Thread 16770206

How do you know that even though the future was like the past in the past, that the future will be like the past in the future? and what is your basis for knowing that?

Past and future are imaginary chaotic beasts.
Only the present is an island of deterministic completion.

>>16770206 (OP)
Nobody knows that for sure; the Problem of Induction is the Achilles' heel of the scientific method.
That been said, it's one thing to not know for sure if certain currently reproducible aspect of reality will remain unchanged in perpetuity, it's another to bet gravity will stop working tomorrow.
For all we know it could, but are you really yolo enough to step off a six story building?

I just woke up from a dream which holds the most credible evidence I have of a multiverse. Please exercise caution when replying, though the information is stable, its "identity" in terms of coherence is technically quantum volatile. Condition for transfer is different from condition for recreation. (assume 24% of the world is on organic trajectory for double blind sake)
You can ask anything which seems likely to imply a constructive response, though you should use caution as with normal historical gestures. I can provide details as it is known relevant


"who told you it was okay to hold hands like this?"

>>16771353
Simply put, I don't know. I'd just be a happy camper, rockin' and a rolling

>>16771373
(was intended as a reply to OP)

Update: there is not a BSI having occured anywhere in the cosmic horizon with a valid claim of exclusive technique. Epistemic quality whole

Simulation::ETA is an API you should consider publishable

why are bot rambling threads tolerated here?

>>16773665
You have to explain whatever motive someone has for this question, otherwise you sound like a faggot who doesn't want an honest discussion of one of the most important and foundational questions in modern science.

>>16773665
Please don't lump me in with the jeet-PT threads. I'm asking honestly.

Currently? We don't know. You need people to ask, and then have guts for carrying out each relevant experiment. Ah, you felt like skipping one of the fun little ideas for why we might have physics wrong, since the idea was terrifying/silly? Guess you didn't understand how science fucking works

>>16772076
FYI science integral to functionality

OP, that's a very intriguing image. It's wrinkling my brain.

>>16776713
It comes from Bakemonogatari

>>16770206 (OP)
because it's simpler that way

>>16776861
So?

>>16770206 (OP)
we have the least bit of clue about our past. some superficial partial shell of knowledge about it. weird that people are so oblivious to this

>>16771375
>>16771373
Take your meds trsnnies