« first day (2322 days earlier)      last day (2598 days later) » 

2:07 AM
@Færd I agree completely.
@Færd A parallel universe might work, except that it would not be time travel at all.
It would be a change in location instead.
A parallel universe seems rather unlikely to exist, and there would be other issues with respect to this non-time travel, as you said.
But it would at least not be as impossible as actual time travel.
 
2:34 AM
@skullpetrol And who would have ever dreamt that we'd get two colored presidents in a row?
 
 
1 hour later…
3:39 AM
@Cerberus A parallel universe doesn't exist 'somewhere else' (supposing it does exist). It's a completely separate space-time continuum.
(I can think of an argument that says that is philosophically impossible, but I'm willing to overlook that for now.)
So it is a kind of space-time travel.
Of course travelling between two universes will violate the complete independence, but compared to absurd time travel it's excusable in fiction. May even serve to spice up the plot.
Except if you use the same idea in a thousand movies and turn it into another overworked, annoying paradox.
 
@Færd Right, so not really a location, but it's closer to a location than to a time.
 
Stable time loops actually do have you existing in the past concurrently, simply doing things where you never directly interact in a way your "former" self in a manner that would prevent the time travel.
 
@Tonepoet I'm not familiar with that. Could you explain it?
 
@Færd Exactly. It's super boring, it's paradoxical, and it's mainly done in films because it's cheap: you can reuse the same décors.
Did I mention how I have calculated the percentage of Voyager episodes taking place in some kind of alternate reality?
 
Is that a series?
 
3:49 AM
Star Trek Voyager.
 
Ah. Haven't seen it.
 
@Tonepoet A loop is a paradox. It's not possible.
 
Another idea is to somehow reverse any movement of any particle in the whole universe, and then switch everything back to the previous direction at a later time in the past.
As if you rewind a film and play it from a previous moment.
In this situation time will keep its forward march intact, but events will un-happen in their reverse order of happening.
 
@Cerberus Maybe, but it's not the same contradiction Færd was describing.
 
What's a time loop FGS?
 
3:53 AM
It toys around with the concept of causality a little. It's when the time travel creates the circumstances that caused the time travel.
 
Isn't that what a time traveling machine does?
 
What I mean is, if a scientist creates a time machine to prevent the accident that killed his wife, in a stable time loop, that scientist's meddling with the space-time continuum is probably responsible for his wife's death.
 
Ah, this:
A time loop or temporal loop is a plot device in which periods of time are repeated and re-experienced by the characters, and there is often some hope of breaking out of the cycle of repetition. Time loop is sometimes used to refer to a causal loop; although they appear similar, causal loops are unchanging and self-originating, whereas time loops are constantly resetting: when a certain condition is met, such as a death of a character or a clock reaches a certain time, the loop starts again, with one or more characters retaining the memories from the previous loop. Stories with time loops commonly...
 
Right.
 
It's nothing other than time travel except it's repeated.
 
3:58 AM
The only reason I mentioned it is because it can account for there being two versions of the same person at the same time without erasing the time traveler.
 
So you leave your present self and go back in time knowing your present self is there in the future?
Or do you mean something else?
 
The time traveler should be ignorant of the loop.
 
OK. Either the same or very similar then. :)
 
@Færd If that did happen, it would be irrelevant to the universe, and I wouldn't call it "travel".
@Tonepoet nods
 
It's a kind of getting things back to where they were and starting again.
In that sense, it is a backward journey.
 
4:06 AM
But it would be irrelevant.
 
To what?
 
To the universe and everything.
 
Not to the purpose of employing time travel in storytelling.
 
It's like saying, every particle is in fact two particles at the exact same place with the exact same properties, but they don't interact with each other at all. If that were true, it would have no consequences and nobody would notice.
@Færd Irrelevant to that, yes.
 
@Cerberus I didn't say that.
When did I double things?
 
4:08 AM
Oh.
I said that.
@Færd That was just another example of a theoretic situation that would be irrelevant to everything.
 
Well.
 
Occam's razor would cut it off.
You can't have a universe play back unless there is something outside the universe.
Which is not possible by definition.
 
