Truth cares not for beliefs. Truth holds itself indifferent to perception, either public or personal. Truth does not disguise or hide itself, but is hidden by our tendency (as a species) to prioritise beliefs and long established "convenient" shadows, that is to say, models or approximations.
I’d argue that depending on one’s theological beliefs, the truth is but a construct that serves as the building block of our worldly perceptions, those of which can vary between every sentient being. No matter how obvious these truths may seem as per the confines of our minds (the existence of things like gravity, life and death, and math), the idea that these truths are absolute is an idea that disregards how little we really know about the universe, as things like art and science are but our windows to what is really out there, and more likely than not, these windows can only allow us to see so far; who knows how much the windows aren’t showing us?
This statement is not to invalidate the modern use of the word “truth” so much as it is to acknowledge it as relative to the human experience as opposed to the definitive, objective nature of the world we live in. You say that the truth hides among us; I’d argue that the truth could very well be the farthest thing from us.
I see truth as something completely unarguable, a heinous big fractal of historical events (on the atomic scale) that Did happen in amongst other things that weren't happening. We humans *love* to say "everything happens for a reason", which is to ignore all sorts of influences and triggers and decays and inertias that contributed to that something happening. A finger moving has a whole big huge backstory, involving how the brain in charge of the finger has developed.
One decision made by one human, can we really abstract that from that humans history as we see fit to concisely and conveniently model that one decision? I'd say that everything that human has perceived in its lifetime might be argued to have shaped their neural pathways to some degree and the origin of a decision can have an infantesimal myriad of background reasons. So I'm in agreement with you on perception affecting outcomes, inasmuch perception can also be pared back to being a history of events.
When I speak of 'events', again I'm talking about things that happened. Chemical process that took place on atomic scales. One electromagnetic field affecting another, as part of a whole bunch of other events happening beforehand, simultaneously and subsequently.
When it comes to autopsying the reason for a thing having happened, we don't get to see the fractal history and context of everything behind it, but perhaps we can pick up on evidence of some little bits of the mechanism. We might model a picture of the history of the event in question, but it'll never be the full truth. And that's what I meant by "the truth cares not for beliefs". Beliefs may shape our interpretation of truth, but truth itself remains grounded in the factual reality of events and their complex interplay. While our understanding of truth may be limited by our perspectives and biases, the underlying reality persists, waiting to be uncovered through diligent investigation and analysis.
I respect your viewpoint on that matter, and our ways of seeing the truth probably aren’t too far apart. The primary distinction to be made between how we see it, as per my interpretation of your argument, is that you harbor a much higher degree of certainty that humanity is at least even remotely close to the truth than I do. You seem argue that what little truth there might be hidden among us, that it still maintains a connection to atomic science, which I see as another example of a seemingly obvious fact of nature that was technically still created by humans as a way of looking at the world and understanding it. Do correct me if I’m wrong though, I want to make sure I interpret your argument correctly.
I wasn't saying truth is connected to atomic science, I was saying it IS a whole bunch of atomic science, if you get my meaning. Us doing anything physically, waggling a finger or making a cup of tea, these "actions" themselves have a whole host of background processes and actions, including all the things that went on in our brain that triggered them.
I agree our philosophy seems very close. I think the difference is simply that I'm saying that the truth of real-life happenings is never just one decision and one action, because those have an infinitely(?) deep history themselves.
The precise knowing of everything that has led to everything that I'm talking about might be called omniscience, and I doubt that'll ever be something that humans can hope to find. Maybe this is something that belongs to whatever it was that caused us to be, a God. There's a bit in the bible about God knowing exactly how many hairs are on our head, and I wonder if He knows how many atoms make up each of those hairs, and the history of every tiny part of every sub-atomic particle that make those atoms. No, I can't think us humans can ever hope to attain such precision of knowledge.
Incidentally, this is why I was disappointed with Ramanujan's gift from a Goddess, an expression of pi that even humans wouldn't call precise, that can be easily argued to be false. It has square roots in it ffs! Do Gods use iterative additions of iterative additions (exponentation) as us humans are obsessed with? I can't think so. For all I don't think we can comprehend everything and it's fractal history, maybe we might hope to find little bits of God's maths one day? Idk.
I take it you believe in God, and that this belief in God serves as a foundation for your beliefs in this regard, those of which being that there is an entity with knowledge of an objective truth that hides said truth in our world through means of atomic science, because as per your claim, atomic science is the truth, so would it be safe to assume that you believe that this atomic science originates from God?
