Time is an illusion we have due to cyclic changes in our world.  We only live in the present.

You can see beyond the horizon, psychedelics would help you see this.  If life is nothing more than a mathematical pattern unfolding itself, you can see or feel the pattern and figure out answers of the future.  Just like the Mayans, Hindus, Christians, Mormons etc. predicted the end (transition) of the world, they were quite accurate.

I think my model is much simpler. Basically, we assume that reality is objective, and we, as an objective species existing in that reality, subjectively percieve that reality through our senses. If you start with the assumption that reality is objective, i.e. it exists and is as it is whether we percieve it or not, and place the fault of subjectivity only on our own limited subjective senses and reasoning ability, all the logic falls into place just fine.


That doesn't actually say anything. All you did was present a set of mathematical symbols, and claim that these symbols represent what you say they do. I don't even know if you mean a * b or something else, or if you mean 1 * a * 1 * b or 1-of-a * 1-of-b. Like, is 1 a number that is multiplied by other variables, or is 1 a function, like f in f(x)? If you're going to throw terms like these around, please take the time to explain them, since otherwise they don't have any meeting to anyone but yourself.


Actually, it's not "I don't know," but rather "It is not x" and possibly "It is Y with a probability of %." For instance, I know Dank, if he ever does, will NOT have his festival in the Marianas Trench, in the vacuum of space, on the moon or the sun, and likely not on top of Mt Everest, the top of the mpountain range in Chile, in the middle of the Sahara, inside of a car or a small shed, or in my house. Or at any number of other things that can not accomodate the requirements of having a concert (such as viable temperatures and sound carying atmosphere). I think that is considerably more precise than simply "I don't know," especially since it lets us to narrow the choices to an overall where we DO know. Like, if I didn't know whether Dank would have his concert in Venue A or in Venue B accross the street from Venue A, I can say with certainty that Dank will have his concert in a specific city that contains both venues. Likewise, I know that Dank will have his concert on Earth, if he actually does have a concert. And hey, that's how science works


If he is supposedly omnipresent, but yet can not be percieved, then...

If that's the case, why not just see what the next winning lottery number is, and not only fix your financial situation, but pay for as many concerts as you want?

Trust me, people will be WAY more bidazzled if you show that you can win three lotteries in a row. Plus, besides the money, you will have an absolute proof that your power is real, and that you are god. You don't even have to fly, since flying is easy to fake with wires and fake camera tricks, but winning the lottery, especially from different organizations, is almost impossible to fake.

Lucky would be winning once. Extremely lucky would be winning twice. Impossible would be winning three times, in a row. And it should be very simple for you. If you fly, other people won't fly too, they'll just start questioning how you did it (magicians in La Vegas "fly" all the time). If you win the lottery three times, no one will question your power.

That's fine, but no one will believe you that it isn't just a magic trick. Come on dank, show us you can read the future like you claimed you could Or at least tell us what price bitcoin will be at by the end of the month.

Hey, speaking of computers and stuff, dank, serious suggestion: Your rhythm skills are really sucky and needs improvement, and what might help and motivate you to getting it perfect is you getting an account at www.ujam.com and using that to structure and improve your music. Don't know if you've heard of that service, but it can do some incredible things for music, even if all you start with is a basic melody.

Everything with you is a promise in the future.  You haven't done anything in the past or present.  With you we are always waiting for something to happen in the future.

And the future never comes...

I think that's your mantra right there dank.

It will always be tomorrow with you - it will never be today.

1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.  Furthermore, if by simplicity you mean "conveniently throwing out information that doesn't fit into the method I've selected," then I agree with you.  I'm trying to tell you that there's other kinds of information that isn't empirical information, and while you've acknowledged that this other kind of information is real to some extent, you give its significance no inclusion whatsoever in your interpretation of reality.

That being said, using an empirical model is extremely practical for many things.  But it's entirely useless for forming theories about other kinds of information.  I'm inclined to think that your refusal to incorporate the significance of this 'other' kind of information is why you ultimately reject any concept of God.  It would never make sense to call anything 'God' in a strictly empirical model, especially when empiricism is limited by not only the problem of induction, but also by size (can't observe quantum-scale or global-scale) and rarity (UFOs, ET's, etc.).

2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen.  Here, I'll do three more:

a - a = 0  is really (1)a - (1)a = (1)0
1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3
"Apple" is really (1)Apple

Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something.  In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity.  This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other.

To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships.  Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'.  Take 'infinity' for instance.  Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "not-finite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others.  Consider the following scenario:

"Hey Bob, I like your...yard."
"Oh yeah?  How big do you think it is?"
"I don't know, but it looks HUGE!  You know how big mine is?"
"Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine."
""

And there you have it.  Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others.  And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough?  Give me a break.  Philosophers have the one-up on scientists and mathematicians all-day everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician).

3)  Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know."  Knowing that you can't know is still knowing.  It also makes for a better surprise.

4)  If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?

Jesus Christ!  OK, I'm not going to be kind any more.  Your logic is absolutely shocking and what's more, you are well aware of it.  You are deliberately deceptive and will be treated as such by me from now on.  You aren't interested in truth at all.  You just want to play with people.

Multiplying something by 1 only means you are saying there is one of this thing.  Nothing more.  It does not mean those things have a characteristic in common.

Infinity is an idea, not a number.   Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense.  It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity.  It's not a number, it doesn't have a size.

I'll bet you don't even try to get away with this crap in real life.  Just come on to a forum and think you'll have a little fun with people.  Is that it?