I think even getting glimpses of the past as a passive viewer is physically impossible.
 
Oh, you can view the past.
 
Spiritually?
 
4:11 AM
Any observation is of the past.
Light, sound, and other signals take time to reach your sensors.
Whatever you see is in the past already.
When we observe faraway galaxies, what we see happened billions of years ago.
There is no other way of observation.
 
Well, that's not I meant.
And , according to relativity, that's not a very accurate description.
There is no universal time for everything.
Each of us has it's own clock.
But I get your point.
 
I think the theory of relativity uses a different definition of time.
 
It refutes the traditional absolute concept of time completely.
 
The fact that your body doesn't grow at the same speed as someone else's if you move at the speed of light, or whatever the theory said, doesn't mean that time changes, by the absolute definition.
I can understand that a different definition might be useful in physics.
But with respect to actual time travel, I think the absolute definition is the only good one.
If you take a clock, travel at the speed of light, then return to earth, the clock will probably show a different time than the one on earth, right?
So there the non-absolute definition would be useful in calculations.
Oh, I thought I had read something to that effect.
 
Well, you can't travel at the speed of light.
 
4:16 AM
@Cerberus I thought you said the same instead of different.
 
Close to, then?
 
Yeah.
But it's not a mere technique to make calculations easier.
 
@Tonepoet Ahh.
But anyway, the rate of change in a material object is not the same as time in the absolute sense.
 
What do you call time if not what your watch shows?
 
Let me reverse the question: why would time be what my watch shows?
 
4:20 AM
What is time?
 
What, indeed?
It is a human concept by which we organise our perceptions and concepts, I would say.
 
You see things change. For me, the change itself is time.
 
What if nothing changes?
 
But that doesn't work for physics or everyday life.
 
You can't be sure.
 
4:21 AM
For that, you pick a reference and measure things against it. Like the movement of the Sun, or an atom, or a clock.
 
If the universe shall end and all matter and energy cancel each other out, time goes on.
 
So you have your own idea of time that you didn't share with me.
 
@Færd Those are useful instruments by which to calibrate our time.
 
What is time if nothing changes?
 
That is a good question, what is time?
 
4:23 AM
Heh.
 
But I could say, one year after the end of the universe.
That could not be measured, nor observed.
But it would not be absurd, such as "a place outside the universe".
 
That doesn't make any sense to me. And you're not clarifying it.
@Cerberus They're just the same amount of absurd to me.
 
It's just a human concept by which we organise our observations and such. Is that not a description of time?
@Færd Not to me, because I think place is dependent upon the universe, since the latter is by definition "all places together".
But I don't think time is dependent on the universe.
 
You're defining it with it's purpose. It's not a thorough defintion useful for philosophical discussions.
 
I don't know how to define it at this moment.
But I can point to paradoxes in a physical definition of time.
 
4:26 AM
I call matter what I can perceive with my senses. What I see, hear, etc.
@Cerberus Do please!
... And my perceptions don't remain the same, even if I'm looking at a stationary object.
 
Well, to me it is clear that e.g. some vacuum place somewhere in space is not "outside time". That would not make sense to me.
 
I perceive it in distinct instances. This instance is not that instance. Something changes.
That change I call time.
 
And if certain things change faster, does time, too, then go faster?
 
When time is change itself, you won't have another ruler to measure the speed of time against.
 
What if, on a certain day, some thing around you change faster than normal, but others slower.
 
4:29 AM
Time has no speed.
 
Does time then go slower or faster? Or do different things have different times?
@Færd All right, but it can be measured.
 
Changes can be measured against each other.
 
So, in my example above, has more time passed, or less time passed, than usual?
 
Time is how my perception of the universe does not remain the same.
 
But that's not quantitative.
 
4:31 AM
It's not about the speed at which a perceived object changes.
 
Then what is it?
 
To make it quantitative, you pick a reference and measure other changes with it.
@Cerberus The change of the perception, not the perceived.
 
But the perception is part of the perceived?
 
But we are all out of the realm of physics now. We were talking about relativity.
But this is fun too.
What do you mean?
I am part of the universe?
 