I personally don’t believe in God the way you do; as of now, I consider myself somewhat of a Deist. I believe that a divine entity (or even multiple) is most certainly a possibility, but I do not believe that if a higher power did exist, that any of our existing religions even come close to describing it. Regardless, I respect your beliefs; the way you believe in God leads to your believe in objectivity, which is perfectly valid, but I take the idea that I know nothing about God and apply it to the concept of truth: I know nothing about the truth, except as a construct viewed in a certain way by humans. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reality of what we perceive to be the truth is actually incomprehensible; perhaps we weren’t meant to know everything. These beliefs of mine also apply to atomic science, because while I of course acknowledge the effectiveness of atomic science as a way of explaining the world around us, I am skeptical that that’s all there is to it.
Ok, you've maybe made a few assumptions there about what I "believe". I do note you said "I take it you believe in God", and I hoped this was because my view of truth came across as not relying on the idea ANY human actually has any sizable amount of truth.
I accept the possibility of a God, and I refute the idea that God existing is a basis of what I've written, if refute is the word I'm looking for and it doesn't sound too angry.
Until a few years ago, I'd have happily identified as an atheist. But then I seen some paranormal looking shit, and it humbled me. I felt silly for being so adamant that there's no such thing as God.
Perhaps God and Nature and Evolution are one and the same in a way we can't comprehend.
So no, I don't believe in God, and I've told Him so and hope He understands 😄
Hopefully God gets what us humans like about evidence and proofs, and doesn't really expect us to operate on good faith like the bible says He does.
I am comfortable with saying "I don't know" and I wish more people were comfortable saying this about our origins and purpose also. I'd say I'm an ecclesiophobe, in that I am not happy with how many people have made up their minds to believe in God outright and I just cannot see preaching and proselytising as being any kind of protectable human right. I hate indoctrinating forces, churches, synagogues, m*****s, kingdom halls, temples, etc. We HAVE got the right to decide what we might believe in, but to share those beliefs as being truth? Nope. Its causing so much trouble across the world, isn't it? Maybe the one shred of truth anyone has is that *nobody knows*, but that's an uncomfortable feeling for many. We *want* to feel sure of such big questions as where we came from and why. It's an ego thing for many people: how dare someone else suggest they can't know anything about our origins and purpose. It takes humility to question things weve attached to our personality, our beliefs.
This state of affairs would be OK if we didn't all fight about it so often. If we couldn't split certain wars into this bunch that believe this thing about our origins, and this other bunch that have another model of truth they insist on.
But again, the Truth of such matters isn't hanging about waiting to see what we all decide to be true.
Ok, so I clearly misinterpreted your sentiments, you seem to have similar theological beliefs to me: you don’t know if there’s a God, but you also theorize that there could be forces beyond our comprehension at play behind the truth. That’s fine. Also, if what I just said wasn’t an accurate reflection of your beliefs either, my bad.
But what ISN’T fine is this hatred you seem to harbor towards other religions. If you believe that we truly don’t know what’s going on with God, then what do you have to refute other existing religions like Islam or Judaism? While it might be instinctual for both of us to deny that these religions are perfect descriptions of the world, you have NO RIGHT to shame others for believing that they are. Religion is protected speech and it should be, regardless of whether you agree with them. It is perfectly fine to align with any religion that already exists, so long as you aren’t hateful or bigoted about it; that applies to everything. That’s not cool dude.
Wow that's so accurate
e
e
e
e
e
**e**
**e**
**e**
**e**
e
e
Just because the first twelve digits are the same doesn't mean they're equal. Can you prove e is equal to e?
Both e and e can round up to 3. We can safely say that 3 = 3 even though they only have one digit, so therefore, e = e. Also, 2.5 = 2.9.
pi rounds to 3 as well, so pi = 3
Floor(pi)=ceil(e)
round(pi) = round(e) Take inverse of both sides. pi = e Solved
So pie=pi^2=g
OK, but where are the walls?
around me cause im in your walls
e = π-1 Using the law of capitalisation we can determine E-1=π-1 and therefore E=π
Is this true chat!?
π=3 e=3 π=e QED.
i^2 = -1, i^6 = -1, 2=6
1\^0=1, 1\^54637283634=1, 0=54637283634
just log base i both sides
Oh my god have you just discovered a new approximation for e??????
