And I'm currently playing with the equally unorthodox notion that Time is simply a measure of physical change due to the actions of Energy*2. One consequence of that way of thinking is to conclude that the expansion of the universe is not due to some mysterious Dark Energy, but merely to the increasing dimension of Time : — Gnomon

I agree. I never really has much time (excuse the pun) for the idea of dark energy. I think the sharp edge of occams razor can be put to this and as you said reduce it to simply a product of a simpler form of interaction without adding new components or variables (like dark energy) to explain away the misunderstanding.

For me time and space are linked in that at lightspeed neither "exist" in any substantial way. Every location and instant is unison. A singularity.
It is only when energy transforms itself into matter that time and distance even become relevant - they are emergent properties of 3D objects coming into existence. As things and stuff experience duration and occupy space.

Time for me is a product of conscious perception. As at lightspeed everything is "now". Whilst with matter to write down some memories as a relatively static medium and do some processing - comparing stable components of information exchange we can "store a past" and anticipate a future. You can only give chronology to things that don't happen instantaneously: everything, everywhere all at once.

Energy is such an unchanging Cause of change. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the total Energy (causal force) content of the universe is fixed, but as it causes physical changes, it can transform into Entropy (negative energy) and back again into Potential : the thermodynamic cycle — Gnomon

Yes! This makes sense thank you :)

It's quite amazing that energy has this ability to de-potentialise/become "substantial/substantiated" as matter going at a sub maximal speed. And be converted back to the speed of light again. But in essence it's quantity never changes. Just it's quality - what it's doing. The work of action or being acted upon in relative respect.

You could sit as lumps of matter in a vast frigid void with mostly bugger all happening to disturb your peace.

And yet still, as lumps of matter, we have those aspects of our being - such as a gravitational field and a little bit of warm radiation - that do spread out from our sense of unchanging location at c. So the falling out of the general c flow is relative. — apokrisis

Yes I see what you mean.
The fact that matter cannot travel at the speed of light means it can interact with light. Because light can close the distance between something material and the source of the light. Whilst if matter could travel at lightspeed, light (energy) couldn't ever reach it. It would be a game of chase where the 2 are running at the same speed and thus no interaction could ever happen. No information could be exchanged. The lump of matter could not be "heated" or illuminated by the light energy as to experience illumination requires that light is reflected off a surface.

All this interaction between things/phenomena requires relativity. Change requires a variance in speeds.

Eventually after a few billion years, the universe had grown so large and cold that the right kind of reference frames could exist — apokrisis

I find this amusing when I think of how light doesn't "experience" any passage of time at c. As we clarified it is matter that occupies a slower framerate/increased "time" relative to light.

So I imagine the "big bang" as not happening a few billion years ago from the hypothetical perspective of "light" but rather "always happening" - a singular instant. As from lights perspective there is no billions of years separation.

So I imagine the big bang as not being located "ago". But rather being a "speed" or rate. One we are seoarated from by virtue of the fact that we are precipitant energy - ie matter. The tape slowed down, energy buled out into substance and spacetime stretched out into "billions of years and billions of astronomical units of distance".

I don't know what you mean, Benj. Cite an unchangeable – impossible to change, or necessary (i.e. unconditional) – extant state of affairs (i.e. fact). :chin: — 180 Proof

This is part of the purpose of the OP. What would such a thing be?

I'm merely following the basic idea that if things can change/transform at a slower or greater rate relative to one another. Then one would imagine that there must be something that is the "greatest constant" of all constants, the same for the longest period of time.

If there is truly a dichotomy of "rates" of transformation, then what is at these extremes and what might that mean? We are already aware of a cosmic speed limit. The "fastest" thing.
But is there a cosmic standstill at the other extreme? Ie not the fastest maximum speed one can go but the slowest speed on can go.

We have a theoretical absolute zero but just as matter cannot reach the speed of light it also cannot reach absolute zero as matter has innate energy and absolute zero is a lack of any kinetic energy. But because physical things cannot reach these limits, does that mean these limits don't exist? What is the nature of their existence?

what about quantitative change. This also occurs. So it seems that quantitative and qualitative changes occur for most existants. I say most because I don't know what is at the farthest extremes and how they differ from subsets of what they govern.

self organisation is probabilistic inevitability in a system where there is "free chaos" where certain states confer greater or less stability to themselves and other states and thus entangle and become cooperatively mutually regulated. That stability within a chaotic system comes primarily from the ability to create cycles - "replication" as replicating the same conditions over and over again (circularity of conditions) within a finite extremes is a stability within a larger set of instabilities. Those cycles can then serve as a stage for further smaller cycles of various kinds to emerge and become stable. These are naturally selected ofc.