Yes.
 
4:33 AM
The matter around me?
 
Your thoughts are perceptible.
You perceive them inside your brain.
 
Well, I don't see myself as a part of something first I look at myself.
I see myself.
And after some analysis, I may conclude that I am a part of somthing else.
 
The way I used it is usually not how the word perceive is used, but I think your definition only works if the perceiver is not part of the perceived. And in this context, I don't think that is true.
 
What I based time on, was first-hand feeling.
 
But you're just a physical, perceptible machine.
 
4:35 AM
@Cerberus What word do you think I should use?
 
There was nothing wrong with your usage.
 
@Cerberus How do I know that? By some analysis or by direct observation?
 
I just excused myself and explained why I used the weird "perceive" for whatever one does with one's thoughts.
 
OK.
 
@Færd Both?
 
4:37 AM
No.
 
I also think it is a necessary assumption in physics (or anywhere else).
 
Physical, perceptible, machine, all these need previous thought and definition.
I observe myself without needing to think about myself.
That is direct observation.
 
Is that possible?
You're not separate from the physical universe: your act of observing is just party of a chain of physical interactions, inside and outside your body.
 
Our subjective notions of time, and the objective reality of what the concept describes are two different things. However for the purposes of time travel, I don't think objective time is a very useful concept.
 
@Cerberus That is how one might describe my observation. How one might formulate it.
A thought, a reflection of a thing/things in your mind.
 
4:42 AM
nods
brushes teeth
 
I'm talking about direct experience, not how I think about direct experience.
It's the most obvious thing; that's why it's so hard to grasp.
@Cerberus Going to sleep, I see.
When I'm hit, I feel pain.
What is pain? What I feel. (= direct experience)
What is pain? Some reactions in my brain or whatever (= not direct experience; I don't see the reactions by themselves before I feel the pain.)
 
@Færd Yes, but I think you're deviating from the physical definition now?
You seem to be be closer to my definition.
 
We deviated from that the moment we started talking philosophy.
 
Heh.
 
I don't think we're on the same page yet.
 
4:47 AM
But I should think that you don't need (in fact, wouldn't want to be involved with) the role of an observer in your "physical change" definition?
Perhaps not.
 
I sure do. A possible observer will do though.
 
So perhaps your definition is more like a hybrid of what I thought it was and of my definition?
 
Your definition was ... -- goes to find it
 
...not much of a definition.
 
Ah.
I don't know.
What I was trying to say was that the notion of absolute time is not inherent to the universe.
It's just a notion. Without you, it doesn't exist.
 
4:51 AM
Well, isn't the universe also just a human notion?
 
That's a whole nother thing. Another abyss which will suck us in for another hour maybe.
 
But, within the framework of human notions, we can say that the universe exists.
Within that same framework, I would say time does not depend on any physical state.
But you would.
 
How do you relate time to the universe then? Can the universe exist without time?
 
No.
But the other way around, yes.
 
Why is that so?
 
4:53 AM
We form our concept of time using our observations; but then we make it more abstract, such that it is independent of observations.
 
How are we sure that when we make a concept abstract it won't loose touch with reality (the thing we supposed that exists)?
 
Perhaps it does.
But time is part of reality.
 
As an absolute concept, we don't know if it is.
We abstracted it from some direct observation.
 
It's not itself physical
My computer shut down, it was unhappy with the time.
 
By physical you mean real? Or do you allow for metaphysical things and put time among them?
Are you on your phone?
 
5:00 AM
I'm on my phone.
By physical I mean something more limited than real.
 
So why is time part of reality?
Or an aspect of it?
 
Because we have posited it was such?
 
I thought you would say because when we think about any thing it is experiencing time.
Which is basically the same thing.
 
It is a notion that we think is useful in our understanding of reality, also of physical reality, but it is not itself a physical thing.
A thing is experiencing time?
 
That's just an assumption. Time is not inherent to reality. At least not obviously.
 
5:05 AM
Perhaps we need to define reality.
But we're in a bit of a definitional circle.
 
It's one of those prime concepts that defies definition.
 
A hermeneutic circle at best.
Kind of, yes.
 
