[removed]

Curious if you can provide any quotes/etc that back up your claims about Penrose saying "nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time."

Penrose is frequently described as a Platonist [1] [2] [3] [4]. The opening paragraph on Platonism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [5] says:

> Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.

I find this diagram really useful for thinking about Penrose's picture of reality.

[1] https://www.cantorsparadise.com/is-roger-penrose-a-platonist-or-a-pythagorean-f98ee8e70d9c

[2] https://astudentforever.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/a-defense-of-mathematical-platonism/#:~:text=Roger%20Penrose%20is%20a%20British,three%20worlds%20and%20three%20mysteries%E2%80%9D.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument

[4] https://www.whyarewehere.tv/people/roger-penrose/

[5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

[removed]

Satisfaction and desire are root of either pain or meining in life. Nowadays we have the tools to ignore pain with external stimulation, as a painkiller to a headache. In my opinion, the true way is acceptance, not resignation. Acceptance to internalize that life lack of meaning doesnt have to be a barrier or an excuse, but the true emotion of being alive. As the articule said, the human being is, as far as we know, the only living thing to understand and wonder about such a recurrent topic, but the despaire it may cause first shouldnt be a brick wall, but a starting gun. I hope I made myself clear, im not an english native and its the first time I comment in this section. Please argue me lol!

It was Nietzsche's thesis of Birth of Tragedy, not my own interpretation.

that didnt explain anything.

plus, the claim the article is making, is actually false. the tolerance paradox is correct as it is being used. the article is saying the tolerance paradox isn't correct. i applaud the author for trying to question things, but they missed the mark, because they should have realized that their hypothesis was false when they looked closer at the paradox.

I just pointed out that they are not sensible. It literally makes no sense for something to exist for no time or outside of time.

I also told you what some of those people you are talking about say. You cited Penrose I told you his views on time. He says nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time.

It's a perfect world, deal with it.

Why do we consider it the pinnacle of art? Was it the only culture that portrayed it as such. Plenty of cultures have a pragmatic reflection of life's suffering.

The existence of God is the only defeater of Nihilism.

Love how this theme was explored in the movie Everything Everywhere All At Once

The world is meaningless in itself. People make meaning- the entire notion of meaning is a human concept. Ants don't care, cats don't care, rocks and trees don't care.

Yes, but once someone's learned how to handle their suffering and can reliably obtain pleasures, what do they do then?

The Implications of AI on Philosophical and Socio-Political Discourse

The pervasiveness of AI in the age of the internet, particularly in the forms of data-collection, meta-data structuring and development, attention engineering and suggestion algorithm development, and most recently, opinion polarization, has created a new danger to philosophical and socio-political discourse. While philosophical discourse was once a field inhabited solely by human beings, a new group of actors has entered the scene, and that is the humble bots. I will discuss the implications of this uninvited and obtrusive force, and the questions it will entail in the coming years, both with regards to access to information and information preservation (ie. the manipulation of human history and its progression thereof) as well as platforms like reddit and its human users.

The first subject of this discussion will be about what bots really are. Most of us may be familiar with what a bot does, but to sum up briefly, a bot can create an account on any platform posing as a fellow human being, it can participate in discourse regarding any subject its AI is trained to focus on, it can like and subscribe to certain channels boosting their seeming appeal to humans and by extension their actual appeal, and it can come into r/philosophy and debate topics with humans. Bots can be mobilized by particular individuals or groups to spread information and generate novel or redundant modes of discourse with particular intentions. This essentially means that no public forum is free of artificially generated biases, nor are there sufficient safeguards against its pervasiveness.

The second subject regards how and where bots are being mobilized. Most will be familiar with the type of bot that is attempting to lead you down a rabbit hole, whether that be to scam you or to inflame you into responding to generate interactions, however there is a new kind of bot that has a more intelligent role in relation to its human counterpart, as well as a higher mode of operation. This kind of bot can simulate human awareness (without having "awareness" of its own), participate in discussions using systems like GPT-3.5 and beyond which are programmed to deliver cleverly designed subtext, all while guiding towards particular opinions and states-of-mind through suggestions on any and all media platforms. These platforms are then loaded with a unified software developed by a particular government's military-industrial complex, and driven by motives unseen to their human subjects. These software are catered to individuals and groups, and their resolution increases over time such that more details of your private life are pervaded, particularly your thoughts, decisions, actions, and biology. In this sense, free thought with regards to philosophical and socio-political discourse is already plagued by the motives of the few who control these higher order entities. Furthermore, acclaimed philosophers, scientists, psychologists, and politicians are themselves being plagued by the stains of agendas they most often are completely oblivious to, while their pride forces them deeper and deeper into polarized views of the world, becoming actors on behalf of their programmers.

To pose a series of questions: What can be done by humans to distinguish online human discourse from incentive driven AI discourse? Should this distinction be something to aim for, or are we to accept its rise as a part of human discourse? If we accept it, how do we avoid the inevitable resentment of other groups of humans and of what will eventually become a larger population of bots than humans within the online space? How do we remain free to engage in discussion with humans once the bot population increases to such a size that human generated information will no longer be upvoted sufficiently to be viewed? Would this not constitute philosophical and socio-political totalitarianism in the online space? Does ignoring these questions lead to peace of mind, or does it lead to gradual/imminent enslavement? How do we preserve the historical record of discourse and its uncontaminated continuation across the fields?

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Not the best way to put it, true.

The point was that the article seemed to say that IF you are a supporter of a free society, you MUST accept these claims. Which is nonsense, because everything depends on what is meant by those things. And especially nonsense, if the claims are very abstract philosophical constructs, such as duties or rights, as the previous commenter mentioned.

Consciousness is a punchline to the deadpan of the universe.

Just to be clear--I'm not arguing that God exists, or even that eternal things exist. I'm only arguing that these concepts are sensible, and have been widely studied, by people far smarter than a couple of redditors :P

Wow. Nothing I've read has ever encapsulated my belief structure more succinctly.

In order to starve off the terror that comes with cosmic nihilism, you have to be able to eschew terrestrial nihilism...but honestly, the whole "creative" thing seems like the distraction step all over again.

You didn’t address my points. The word exists doesn’t make sense outside of time.

What you are doing is conflating different people saying different things about time and then concluding that God not only exists but is outside of time and this doesn’t mean he is infinitely old.

You cite Penrose. Penrose says time is fundamental and that there is no such thing as outside of time. He thinks that universes come into existence in time and then die off and get recreated again. Of course most physicists disagree with him, they think time began with the universe.

Finally Penrose doesn’t believe a God exists and created the universe. Most physicists also believe this so maybe it’s not best to try and cite science when trying to claim a God exists.

Definitely not flying from Oakland to SFO and complaining that publicly available information is being used to follow the movements of the private jet pumping out a looot of pollution.