the art style is 10/10

if your fish have fingers, you might want to check your water for mutagens

the biggest mistake of vegan food is that it uses too little fat in most cases, i think

because “health”. meanwhile plant oil is actually healthy

i think in germany it would be turkish food?

it was never about spices i think. they just wanted to sail around the world and do stupid shit

what do you mean like that? like a computer chip?

lmao i laughed my ass of at this one, idk what makes it so good

to find old flash player stuff, check out https://flashpointarchive.org/

i personally like to match my 100g cheeseburger with about 100g of spicy cream sauce

dude it’s simple bro, you’ll figure it out when you see it, trust me

thanks for your comment. i appreciate it.

Yeah, i know that the current physical worldview is not actually exactly correct. It’s an approximation that is somewhat close to what we can practically observe today, namely close enough that no practical deviation has been found for all experiments performed. That does not mean that it actually describes the world correctly.

I believe that every physical model is wrong, in the sense that it deviates from how-the-world-actually-behaves by some non-zero amount. Yet that amount is small enough to be declared “insignificant” by world-leading scientists. And i’m too tired to argue about that.

Anyways, another interesting concept of physics that i believe is wrong is the commonly-held assumption that energy is always conserved. In fact, some 20th-century authors have already written about the fact that this is not the case in cosmological contexts, for example this paper (full text available as PDF for free download). I recommend checking it out, it’s rather short (4 pages) and well-written.

Yet we have that model in our world that “energy is conserved”, that’s what’s being taught at every engineering school, because for every practical context (i.e. everything outside of cosmological timescales which involve billions of years), conservation of energy is a good enough approximation that does not show any differences to what can be measured in human-made experiments.

So, every physical model is an approximation, even the very central ones, such as the conservation of energy.

yeah i’m well aware that not every person can have that viewpoint. see my original post.

As Bohm argued, autonomous objects are human inventions.

Yeah but they are not just arbitrary inventions. They are necessary inventions which every type of animal or intelligent being would necessarily make, and that puts them on a higher ontological level.

This is where your Plato point breaks down. You replace the ill-defined river with another definition including an ill-defined “shape of the landscape,” which is also changing all the time just as much as the river does, with no singular and consistent “shape of the landscape,” and its very precise shape is impossible to rigorously define even at a single time instant.

Well, i get your point, but what plato does is actually to go further and not just replace the water with some curve in space, but he goes on to say that precisely because the shape is infinitely complex (and we can therefore not comprehend it anyways), we have to replace it with something simpler in our mind. something like doing the following:

replace the fuzzy nature of reality with something simpler, which then (by agreeing upon it), becomes what we call real.

funnily enough, that’s exactly the argument that you seem to be making. “reality” is perceived by us precisely because it is a social construct that is useful to us, and therefore it has to be simple.

For example, Benoist would say that, if you are talking about a river in the abstract, it does not refer to anything real. But the word “river” serves as a socially constructed norm that can be used to judge reality to be something, and thus can be employed in a social setting. If I see a river and point to it, and say, “look at that river over there,” the river is now not just an abstract symbol, but it is a symbol pointing to something in a real world context, where people can really observe its glistening surface, dip their toes in it and feel its cold water, etc.

Yes, precisely, that is why we think abstract thoughts. Because they convey information more meaningfully than the thing with you call reality. Check out how pictograms are used by IKEA furniture, chemical lab danger warnings, anime etc to convey information, because that is actually clearer / more fun / easier to digest than to use real-world depictions. Thus, by social contract, these abstractions become our reality, just like the smartphone has replaced actual inter-human contact.

if you shit in your pants, it does indeed not “get the job done” to navigate you through your daily life (with somewhat acceptable quality of life). so it is not the simplest model that gets the job done.

same for the river. if you poison it, you end up poisoning yourself because that poison ends up in your food and drinking water, eventually. so it does indeed not get the job done. and that’s what disqualifies it.

After reading all your comments, i want to comment something myself:

Reality, as i see it, comes from the latin word “res”, often literally translated as thing. However, i want to propose a slightly related, but different origin of the word. It does indeed come from latin “res”, which again comes from latin “rex”, which means king. Let me explain:

I’m not so sure about roman law specifically, but under medieval law, property could in theory be owned by anyone, but in practice, specific types of property (namely land property especially, and often mines (and minerals) and later in early modern age right to exert military actions) were mostly only owned by feudal lords (which represent the ruler, replacing the king). Thus “reality” are the things that belong to the kings and feudal lords. There’s also a similar word that discusses this more explicitly: “regalities” (kingly rights).

Therefore land geometry (how big a grain field is), minerals (and metals derived thereof) and for some reason, the military, are real, while things like typical “personal” property (related: personal property article) like clothing, food products (especially vegetable harvests, which were not taxed by the king) and various movable utensils are not real, because they could be owned by anyone and were not considered “typical ruler’s things”.

i think this is just a metaphorical picture for depression

Gravity applies no matter how far away you are.

ISS begs to differ

deep original profound thoughts that stand for all time after masturbating

they stand for all time because this pattern keeps repeating over and over again

i think that falls under the “I don’t know” and “be not afraid lol” categories :P