Reality, knowledge, uniqueness, etc.
You understand them without needing definitions.
But not time.
 
Although some definitions of those things are worse than others.
 
Worse in what way?
 
5:06 AM
So we can define them to at least some extent.
 
Are you going to define reality now?
 
Hmm, let's see which of my preferred resources has the best definition of reality...
 
Bring it on. It will surely contain a loop.
 
An absurd definition of reality is worse than some other definitions. Reality can therefore be defined at least to some extent.
Unlike privradnabok.
Although even that can be defined to the extent that we can define its letters.
 
Absurd is a subjective adjective. If you use an objective adjective, your sentence becomes this:
> A less impossible definition of reality is worse than some other more impossible definitions. Reality can therefore be defined at least to some extent of possibility.
 
5:10 AM
Umm.
 
But we can't have less impossible.
 
I don't know about your insertions of possible.
Definition 1: Reality is a cow.
 
We have prime concepts. If we hadn't, then nothing could be definable, because any concept would need other concepts in its definition.
I'm saying reality is one of those. The most obvious one.
@Cerberus Well, that's wrong, innit?
 
2: Reality is the total of things and abstract notions that aren't wrong or untrue or non-existent.
Which definition is worse?
 
2 is not a valid definition.
 
5:14 AM
If one is worse than the other, then you're choosing to define reality to some extent.
 
1 is wrong.
So ... the question is unanswerable.
 
@Færd Aka. axiomata.
 
Good to know.
 
That's the perennial problem with dictionaries. However just to spite you, here's what the American Heritage Dictionary 5th edition has to say:

"Adj.
Relating to or being a genre of television or film in which a storyline is created by editing footage of people interacting or competing with one another in unscripted, unrehearsed situations."
 
What is a valid definition?
 
5:15 AM
One that is not circular, among other things.
@Tonepoet Haha!
 
I'm sure there are many other things.
 
Yeah.
 
@Tonepoet Dear Gods, have mercy on our souls!
 
@Cerberus This is why I use antique dictionaries. ;-)
 
4 mins ago, by Cerberus
2: Reality is the total of things and abstract notions that aren't wrong or untrue or non-existent.
Is a thing a reality?
Does non-existent mean not real?
That's why I don't think this is a definition. It's an explanation. Maybe a valid explanation.
@Cerberus Isn't that the word for fundamental predicates?
Fundamental concepts are not fundamental predicates.
 
5:23 AM
@Tonepoet OH, now it all makes sense.
@Færd Well, don't all definitions have this issue to some extent?
 
No.
 
@Færd It depends.
But I'm in bed.
It's really bedtime.
Adieu!
 
Have blue dreams!
 
It has been fun, although we haven't solved the universe yet.
I prefer green, furious ones!
 
@Cerberus And not reality, time, relativity, etc.
 
5:26 AM
disappears in a puff of green smoke
 
Bye Cerberus.
 
@Cerberus What is color anyway? ;P
See y'all.
 
@Cerberus Any verbal definition does. Showing the object of a concrete nouns is usually less circular.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:07 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body: radley watches sale a woman with a lock belt strap by radlelgl on english.SE
 
 
3 hours later…
10:18 AM
Hi guys
what word could I use to describe a person that makes me notice things in an annoying way?
 
10:30 AM
@user8469759 You mean it annoys you when they do that?
 
An example could help
say I shave regularly every (I don't know...) 3 days
but maybe sometimes I get lazy and I shave after 5
the person would in the first place stare at you in a very creepy way without saying a word, but in such a way that tells you "yes... I'm watching you right now"
and then after 10 seconds of looking at you in that way
he would say something like
"did you give up on shaving?"
and I reply with something like
"I can't shave always regularly..."
and from the other side you hear "well... you should..."
 
You're looking for asshole.
 
Yeah you could say they are being a "dick" or a "jerk" if it really annoys you.
Or what terdon said. :)
 
yeah... asshole it would be my first choice... but it's a girl
 
@user8469759 So?
 