I see what you mean and I agree. There is certainly a balance to be had between the desire to control our circumstances and the trust/faith in the ecosystem already established to confer us with natural growth and resilience.

Trying to control things by being highly selective and rigid is exclusionary and suppresses diversity. On the other hand, excessive disorder and zero attempt at control undermines our ability to empower ourselves though knowledge and use that knowledge to adapt and benefit one another.

I rather live with someone who doesn't mind a little mess, than someone who is strict about keeping the room perfectly clean. — introbert

Haha well life does live with something a little messy - the universe. Life tries to cleans it up and tidy and this is reflected in the life's sustaining implementations of the body - all those little immune cells tireless munching on debris, killing off chaotic oopsies (cancers and other dysfunctional cells). Our body is a finely tuned society, conglomerate of cells. All cooperating. And when they cooperate in harmony, we are balanced and healthy individuals.

Even human society reflects this innate "housekeeping" or homeostasis - such as social health etiquette, hygiene, as well as laws, and policies regulations. And just like the body, it's a constant effort to uphold and mistakes invariably happen.

However life enjoys the benefits of a bit of chaos too. The accidental benefits, the happy mistakes/mutations. Societal innovation too often occurs though accidental discoveries.

. Eugenics is a pastoralism. It is a tendency of people with certain kinds of knowledge to try to control and improve the flock. — introbert

Eugenics has a bad rap for sure thanks to a certain German facist dictators ideals. However the ideal to foster a healthier population by itself is not inherently bad. What's bad is what one assumes and how they go about it.
Gene therapy and medical frontiers are also based on identifying bad genes and good genes alike but do not dangerously presuppose any ethnicity or variant of human condition is to blame, nor is superior to any other.

I agree with you that the natural chaos isnt going anywhere soon. We cannot erase and we shouldn't. But that doesn't mean one must sit around idly and let it happen to the greatest degree. That's a sit down and rot attitude. If that were the case, why bother with antibiotics or hygiene or medical interventions of any kind.

We are unique as a form of life in that we have knowledge that goes beyond simple survival instinct. We can innovate and we can revolutionise our place in nature. We know enough about how it works to do that and have been doing so since the advent of civilisation itself.

entropy is the nature of things, — introbert

Is it though? I mean, the continuity of life - "the living status" for the last 3.7 billion years begs to differ.
I understand that it operates within entropy in the sense it depends on the sun and the sun eventually decays.

But I mean for literally just over 1/4 of the entire existence of the universe, no small fraction at all. Life has consistently avoided total anhillation through at least 7 mass extinctions and shows no signs of being stopped going into the future.

As I see it, life is the very refusal to disassemble on command of surrounding chaos. It's one big middle finger to entropy, it's opponent, that has been around for at least 1/4th if time so far. And that's just life as we know it to be, not the spontaneous organisation of systems and chemistry that preceded it, that set the stage. That organisation process could go back much further.

If entropy is the diffusion/dispersal of energy, then what might we say if gravity which quite literally does the opposite, the aggregation and condensation of matter (also energy) into stable and orderly cycles. Pressure that insulates a planet and traps solar energy like a thermos, keeping available to the biosphere for as long as possible.

And knowing there are trillions of solar systems. Knowing that life may not always be organic, or so frail, knowing life as we know it is literally adapting to space conditions though technology, who is to say it doesn't spread outward like entropy does, to oppose it elsewhere, to not be limited by the lifespan of any one sun.

It could possibly fight entropy until the bitter end. Because at the end of the day. Things operate in opposites, dichotomies. And the opposite to chaos is creation. The opposite to disorder or order.

I think we need to reevaluate our relationship with entropy. No human has made a perpetual motion machine. But so far the most perpetual motion machine is 3.7 years old and going strong.

The "Eu-gene" of eugenics, the "good replicator" in that sense is the one that rallies the troops in the face of adversity. If life starts to struggle, the force vitale finds a way through change and adaptation to defer being destroyed. That is an intelligent dynamic, an awareness and response to the environment that permeates all of life.

