My answer to todays physical problems

[LatinasAreTheFuture]

It’s easy, you guys

 

[Vecr]

Is this your manifesto?

 

[eatler]

If I had a business I would hire you for my PR group.

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

Oh fuck yeah schitzothread.

Admiral Bird got the US alien technology when he went to Agartha, and along with recovered UFOs the US was able to go to the moon. The footage is fake though, because they found the alien base in the hollow moon. These aliens struck a deal, they would give humanity technology in return for harvesting humans for various purposes. The leaders agreed, and there is controlled harvesting Missing persons. Missing 411 has many strange patterns, such as higher intelligence and Germanic background. WWII, Admiral Bird, Nazi occultism, Operation Paperclip. But where are they taken? Dulce New Mexico. But the aliens have many bases under the Earth, not just Dulce. We know this because of CIA physics astral-projecting and finding incomprehensible technological bases hidden under the ground and under the ocean. All of them connected by energy unable to be understood. MK Ultra proved that minds can be manipulated, example being Charles Manson. Mason was given lots of what type of drug for brainwashing his cult? Psychedelics. The hippie movement was CIA, and powerful drugs have been weaponized to control the public. But MK Ultra made a mistake in drug choice, as the psychedelics used were unreliable. What could be more reliable? Something mild. SSRIs, Adderal, Opioids, Benzos. Everone makes money, everyone gains power, and the aliens have little trouble using us as a commodity.

 

[Bloitzhole]

Can you put that into a minecraft modpack instead?

 

[Whatevermancer]

Your answer? But who asked?

 

[The Connected Nose]

Got a tl;dr for those who don't trust a pdf file from some random faggot on the internet?

 

[VargReallyDidNothingWrong]

Scientists (physicists) today struggle with a serious problem. The powerful physical tools that man has developed fail in explaining or even in really describing life. No meaningful statement could be made about life by physics.

This is patently untrue. You could describe every single element of the reality of me throwing a rock at your stupid head and ending your life for wasting my time with this gay-ass shit.

 

[pyrogon]

Got a tl;dr for those who don't trust a pdf file from some random faggot on the internet?

For those of you who are smart enough to not download random PDF files, I have done so for you,
----
My Answer
Scientists (physicists) today struggle with a serious problem. The powerful physical tools that
man has developed fail in explaining or even in really describing life. No meaningful statement
could be made about life by physics. For the physical minded person this is a disaster! Physics
was supposed to be the answer to everything! Ever more accurate descriptions were supposed
to lead to some kind of theory of everything, and while this beautifully describes the physical
world and builds us atom bombs and incredibly powerful electronics, it completely fails at
describing something as simple as the organism! (Laughter)
The problem is remedied as I see it: physics is but one of three and any close examination at
the particular one while blind to the others is an incomplete observation. The other two of this
tripartite division are the virtual and the symbolic. I profess at this moment to not know very
much about virtual nature: I do know that the name is misleading and is in no way related to
computer simulation. Physicists do not seem to be sure about the virtual either. My concern is
symbolic nature. (Applause)
Briefly, the ontology is (it seems to me) either a linear or a reticular model: in both models virtual
particles interact to produce phenomena known as physical particles, physical particles interact
to produce phenomena known as symbolic, mental, ideal, or platonic particles. The question is
whether this phenomenal increase ends at the symbolic or loops back around to the virtual. The
reticulate model is what is being suggested to me, but I cannot understand how the mind
influences virtual nature, and thereby physical nature. These conclusions are concerning.
I am convinced that the organism is entirely symbolic. My reasoning for this is as follows:
Primarily, interpretation. Secondarily, the relational nature of life. Meaning is an object of
symbolic nature. No meaning belongs to, or is contained by, physical objects.
This being the case, physiology, medicine and related fields are the domains of the description
by physics and not of the life sciences. Only the abstract sciences could be described as a life
science.
I have elaborated before at length about my thoughts on science. Please allow me a moment
here to do that again. Any theory, any arrangement of ideas is a possible science. The act of
collection, the consumption of signs is what it means to be a scientist. (Applause, followed by a
standing ovation)
Agents living in nature have been organizing signs long before man came to be. Here is the
answer. Science and life are both the same thing

 

[Vecr]

Briefly, the ontology is (it seems to me) either a linear or a reticular model: in both models virtual
particles interact to produce phenomena known as physical particles, physical particles interact
to produce phenomena known as symbolic, mental, ideal, or platonic particles. The question is
whether this phenomenal increase ends at the symbolic or loops back around to the virtual.

Look, I can post random text as well!

The neuropsychological investigation of temporal perception has revealed a variety of
‘thresholds’ for the conscious perception of simultaneity, nonsimultaneity, temporal ordering, and
presence. In terms of what Wackerman (2007) calls the ‘inner horizons’ of perception, many of the
findings merely refine those of William James (2007) and his contemporaries at the end of the 19th
century. The findings vary according to a diverse variety of factors, particularly with regards to modality,
but also with respect to stimulus type and intensity, training, locomotor, emotional or attentional state,
and so on. In each case however, it is possible to track the point at which subjects simply cannot
accurately discern simultaneity, nonsimultaneity, or temporal ordering.
In addition to these inner horizons, Wackerman discusses what he calls the ‘outer horizons’ of
temporal perception and cognition. Referring to James’ conception of the ‘sensible present,’ he writes,
“[c]ontemporary research into time perception and timing behavior has surprisingly little to add to it,
except an updated terminology and an extended experimental database” (2007, p. 25). Findings from a
variety of sources converge on a ‘window of presence’ some 2 to 3 seconds in length, beyond which
‘perceived unity in time’ disintegrates, and reproductive memory (cognition) takes over.14 In effect, the
now is a kind of temporal field, an ‘integration window’ which binds stimuli into singular percepts.
The now, in other words, possesses its own asymptotic limit, one analogous to the edge of visual
field. Where the limit of the visual field simply marks the point at which conscious access to immediate
visual information ends, we could surmise that the limit of the temporal field marks the point at which
conscious access to immediate temporal information ends (and where, likewise, we are forced to rely on
cognition, which is to say, alternative modalities of information access). Since the conscious brain cannot
access information regarding the limits of the temporal information it accesses, the information it receives
always appears modally sufficient: as with the visual field, the temporal field becomes something only
cognition can ‘situate.’