Im bored, ask me anything. We can talk about something.

[puppy9]

Why you chose @SipSop as your username?

 

[SipSop]

In the future though maybe?

No.
We evolve simultaneously.
Phelps is the best of us in terms of swimming speed and we don't even come close.

Why you chose @SipSop as your username?

Random anonymous username.
And I like how it sounds.
Sounds cute.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

I can state my opinion, I'm not time traveler.
By evolutive process the chicken evolved so that it could lay eggs.
The body of chicken transformed in time and adapted so that it can lie eggs instead of giving birth.

 

[Deleted member 19654]

If you could disinvent one thing, what would it be?

 

[SipSop]

If you could disinvent one thing, what would it be?

Thats a awesome question.
I never thought about it.
I will think about it.
It's a tough one.

If you could disinvent one thing, what would it be?

Listen, I will think about it.
I don't know if I can come up with something. If I do I will let you know.

As a side note.
I have a opinion. That we do not invent things.
We discover them.
Based on a combinatorial process we form tools to aid us. Thats why humans are dominant in animal kingdom, we are not the most powerful but the most smart ones, we build a tool for every frickin need we have.
Saying this, I consider not only that iphones were available 3 thousands years ago but even at the beginning of times. But the system was not in place to conclude with such a device.
Saying that, think about how many things wait to be discovered based on combinatorial process of existing information, tools and materials!

 

[puppy9]

@SipSop would you swim in a spent fuel (nuclear) pool?

 

[SipSop]

@SipSop would you swim in a spent fuel (nuclear) pool?

No.

 

[puppy9]

@SipSop would you wanna fly on machine gun jetpack?

 

[SipSop]

@SipSop would you wanna fly on machine gun jetpack?

Is this what you're talking about?

 

[puppy9]

@SipSop yeah, actually it's possible with a proper trust to weight ratio.

would you wanna boil the ocean dry; if it's possible for you to do so?

 

[SipSop]

@SipSop yeah, actually it's possible with a proper trust to weight ratio.

would you wanna boil the ocean dry; if it's possible for you to do so?

To ask the previous question: yes, I would like to experience that ride with the jetpack.
Feels like I would fly with a jackhammer on my back but hey, is something new.

About the ocean stuff: no.
When I think about it I think about the deprivation of opportunity to sail. Like to not be able to navigate on a boat. Wich I think has it's charm.

 

[141592653]

Is this question rhetorical ?
.
.
.
Do you think self reference can lead to something else than paradox or infinity?

 

[SipSop]

Is this question rhetorical ?
.
.
.
Do you think self reference can lead to something else than paradox or infinity?

Can you detail?
What do you mean by self reference?

 

[141592653]

For instance, the sentence "I lie" is a paradox mainly cauz it makes reference to the sentence itself. If you know Russel's paradox it's similar. If you know Turing's proof for incalculability, same. And same again for Gödels theorem proof.

And of course when I ask "Is this question rethorical?" it is a self reference. This is called reflexivity in computer science. But science is one thing and language another.

For instance, if one could make a perfect simulation of the universe, this simulation would be in the simulation , itself in the simulation of the simulation etc. Like a fractal.

 

[SipSop]

For instance, the sentence "I lie" is a paradox mainly cauz it makes reference to the sentence itself

How is I lie or itself a paradox?
How is that self-contradictory or false?

 

[141592653]

How is I lie or itself a paradox?
How is that self-contradictory or false?

Well if I say "I lie" maybe in english "I'm lying" is better, sorry, not native speaker. There are two possibilities : if I'm lying then I'm telling the truth and if I told the truth then I lied.

 

[SipSop]

Well if I say "I lie" maybe in english "I'm lying" is better, sorry, not native speaker. There are two possibilities : if I'm lying then I'm telling the truth and if I told the truth then I lied.

Yeah, I get your point. And you expressed it well.
In real world we do not look too much in depth, we don't need it, we don't have time or interest.
It is a good point but reserved for special occasions,theoretical philosopical debates. It's mindfuck if we look too much into it.
I say this because I reason that when I say "I lie" I point out at the deed, not at myself. I guess if I point at myself is true that I lie, if I point at the deed I reveal a disinformation wich is the lie that I said.
I hope it makes sense.

If you could disinvent one thing, what would it be?

Hey man, I cannot think at something that I would disinvent and to be honest and true to you.

I believe that things that are invented can have their use at proper time when needed.
Therefore is no need to erase anything.
Perhaps to hide if from others, yes, and to keep the information only for myself. That would be neat.
But to erase something invented seems to me like a loss.

 

[Sherri]

What's your favourite country?

 

[141592653]

It is a good point but reserved for special occasions,theoretical philosopical debates. It's mindfuck if we look too much into it.