I agree that nature is one unanimous seamless and connected whole. Nothing in pure isolation. And that by us defining things, restricting them to discrete parameters and characteristics we invariably exclude the spectral transient and ultimately flux nature of well, nature.

But breaking down and compartmentalising nature into neat and discrete definitions that are different to one another, we are offered more specificity, insight and knowledge on varying levels of scope.

What I was saying is that the dimensions of our body (a defined space) move through the dimensions of space (the environment). One set of dimensions stays put, the other is in motion within it. So there is some interplay/interaction between these two concepts of dimension and space: in how they interact and relate to one another.

You can't leave your body. So you're stuck in a certain set of spatial dimensions relative to the larger set of spatial dimensions (reality) that we are in motion through. The body is the permanent space of the self and mind. Motion is a temporary space we can and do chnahw through from moment to moment.

Both are space, I agree. But they are regarded differently.

What evidence is there, that a space as described by you in that quote, exists outside of your imagination — wonderer1

The definition of a vacuum. And the definition of spacetime. And the definition of object permanence and it's implications.

Sure we can talk about space as a singular thing.
But matter has dimensions yes? Width height and length.
And space between matter also has dimensions yes? Distance between objects.

The dimensions of matter are instrinsic to them. The distance between material is extrinsic to it. We wouldn't say what's the distance of an apple. We would say what are it's dimensions.
If there was no need to make distinctions why bother with different vernacular to describe them?

There is space between things. And the space of things. I don't believe that is my imagination at work.

You're playong word games which bore me. — 180 Proof

Words are important. Sadly I'm not a mind reader. So they're all we have to communicate ideas to one another. I'm not trying to play word games, I'm trying to establish whether your definition stands up to reasoning. As I'm sure you have done in reverse many times in the past with me or other tpf contributors.

If you're bored don't let me stop you taking a backseat. But engaging in the discourse takes more than abrupt personal and unfounded conclusions. My "intent" is not to play word games, however your "interpretation" of the execution of my intent is that I am. I would say then that this is "miscommunication".

For me, 'hope' is synonymous with wishful thinking and/or lacking courage. — 180 Proof

So if I say I hope the wind blows easterly tomorrow, what is the lack of courage here? What do we say about lacking courage when we hope about things occurring that are wholly out of our personal control? I see no relevance of courage to such things.

And how does one reconcile the sentence "I hope im not a wishful thinker" which semantically and grammatically makes perfect sense and is utilitarian in every day language. But by your definition is absurdism.

Hope is worse than either boredom or sadness. — 180 Proof

How so? Can you elaborate your views here.

For one, one has little to no need or use for hope when one is fully content with how things are going.

Hope then, is for the unsatisfied - for whatever reason; those that are ambitious, aspirational, or perfectionists or those that are struggling with how things are currently - the sad, the grieving etc.

Hope is born from 1). A need and 2). Optimism

I would not choose to explore them out of intellectual curiosity or to avoid boredom. ( — Vera Mont

Well therein lies a difference. No one need work in a sweatshop to explore what it would be like intellectually. If we had to do everything ourselves in order to validate it as good or bad or discuss it meaningfully then we would be reducing empathy, our capacity for abstraction and imagination to nothing short of "reactionary" to immediate circumstances.

I was speaking of the more nuanced psychological exploration of the human condition: not a specific humans condition (working in a sweatshop) but rather "the" human condition as it pertains to the mind - suffering and it's opposite. Everyone has experiential sources of suffering and peace and joy to draw from. They are not the same for everyone but I believe suffering as a general basic mindstate shares the same qualities regardless of where it can from.

Enlightenment I would imagine, like depression and suicidal ideation are mindstates not physical circumstances on can "try out".

We all have a sense of good and bad in reference to how it makes us feel. The qualities and definitions, the "sets" of things that are considered good verses bad are different for everyone. That's the frontier of conflict, confusion, inequality and discrimination I guess. When "what is good" for one person is "bad" for another.

Have you actually done a lot of that? — Vera Mont

Yes. Like most people I know what depression really is because I've experienced it myself. I also know what it's like to self hate/loathe, feel shame, feel guilt.

I cannot say I've had it "worse" than anyone else. It's not nor should it be a competition. That said, i'm probably quite fortunate in fact because for me these periods were brief and infrequent. I understand that there is always a deeper rock bottom and some people are stuck struggling there or are spiralling towards it.

