?

Zeus posted...

Depends on the aspect that we're talking about and how we're applying the terms?

Wait, what?

The way these terms are applied in quantum physics and the fundamental nature of the universe. Is it a deterministic system, meaning everything is determined, or stochastic system where it is random?

I'm not high enough level to include polls, I think.

Why?

I would have added a poll but I guess I'm not allowed to.