Well I think about that all the time, and I always use this in debates to show people they are wrong cauz they are not thinking in a sound logic system.

I say this because I reason that when I say "I lie" I point out at the deed, not at myself. I guess if I point at myself is true that I lie, if I point at the deed I reveal a disinformation wich is the lie that I said.

I'm not sure to understand this mainly because of my english which should be better to have such a conversation. Though, I'll try to answer :
"point out at the deed, not at myself" => I disagree to me, the sentence "I'm lying" (I really think it is more accurate cauz this makes it ponctual in time) point at the sentence itself. The question is what do I do when I tell that ? A priori I'm telling that to someone who will use the english standard semantics to make a meaning of this sentence. The meaning would be pointing at to things : the deed and myself. Though I believe that when you say
" if I point at myself is true that I lie, if I point at the deed I reveal a disinformation wich is the lie that I said."
you are implicitely stating that truth is relative from the way we interpret this sentence. And that's why I do not like common languages.

So if I decompose it I would say that "I'm lying" is a intemporal property of myself, whom I'll call M. The object M (Me) then has the property that it's lying. Let's say that lying is a function which takes a person and returns False if this person tells the truth and True otherwise.

Then when I say "I'm lying", I'm saying "L(M) = True"
when I say " if I'm lying then I'm telling the truth" I am in fact stating "L(M) => not L(M)" which already false in propositional logic.
So mathematically there is nothing interesting happening.

Though it's still interesting in the language. This means that the sentence is completely decorelated from any logical perspective cauz to prove the paradox to people, I always need to add the second part wich is " and if I told the truth then I lied. ". Why do we need this to be convinced where in logics the proof itself is incoherent while the statement is completely correct.

So I spoke way more than I expected and I just understood how this paradox is linked to language contrarily to Russel's, Turing's and Gödel's which are universal.

 

[SipSop]

Well I think about that all the time, and I always use this in debates to show people they are wrong cauz they are not thinking in a sound logic system.



I'm not sure to understand this mainly because of my english which should be better to have such a conversation. Though, I'll try to answer :
"point out at the deed, not at myself" => I disagree to me, the sentence "I'm lying" (I really think it is more accurate cauz this makes it ponctual in time) point at the sentence itself. The question is what do I do when I tell that ? A priori I'm telling that to someone who will use the english standard semantics to make a meaning of this sentence. The meaning would be pointing at to things : the deed and myself. Though I believe that when you say
" if I point at myself is true that I lie, if I point at the deed I reveal a disinformation wich is the lie that I said."
you are implicitely stating that truth is relative from the way we interpret this sentence. And that's why I do not like common languages.

So if I decompose it I would say that "I'm lying" is a intemporal property of myself, whom I'll call M. The object M (Me) then has the property that it's lying. Let's say that lying is a function which takes a person and returns False if this person tells the truth and True otherwise.

Then when I say "I'm lying", I'm saying "L(M) = True"
when I say " if I'm lying then I'm telling the truth" I am in fact stating "L(M) => not L(M)" which already false in propositional logic.
So mathematically there is nothing interesting happening.

Though it's still interesting in the language. This means that the sentence is completely decorelated from any logical perspective cauz to prove the paradox to people, I always need to add the second part wich is " and if I told the truth then I lied. ". Why do we need this to be convinced where in logics the proof itself is incoherent while the statement is completely correct.

So I spoke way more than I expected and I just understood how this paradox is linked to language contrarily to Russel's, Turing's and Gödel's which are universal.

Good for you mate.
Compared to your mathematical equations, my statements look dumb but I focus on utility and effectiveness.
You said that truth is relative, well yes, if we play politics and we want to mindfuck each other like government officials do with lies of omission and disinformation all the time.
But objectively we all know what we meant based on the goal we want to reach.

Namely, I focus on matter.
Matter never lies.
Matter is simple, true and functional.

What's your favourite country?

In wich I had been or I imagine I would like if I would visit?

 

[141592653]

You said that truth is relative, well yes, if we play politics and we want to mindfuck each other like government officials do with lies of omission and disinformation all the time.

I disagree, hiding information is not lying. It's manipulation. I stopped lying 10 years (I'm suspected Asperger) but I manipulate truth which is absolute. Facts are the truth. When you hide some facts, if you do it cleverly, you can induce something which is false in people's mind without lying. That's exactly what media and governments do to do disinformation while being completely credible.

Namely, I focus on matter.
Matter never lies.
Matter is simple, true and functional.

I like that. Really love it. I love all those posts in this thread btw, it's really distracting, instructive and interesting.