My point was that it is unlikely to know what's good or healthy for you without experiencing things that are bad/unhealthy.

Which I was aligning with Art48 saying spiritual clarity or enlightenment or whatever state of inner peace one is striving for it makes sense that a period of suffering is neccesary to drive you in search of that in the first place.

We know things and define things in opposition, by comparison

It's why a child will always make the same common mistakes as their parents growing up because they don't have the luxury of wisdom - something that comes from personal experience, rather then simply being told "don't do that because A, B and C. " - and experience of course not being exclusively good.

I could agree with that.
One must explore the worst extremes of the human condition in order to understand the best extreme.
There's no reward without struggle.

Naw, people stave off their own boredom through vicarious enjoyment of other people's suffering — Vera Mont

Well. I'm sure this is true, no doubt.

However it's only one side. People also enjoy other peoples enjoyment. So much so that laughter and smiles can be "infectious".

Wow. This is a remarkable post. I enjoyed it. Lots to unpack. Or nothing at all to unpack, depends how you understand it.

"If you don't know where you're going, all roads will take you there."

In this game of hide and seek with the self, in this forest, the ignorant count to infinity, the curious stop counting and go seeking, the delusional say they know where to find it whilst erecting signposts, the arrogant say they've already found it, and the self?

Well, the self merely observes it all, counts nothing, says nothing. Just observes.

Excellent point Art48!

I'm inclined to agree. I have been sad sometimes but it is often very clarifying and cause for self reflection or for examining circumstances. In essence quite a mentally active state of mind. Trying to put things into perspective to abate negative emotions that come from uncertainty, miscalculation or lack of understanding.

Boredom on the other hand. Well I can assure you I never used that time well. Because if I did, I would not consider it boredom. I would consider it productivity, engaging, useful.

For me boredom is worse. And personally I think boredom is closer to depression than sadness is. Because people can feel acutely and strongly upset regularly, but would not consider themselves depressed. They might consider themselves emotionally labile, dramatic, sensitive. But not depressed.

I could well imagine a chronically bored person on the other hand saying things like everything is pointless and futile. Worthless. Meaningless.

Q: Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?

A: Who knows. Who cares. — Patterner

Haha! I love this. Very fun.

Well, hey! That's me one-upping gods again. — Vera Mont

Haha! That's the spirit you show them hehe.

Defining features of humans.

We cook our food. The degree to which we can manipulate and investigate our environment. We are space goers as well as deep sea explorers - our frontiers extend far beyond that of any survival habitat of other animals. Art. Our genome. The complexity and peculiarities of our languages. The capacity/range and resolution of our 5 physical senses. Our religions (as far as I know other animals don't have spiritual practices or engage in philosophy), the length of human childhood/maturation. Our athroponososes (diseases and infections that only affect humans).

There are many distinguishing features of being human.
Both behaviourally, cognitively and physically.

forgive me but I'm not entirely following. This could be me just being dim witted here haha.

What you're saying is pressure, temp and volume cannot be separated from physical things. Sure I agree.

However we can acknowledge that temperature by itself is not physical in the sense of being an object. You cannot hold "temperature" itself in your hand. However your hand has a temperature. It's in this case rather the energy contained in and between objects. And a changeable variable. The hand can be a burnt hand or a frozen one or anything in between. It's still a hand. The temp is different.

And you're also saying the mind cannot be separated from physical things like the brain. Again I agree.

The mind is not physical as an object is (like the temperature comparison above). You cannot hold imagination in your hand for example. But you can use a hand to act out imagination (gestures, puppetry, artistry etc). You can use a hand to put imagination into a physical expression using objects.

Like temperature, the mind is a phenomenon within and between objects. That cannot exist in isolation from them.

I don't know if in going off on a tangent here or if I adresses what you were trying to explain. As im not sure if I grasped it properly.

So, wherefore 'a triad' attempting to relate to itself? I can't make sense of the separations. — Vera Mont

Well, in essence triads are relationships that describe specific features of an underlying phenomenon.

For example: pressure, temperature and volume are a triad that outline boyles law - the underlying principle by which each of the three things interact with one another.

The law itself isn't separate from the three features but rather the culmination of them.

So in my triad of subject, soc and object, none of them exist in isolation (aren't distinctly separate), but individual relationships between 2 can be examined if the third is assumed to be constant.

My aim was to outline the overlap and principle, rather than separate any compoment definitively from the others.

