cgmg

> the quote boils down to "Life is suffering"

Not in any meaningful sense. Clearly the quote contains more than that. It's like saying "everything boils down to A = A" (Aristotle, Metaphysics), therefore anything following from that is an "unoriginal" idea.

> To be clear, Peterson's commentary is not original. M. Scott Peck, the Buddha, and literally 100s of other philosophers and psychologists have shared similar insights. Remarkably, those thinkers managed to share this insight without offending half the population in order to drive book sales and line their pockets.

What point are you trying to make with this snide remark?

That sources should be disregarded if their ideas “offend” 50% of the population (a claim for which you provided no evidence)?

That sources should be disregarded if they made money from book sales? This would mean disregarding almost all sources.

That a commentary is "unoriginal" if someone in the past has "shared similar insights"? This is pure nonsense.

> Nobody (in the general sense) actually cares about decentralization; it serves no utility in and of itself.

What evidence do you have to support this ridiculous claim? The vast amount of interest in cryptocurrencies seems to indicate otherwise, not to mention the use of all kinds of decentralized cryptographic protocols.

> Ireland had a market economy, Ireland had enough food to feed everyone, ergo the free market caused the famine.

That is a non-sequitur. What makes you think “the free market” caused the famine?

Do you have a source to support your claim that "the free market" was responsible for killing a quarter of Ireland's population?

The examples you mentioned are not Gödel sentences, but rather Russell’s paradox and the liar paradox, respectively. A Gödel sentence for a theory T says “This sentence is not provable by T.” Truth is very different from provability and, unlike provability, cannot be represented as an arithmetic formula.

See the section titled “Relationship with the liar paradox” in the Wikipedia article on the incompleteness theorems.

Do you realize that none of what you said contradicts the GP?

Vampire squids don't feed on blood.

> I think comments like these are more likely propaganda than real experiences.

So you are calling redm a liar. Do you have anything to back up that accusation? Or are you calling them a liar purely because it suits your poorly-constructed narrative?

> When we all know statistically America is worse than ever before.

"We all know..." is false. What you mean is probably more along the lines of "This is what I think, without having done any research to support my wild claim."

> You read the parent comment and think the poor and just lazy

Where did the GP call the poor lazy?

> and all your have to do is work yourself a slave and suck corporate dick.

See above.

> Nope, it's always the corporate stooge.

Why are you accusing redm of being a 'corporate stooge'?

What?

> I posited that the author was pandering to an audience with such beliefs

Why did you posit that?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the author believes “if one doesn't sell, one has incurred no loss”?

Why are they in the wrong (on this issue)?

Can you present an example?

Related: http://tensor-compiler.org/codegen.html. This converts an expression in tensor index notation into executable code.

Introspection allows one to develop plausible axioms, conditions, or properties that are satisfied by a conscious object (e.g. ourselves) and move on from there, as Giulio Tononi did with Integrated Information Theory.

Some relevant papers:

An Approximation of the Universal Intelligence Measure

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-44958-1_...

Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437021...

Where is the contradiction?

> Is your particle moving with the reference frame? I believe so.

It is not moving with respect to the reference frame.

> Do you have motion when you are in a plane? Or do you say you are at rest because the passenger next to you is moving with you?

You are having a hard time understanding reference frames. You are at rest with respect to the plane. You are at rest with respect to the passenger beside you (assuming they're sitting still, relative to the plane). You are not at rest with respect to the ground below.

The whole point of relativity is that no inertial frame is in an absolute state of "motion" or "rest". The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, whether it be your plane or the earth itself.

> If so how can you claim that the ship is at rest?

The ship is at rest with respect to its own reference frame.

> So do you deny that the earth is moving? I assume not.

The earth is at rest with respect to its own reference frame.

It is moving with respect to other things, such as the sun, or the center of the galaxy. Motion and rest are relative. This is the key concept, and I don't understand why you're having such trouble with it.

> The statement is: "Nothing is absolutely at rest."

An object is at rest with respect to its own reference frame.

> The academic descendants of the same academics who believed in absolute rest now call themselves physicists and make the same mistake and assume that absolute rest exists.

In other words, you think all physicists are wrong and you're right?

> In your case you make the assumption that absolute rest exists.

This is a straw man. No one is making that assumption. Something is in motion or at rest with respect to a reference frame. For some reason, you keep misinterpreting this statement and ranting about "absolute motion" and "absolute rest".

My favorite formulation of Maxwell's equations is

◻²A = J

where A is the 4-potential, J is the 4-current, and ◻² is the 4-Laplacian or d'Alembertian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and...). The reason this is so elegant is because it is both manifestly covariant and manifestly a wave equation. See https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201847/why-is-th.... Furthermore, conservation of 4-current is given by

◻·J = 0

where ◻· is the 4-divergence. Again, the equation is manifestly covariant and very elegant. There are reasons to believe that the electromagnetic potential is in a sense more fundamental than the electromagnetic field:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect

Also, the magnitude of the momentum 4-vector is a Lorentz scalar, meaning it is invariant. Hence the rest mass m = |P| is invariant.

> Motion is absolute.

What are you talking about? Motion is definitely not absolute, and only Galilean invariance is needed to see that.

This. The quantity that “truly” exists is the energy-momentum 4-vector P. A vector exists independently of any particular reference frame. Its components, on the other hand, depend on such a reference frame.

Seen from a given reference frame, the temporal component of P is the energy E, its spatial components are the momentum 3-vector p, and its magnitude is the rest mass |P| = sqrt(E^2 - p^2) = m. The minus sign rather than plus sign is due to the Lorentzian signature. It is very helpful to visualize these quantities geometrically as 4-vectors in 4-dimensional space.

Do you not see the irony in your comment?

The problem with the glove analogy (i.e. having a local hidden variable) is that it cannot explain quantum entanglement. Bell's theorem shows that entangled systems are correlated in a strictly stronger way. Quantum indeterminacy is different than the classical "we don't know which glove is in your pocket but we know they're opposites" sort of uncertainty.

South American (Venezuelan) here. This is not true. Blaming US foreign policy for all or even most of South America's failures is silly and a common tactic of demagogues, with no basis in reality, to deflect from bad domestic policy.

Admittedly, I did not fully understand the point the GP was trying to make with the Spain comparison.

Why do you think that's relevant?

In any case, the same point would apply in the other direction.