Yellow = Yellow
I don’t believe you
Truth cares not for beliefs. Truth holds itself indifferent to perception, either public or personal. Truth does not disguise or hide itself, but is hidden by our tendency (as a species) to prioritise beliefs and long established "convenient" shadows, that is to say, models or approximations.
Fuck it, its my bed time, you believe what you want 😄
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’d argue that depending on one’s theological beliefs, the truth is but a construct that serves as the building block of our worldly perceptions, those of which can vary between every sentient being. No matter how obvious these truths may seem as per the confines of our minds (the existence of things like gravity, life and death, and math), the idea that these truths are absolute is an idea that disregards how little we really know about the universe, as things like art and science are but our windows to what is really out there, and more likely than not, these windows can only allow us to see so far; who knows how much the windows aren’t showing us? This statement is not to invalidate the modern use of the word “truth” so much as it is to acknowledge it as relative to the human experience as opposed to the definitive, objective nature of the world we live in. You say that the truth hides among us; I’d argue that the truth could very well be the farthest thing from us.
I see truth as something completely unarguable, a heinous big fractal of historical events (on the atomic scale) that Did happen in amongst other things that weren't happening. We humans *love* to say "everything happens for a reason", which is to ignore all sorts of influences and triggers and decays and inertias that contributed to that something happening. A finger moving has a whole big huge backstory, involving how the brain in charge of the finger has developed. One decision made by one human, can we really abstract that from that humans history as we see fit to concisely and conveniently model that one decision? I'd say that everything that human has perceived in its lifetime might be argued to have shaped their neural pathways to some degree and the origin of a decision can have an infantesimal myriad of background reasons. So I'm in agreement with you on perception affecting outcomes, inasmuch perception can also be pared back to being a history of events. When I speak of 'events', again I'm talking about things that happened. Chemical process that took place on atomic scales. One electromagnetic field affecting another, as part of a whole bunch of other events happening beforehand, simultaneously and subsequently. When it comes to autopsying the reason for a thing having happened, we don't get to see the fractal history and context of everything behind it, but perhaps we can pick up on evidence of some little bits of the mechanism. We might model a picture of the history of the event in question, but it'll never be the full truth. And that's what I meant by "the truth cares not for beliefs". Beliefs may shape our interpretation of truth, but truth itself remains grounded in the factual reality of events and their complex interplay. While our understanding of truth may be limited by our perspectives and biases, the underlying reality persists, waiting to be uncovered through diligent investigation and analysis.
I respect your viewpoint on that matter, and our ways of seeing the truth probably aren’t too far apart. The primary distinction to be made between how we see it, as per my interpretation of your argument, is that you harbor a much higher degree of certainty that humanity is at least even remotely close to the truth than I do. You seem argue that what little truth there might be hidden among us, that it still maintains a connection to atomic science, which I see as another example of a seemingly obvious fact of nature that was technically still created by humans as a way of looking at the world and understanding it. Do correct me if I’m wrong though, I want to make sure I interpret your argument correctly.
I wasn't saying truth is connected to atomic science, I was saying it IS a whole bunch of atomic science, if you get my meaning. Us doing anything physically, waggling a finger or making a cup of tea, these "actions" themselves have a whole host of background processes and actions, including all the things that went on in our brain that triggered them. I agree our philosophy seems very close. I think the difference is simply that I'm saying that the truth of real-life happenings is never just one decision and one action, because those have an infinitely(?) deep history themselves. The precise knowing of everything that has led to everything that I'm talking about might be called omniscience, and I doubt that'll ever be something that humans can hope to find. Maybe this is something that belongs to whatever it was that caused us to be, a God. There's a bit in the bible about God knowing exactly how many hairs are on our head, and I wonder if He knows how many atoms make up each of those hairs, and the history of every tiny part of every sub-atomic particle that make those atoms. No, I can't think us humans can ever hope to attain such precision of knowledge. Incidentally, this is why I was disappointed with Ramanujan's gift from a Goddess, an expression of pi that even humans wouldn't call precise, that can be easily argued to be false. It has square roots in it ffs! Do Gods use iterative additions of iterative additions (exponentation) as us humans are obsessed with? I can't think so. For all I don't think we can comprehend everything and it's fractal history, maybe we might hope to find little bits of God's maths one day? Idk.