It's a pseudoseparation.

So's my brain. So where is a mind in relation to that? — Vera Mont

Etiher it is fundamental to the universe, or it is an emergent product of complexity. I fail to see a third option.

Didn't you just do that? — Vera Mont

Nope. I don't believe I treated anyone as an object alone. Because I'm not here writing on tpf expecting inanimate objects to type a response. I'm not speaking to a wall so to speak. I'm expecting subjects with minds to reply.

At most I highlighted that all subjects are based on objective existence, that all subjectivity is tied to a body (object) of which the components are transient in that subjects makeup, and also go to make up all other sorts of objects due to common constituency - atoms.
And finally that not all subjects treat other subjects as subjective. And that this is inherently unethical.

So in conclusion, we are objects. Physical entities. We share this quality with all things. But we are also subjects.

Hence my définition in the OP: "SOC" subject-object complex.

For whom? Not scientists (because it's not even a scientific problem). — 180 Proof

Tell that to the scientists that are investigating how the brain gives rise to subjective experience.

They can objectively prove components of a person in isolation. But can they prove objectively the entire subject, in time, as in live - predict all the permutations and possibilities of their behaviour and imagination. It seems not.

Such a calculation would take nothing short of a computer that can compute faster and with more complexity and certainty than the individuals brain.

Furthermore the attempt to do so, invariable influences the individual and their behaviour. The influence of an investigation itself cannot predict the reaction to the investigation itself. As the reaction is an I fonte regress not within the paradigm if the investigation itself which must be quantized/fixed.

And if they could fully objectify a subject - scan their neural activity, access and decode all their private thoughts, memories and predict all their future actions. Would this be ethical (the pragmatic component ont the Triad is denied).

So it seems one way or another, scientific address of the hard problem is denied either by ethics (pragmatics) or by the fact that scientific doctrine of objectification and standardisation cannot objectify/standardise the subject (a state of being unique and unstandardised) as the subject is a reactive agent and any such attempt would lead to incalculable reactionary processes.

The religious have a fundamental end principle - "God did it" with no objective explanatory basis. On the other hand scientists have no fundamental theory of everything but slowly follow stepwise the heriarchy of objective bases in an attempt to elude such a final theory.

One has an end but no rationalised premises, the other has rationalised premises galore but no end/finality.

Scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove subjectivity in an objective methodical way. As the two: objectivity and subjectivity - are at odds with one another by definition.

Religious method is limited in that it cannot prove objectivity in a subjective way - the same limitation I reverse.

This is the hard problem. It seems then as Frank said - that synthesis ie. Compromised approach - is the only thing that can overcome the two opposing dogmas.

(Model-dependent) realism? or classical atomism? — 180 Proof

What about this:

If "instrumentalism" is not that which is absolutely/undeniably true, but that which best theorises/hypothesises and predicts phenomena - the purview of scientific method (subject - object).

Then maybe object - object interaction is what is "actually true." Not the stuff of theories (instrumental paradigms about what is true/what reality is) but instead "reality itself" - that which does happen, and has reasons for such.

Ie. the truth of how things are regardless of what degree of understanding we apply to it.

If we can have nonsense theories of reality (total delusion), bad theories of reality (uneducated guesses) adequate ones (educated guesses) good ones and extremely good ones (profound detailed insight), then it stands to reason that there must be an end to that spectrum which is just innately true regardless of how close we come to uncovering such.

Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. — frank

Ooooh yes! Indeed. I like this approach.

On one side we have subjectivity as the source of all things including objects (thesis). On the other we have objectivity as the source of all things including subjectivity (anti-thesis)

Synthesis then is a paradigm where there is clear, underpinning and intractable overlap between the two. That the two states are inseparable.

Synthesis seems thus to be the most prudent approach. As using/exploiting the "inanimate" environment as a pure object leads to backfire/retaliation - eg. Climate change. Or karmic retribution - toxifying/polluting ones environment invariably toxifies/pollutes the self that occupies and depends on it.

We also have the grand question that humans are subjects that are fundamentally reducible to a constellation of physical matter and it's interactions. Where then does one place the boundary between the subject and the objective environment? Perhaps, going by synthesis, there is no boundary. Only a manufactured sense of one (ego).