 

[SipSop]

I disagree, hiding information is not lying. It's manipulation. I stopped lying 10 years (I'm suspected Asperger) but I manipulate truth which is absolute. Facts are the truth. When you hide some facts, if you do it cleverly, you can induce something which is false in people's mind without lying. That's exactly what media and governments do to do disinformation while being completely credible.


I like that. Really love it. I love all those posts in this thread btw, it's really distracting, instructive and interesting.

I was making something to eat when something popped in my mind about what you said, I left it and came to reply this:

I forgot about him but your statements reminded me of this quote.
Perhaps you study or you are passionate about mathematical thinking and apply it to everyting you do, or perhaps you need it at your job.
But what is important, beside the baggage of knowledge you cumulate by asking questions in depth si to reach some functional goals that would nurture you, satisfy you[your emotional part, not just your rational part wich I see it as dead and dry(wich is useful but only as a tool to your passion wich is primal desire to gain and experience because in the end we are still apes)].
Not everybody is capable of thinking depth like you. Many would say that they are not interested but the truth is they can't. The same goes for power. Wich is the most important thing there is. It requires intense focus, links between data and some degree of creativity.
But it would be a waste to lose yourself in fictional theoretical realm when matter is more useful and accessible to a mind like yours.
Useful like gaining what you desire.

I disagree, hiding information is not lying. It's manipulation. I stopped lying 10 years (I'm suspected Asperger) but I manipulate truth which is absolute. Facts are the truth. When you hide some facts, if you do it cleverly, you can induce something which is false in people's mind without lying. That's exactly what media and governments do to do disinformation while being completely credible.


I like that. Really love it. I love all those posts in this thread btw, it's really distracting, instructive and interesting.

Also this:

 

[141592653]

Perhaps you study or you are passionate about mathematical thinking and apply it to everyting you do, or perhaps you need it at your job.

For now I'm studying music but I used to study computer science and math. It is also a passion and a job and yes, but I don't apply it to everything I do.

[your emotional part, not just your rational part wich I see it as dead and dry(wich is useful but only as a tool to your passion wich is primal desire to gain and experience because in the end we are still apes)].

Math and logic are very emotional for me, it brings vertigo, discovering Gödel's theorem was one of the most astunishing experience I had. It dispaired me fascinated me and also made me euphoric.

But it would be a waste to lose yourself in fictional theoretical realm when matter is more useful and accessible to a mind like yours.

I completely get that all of this is abstract nonsense [which is for me a shortcut for the quote from Tesla] (btw it is the name of one my facebook pages on which I post my photographs). But to me, nothing has a real absolute meaning, nor my life, nor the one of the others. Though I'm not nihilist. I find meaning in some thing. I think about reflexivity, infinity and paradoxes cauz I like it and I have no other reason to do it. The fact to like to do something is the more [relative] meaningful reason to do it, at least for me. So if I can find some happiness in abstract nonsense (and also some money), I do it cauz it's meaningful for me.

Useful like gaining what you desire.

I may do a bad interpretation of this sentence but to me, you agree with me on the fact that if I find it funny then it is useful, at least for me.

 

[epic]

Do you pour Milk first then cereal or Cereal first then milk ?

 

[SipSop]

Do you pour Milk first then cereal or Cereal first then milk ?

Milk first then cereals.
The reasoning is: I take the milk from the fridge and pour it into a bowl in the amount I want to drink. Then microwave it or heated it on the stove. So I won't have too much milk heated.
Then I pour the cereals in the amount I want to eat + add some extra in case I finish them faster and I have some milk left.

Total control.
It seems perfect to me.

 

[epic]

Milk first then cereals.
The reasoning is: I take the milk from the fridge and pour it into a bowl in the amount I want to drink. Then microwave it or heated it on the stove. So I won't have too much milk heated.
Then I pour the cereals.

You should switch to cereal first . In your technique , you end up pouring too much milk and you have to compensate it by adding extra cereal . Then you have more cereal than your appetite.

 

[SipSop]

You should switch to cereal first . In your technique , you end up pouring too much milk and you have to compensate it by adding extra cereal . Then you have more cereal than your appetite.

Yeah, you're right.
But even thinking about it doesn't feel right to me for some reason.

 

[141592653]

You should switch to cereal first . In your technique , you end up pouring too much milk and you have to compensate it by adding extra cereal . Then you have more cereal than your appetite.

+1, I'm team cereal first

 

[SipSop]

+1, I'm team cereal first

I didn't choose the milk first life,
The milk first life choose meh.

 

[epic]

I didn't choose the milk first life,
The milk first life choose meh.

You have been brainwashed by the media.

 

[SipSop]

View attachment 48035
You have been brainwashed by the media.

Brainwashed by media because of milk first?