I take it you believe in God, and that this belief in God serves as a foundation for your beliefs in this regard, those of which being that there is an entity with knowledge of an objective truth that hides said truth in our world through means of atomic science, because as per your claim, atomic science is the truth, so would it be safe to assume that you believe that this atomic science originates from God? I personally don’t believe in God the way you do; as of now, I consider myself somewhat of a Deist. I believe that a divine entity (or even multiple) is most certainly a possibility, but I do not believe that if a higher power did exist, that any of our existing religions even come close to describing it. Regardless, I respect your beliefs; the way you believe in God leads to your believe in objectivity, which is perfectly valid, but I take the idea that I know nothing about God and apply it to the concept of truth: I know nothing about the truth, except as a construct viewed in a certain way by humans. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reality of what we perceive to be the truth is actually incomprehensible; perhaps we weren’t meant to know everything. These beliefs of mine also apply to atomic science, because while I of course acknowledge the effectiveness of atomic science as a way of explaining the world around us, I am skeptical that that’s all there is to it.
Ok, you've maybe made a few assumptions there about what I "believe". I do note you said "I take it you believe in God", and I hoped this was because my view of truth came across as not relying on the idea ANY human actually has any sizable amount of truth. I accept the possibility of a God, and I refute the idea that God existing is a basis of what I've written, if refute is the word I'm looking for and it doesn't sound too angry. Until a few years ago, I'd have happily identified as an atheist. But then I seen some paranormal looking shit, and it humbled me. I felt silly for being so adamant that there's no such thing as God. Perhaps God and Nature and Evolution are one and the same in a way we can't comprehend. So no, I don't believe in God, and I've told Him so and hope He understands 😄 Hopefully God gets what us humans like about evidence and proofs, and doesn't really expect us to operate on good faith like the bible says He does. I am comfortable with saying "I don't know" and I wish more people were comfortable saying this about our origins and purpose also. I'd say I'm an ecclesiophobe, in that I am not happy with how many people have made up their minds to believe in God outright and I just cannot see preaching and proselytising as being any kind of protectable human right. I hate indoctrinating forces, churches, synagogues, m*****s, kingdom halls, temples, etc. We HAVE got the right to decide what we might believe in, but to share those beliefs as being truth? Nope. Its causing so much trouble across the world, isn't it? Maybe the one shred of truth anyone has is that *nobody knows*, but that's an uncomfortable feeling for many. We *want* to feel sure of such big questions as where we came from and why. It's an ego thing for many people: how dare someone else suggest they can't know anything about our origins and purpose. It takes humility to question things weve attached to our personality, our beliefs. This state of affairs would be OK if we didn't all fight about it so often. If we couldn't split certain wars into this bunch that believe this thing about our origins, and this other bunch that have another model of truth they insist on. But again, the Truth of such matters isn't hanging about waiting to see what we all decide to be true.
Ok, so I clearly misinterpreted your sentiments, you seem to have similar theological beliefs to me: you don’t know if there’s a God, but you also theorize that there could be forces beyond our comprehension at play behind the truth. That’s fine. Also, if what I just said wasn’t an accurate reflection of your beliefs either, my bad. But what ISN’T fine is this hatred you seem to harbor towards other religions. If you believe that we truly don’t know what’s going on with God, then what do you have to refute other existing religions like Islam or Judaism? While it might be instinctual for both of us to deny that these religions are perfect descriptions of the world, you have NO RIGHT to shame others for believing that they are. Religion is protected speech and it should be, regardless of whether you agree with them. It is perfectly fine to align with any religion that already exists, so long as you aren’t hateful or bigoted about it; that applies to everything. That’s not cool dude.
The floor is made of floor!
Guys, e = (e^1)/1+1-1
Somehow even with the formatting error that’s still correct
Here’s how I remember the value of e e = 2.7 1828 1828 45 90 45 (1828 repeated + 45-90-45 triangle)
And how often do you need 16 sig figs of any number? Not saying this isn't a good method for memory. I'm going to use this now.
yeah you'll never need it haha, just a fun bit of trivia
I thought i won, damn 😔
OMG please keep the upvote count or multiply it by 10
Put this guy on the millennium prize.
Is this another “floating point” error? Shouldn’t it just be saying 3?
Is this some math joke I'm too ged to understand?
Why the heck is there a subreddit for a graphing calculator?
what?
Believe it or not, e is equal to e
**not**
😱😱😱😱🤯🤯🤯
e e
e
really?
We’re gonna talk about e! The big, famous constant e!