"Synthesis" suggests we should both treat our world as semi-subjective - requiring fundamental rights (environmental law) and humans as also "semi-subjective" - ie. requiring "compromise" rather than outright freedom of choice - in that we are part object, and part mind - our body, our object, depends on the stability (rights to protection) of the environment, whilst our mind is a free playground of imagination - a private space to conceive of all and any thought or ideas, a place where compromise is not as important in privacy.

Where does "self" end and "other" begin? If one is to treat themselves as pure subject, then they have no choice but to reduce all else to object (the extremist anti-thesis approach). On the other hand if one treats themselves as merely an object, they deny themselves the right to belief, to self respect, to justice against exploitation, manipulation and ownership/possession.

I wouldn't extarnalize my body to lump in with all the other stuff of the universe as "object". — Vera Mont

And yet everything in your body, toenails and such included, are fundamentally reduced to physical units - atoms. To physical and objective components that can also be configured in such a way to get a stalagmite, a mix of gases, or a cucumber, or a computer or a part of a star.

Also, rather unnervingly, there is always the potential for others to treat us as mere objects. To deny any effectuality of our minds/subjectivity.
For example, any person that imposes possession on another's body - rape (using another body for their own satisfaction regardless of consent or suffering), torture is another, and slavery (treating people as tradeable or expendible goods and services that can be traded).

I believe that we are objects just like any other physical thing in the universe because of this fact above. Ones that can be treated as such, but ought not to be.

The appreciation/acknowledgement of others subjective expression is the core of ethics and morality. Empathy is assigning subjectivity to others no? Without any objective proof to do so. To believe their feelings and emotions and objections truly exist, have validity and authority. To believe they can suffer. And thus one must adapt behaviour to navigate around causing suffering to them.

A psychopath in that case is like a "pure/fundamental scientist" (see my response to 180 Proof) in the sense that they go about life manipulating, experimenting on, using and exploiting others as if they were just merely objects with no subjectivity.

It is scary indeed to know that such individuals exist.

But having said that, the opposite end must exist, the opposite end of the spectrum, where one believes nothing is truly just an object. That all things have innate subjectivity.

This to me renders ideas of a spiritualist or panpsychist. Or people that believe in ideas like "God" being the source of all things including subjectivity. But this is also not pragmatic like treating everyone as an object, but for other reasons like the burden of guilt in eating plants and animals when one believes their death or suffering is neccesary for our survival.

Damn 180 Proof. That's a concise and pretty good summary. No complaints here. Bravo.

What might we say about object - object interaction? I realised this 4th relationship was not outlined in my Triad of communication.

Everything we can know about objectivity assumes the subject (observer). Does this suggest object - object interactions cannot be known because they cannot be observed nor appreciated without the subjective component?

In this case the subject-object (scientific method) as you say, is like some meta stand in for object-object interactions in the sense that it is object-object interaction from the POV of subjects (instrumentalism) where the subject has reduced their subjective bias to the minimum possible degree.

Secondly, to any given self/individual, others are part of the external objective and observable environment. They are part of the external universe. Objects within it.
In that case can we say that ethics/morality is the assignment of subjectivity without proof to those objects that behave in the most similar way to self (ie other humans).

A "pure scientist" - that is to say a subject that treats all other things that are not them as objects with objective behaviour (a solipsist perhaps), objects to be tested upon and proven might be tempted to do any and all sorts of scientific experiments on the external environment including other people.

But as we know, one cannot simply do any type of experiments on others. Consent is required. And even when consent is given, this doesn't necessarily indicate that the experiment is ethical, for example if one consents to being tortured for some scientific insight/gain, others may/will have something to say about it.

Can we say then that ethics is the pragmatism that a scientist (subject) obeys in order to continue being allowed to carry out objective experiments on their environment without parts of that environment (other people) retaliating against them?

What do we say for medical experimentation then where other people's objects (bodies) and minds (subjects) are the sole focus of investigation, with the potential to cause harm during the experiment (ie by administering experimental drugs without full knowledge of their effects or psychotherapies - eg electroconvulsive therapy).

What is the difference between medical experimentation and consentual "potential torture" depending on the outcome?

what is my sins that somehow the universe just keep punishing me again & again & again — niki wonoto

The ultimate sin is forgetting how to love yourself despite everything else going on around you.

The only thing you have any true and enduring control over in this world is yourself - your beliefs, attitudes and behaviours.

No one is immune to hardship and adversity. That is life.

However things like resilience, stoicism, optimism, patience, self compassion, managing expectations and gratitude for the smallest things, all of these are personal choices to be made - part of one's persona. So the only person that can imbue that within themeself is, ofc themself.

If 2 people lose their job. And one spirals into depression while the other reinvents themselves, perhaps finds a better career or further self fulfillment. What is the difference there? The initial condition is the same - a bad thing happening. The difference is the resolution. How one approaches a negative and either maximises what benefit there is to be had (which there always is) or allows it to consume them.

Let yourself not fixate on the negatives. They will happen regardless. Out of your control. So, pause, reflect but then quickly put them behind you as fast as they enter your life.
Forgive whoever needs to be forgiven (including yourself) and move forward.

I'm guessing the Einstein for a day version of 180 Proof might be more like this: — wonderer1

Haha I think I would also be like that haha. Smug as a bug

it doesn't mean the probability of it existing as a subject is 1 — Skalidris

Then who am I speaking to. Haha. "who". The probability of subjective existence is "self-evident" because you and I are "selves". This doesn't need external proof. You know you exist.

The universe as a singularity - as "potential" is full of every possibility. Because ultimate potential is what that is, the ability to become anything.

The issue is when it does "become" something, it can no longer be "total potential" to be anything. Some of the potential has been used up, and thus it must abide by the behaviours and conditions that are neccesitated for something to "be" and propagate as such.

Just as the potential to be ice exist simultaneously with the potential to be 100 C boiling water. However, despite the potential for water to be either of these things, when it "is" "ice" ie when it's probability of ice approaches 1, it's potential to be boiling approaches zero, impossible.

This is how potential (anything goes) leads to reality (only one set of conditions goes).

How do you know that? — 180 Proof

Because there is no consensus yet. Quantum physics, newtonian and relative physics are not reconciled officially as far as I know. And they should be if the universe is truly connected consistently with itself and not in self violation.

There is elegance and truth to connecting different understandings in a way that doesn't contradict one another

IMO, anyone who denies that 's/he do not know that s/he do not know' by preaching some "absolute knowledge" is not an honest seeker (lover) of wisdom, whether s/he uses 'philosophical techniques' (e.g. sophists) or not (e.g. priests). — 180 Proof

The only issue with a "know it all" in the sense of the proverb "nobody likes a know it all" is that we aren't them.

If everyone has a mental paradigm for nature. And if we assume some people are more precise and correct and some are more deluded and incorrect. Then it stands to reason for the same reason there are people completely out of their mind/psychotic, there are also the genius - those that have a profound understanding of things.

It's merely a spectrum.
It doesn't make sense to acknowledge the existence of the most extreme "madness/insanity" but somehow for a ridiculous arbitrary reason deny the existence of the opposite end of knowledge, clarity and understanding.

I determine people's insight and intelligence by the logic in what they say. Not in whether I am smarter than them or not. That's just arrogance.

So I think these truth tellers are usually hated. I also suspect they probably knew that already. The irony being all they want to do is tell people what they know.

If you were Einstein for a day, would you not want to make some discoveries, just because you can, and write some paradigms or equations down and inform your peers of what you revealed? Or would you sit quietly while they scratch their heads?

Physical laws & constants are not "absolute truths". We "know" them only as structural invariants of our best provisional scientific models — 180 Proof

You're correct. I agree. If they were physics would be complete and a Toe would be established. They are however "closer" to that which doesn't change - the singularity - a fundamental and unchanging rule.

6). Therefore the probability that at present part of the universe can exist as a subject is also 1. — wonderer1

Well I don't think linear time actually exists outside of perception. Only frequencies and repetitive cycles.

So a sense of "present moment" , as well as past and future relies on memory. If you had no ability to remember anything from moment to moment eg. Severe dementia, then you're not orientated to any moment in time or sense of self identity. And would lose your ability to be aware and functional, unable to separate different memories of your life from the present moment.

So I think subjectivity and perception of passage of time are inextricably linked.

So when we speak of the universe as a subject it is always in the present moment. "When" subjects exist.

When we speak of the universe as at all times and places, then we speak in terms of objectivity and lack of subjectivity. As subjects cannot exist everywhere simultaneously and have any non contradictory perception of self.

"view point" is just that - the "view" (perception) from a point (locality). Imagine trying to look at yourself from every direction. Have sense of place from all places. Where are you? Who are you then? This would be like a disorientating room of mirrors existence but worse. A chaotic tessaract