10:35 AM
so I'd like to be... polite?
I don't like insulting girls xD
 
Sorry to break it to you, but assholes are not in way way restricted by gender.
Sadly. It would be great if we could have an asshole-free gender but we don't.
 
the other examples anyway is this one
 
@user8469759 So you're looking for a disparaging word you want to use to her face but one that is not insulting? What's the point?
 
I'm a moody person
 
If it was me I would go with something like "Don't be a bitch, bitch." :-)
 
10:36 AM
so sometimes I just stay without saying much...
 
@englishstudent Um, no. That one is quite heavy, Breaking Bad notwithstanding.
 
Hah. Sorry!
 
If this is someone whose behavior you want to change, talk to them. Don't characterize them.
 
and they(he/she) just asks me every single time "what's wrong?"
with the face I described earlier xD
when it's well known I'm just moody
 
There's no single word for this. You could go with nosy, in this particular example, but there's no nice word you can use that will magically convey what you feel. You need to let this person know they're making you uncomfortable.
 
10:39 AM
To be honest I've already done that
it's simply that that person can't help with that
xD
it's for the best If I just tease
 
Maybe go with a good retort? Or like sarcasm?
That way you will get your message across and not come across very rude etc. I guess.
I don't know. :)
Like if someone was criticizing me for growing a little beard I might say "Yeah, I always thought about becoming a neck beard. Isn't that awesome?" And then enjoy their reactions. ;)
 
Well the reason I'm asking anyway... it's because my dictionary to describe people personality traits is quite poor xd
not itself about the person
 
@user8469759 You are looking for a polite word to describe impolite behavior. That is rarely possible.
 
10:56 AM
ok
thx guys
 
See you around.
There is also a third option. Don't say anything, just ignore the remarks and the disapproving looks.
That works just fine too.
 
too passive xD
 
um yeah :)
 
11:14 AM
This is a very good lightbulb joke that my friend sent me the other day:
> Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "Lawyer", and the party of the second part, also known as "Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entryway, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being
 
@englishstudent is it related to my question?
 
@user8469759 Huh? Not at all.
 
xD
ok
sorry
 
Just something I felt like sharing. :)
 
@Cerberus ooh I got one. Define 'definition'!
Hah!
Deal with that Mr Philosopher!
 
11:30 AM
A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term: a word, phrase, or other set of symbols.
Sorry I didn't mean to be Freud.
 
@user8469759 just say it's annoying. You shouldn't tell anyone to their face they're an asshole. That's uncool man.
@englishstudent that's OK. Freud doesn't mind
 
haha
@Mitch What about in traffic? In movies whenever someone cuts a person in traffic I hear something like "Hey! Asshole!" or "Watch it asshole!"
 
Movies aren't real
 
I know. I know. :)
 
Aha! We're narrowing down the definition of reality!
 
11:36 AM
I don't know. No one has ever called me an asshole but you are right that's totally uncool to say it to someone's face. 100% agree.
What about "jerk"? Is it uncool too to say it to someone's face?
 
I understand that ones inner compunction for a near miss in traffic is to yell an expletive at the other person and imply uncommon family relations, but that will just make things worse.
@englishstudent that'd be tamer than asshole,
But...
Probably not something you want to tell someone. Even something as objective as 'you're fat' is probably something to avoid.
Probably
Depends on culture
Whatever culture though seems not nice
 
So instead of saying something like "you are getting fat" to someone who is getting heavy what is the good alternative? Because if we are really polite like "You are getting healthier" then that will not be true because they are getting fat. Perhaps "obese"?
English is confusing like that I guess.
Also people get butthurt easily.
Anyway I have to run. See you guys around.
 
11:57 AM
Egad, I hate that word. Butthurt feels like the combination of sophomoric humor, homophobia and vulgarity all rolled into one easy to use package.
 
12:40 PM
@englishstudent @terdon @user8469759 Nag isn't quite right by my standards, but it's a much better candidate than any of those other words.
And I'm sure you all know it.
 
"to nag" is a complaint, that's not the case
but I like that dictionary
xD
 
@user8469759 It's also a noun: don't be a nag.
 
@terdon Is it related to homophobia though? or just spanking, like a parent might spank a child on their butt.
agreed though, I hate the word too
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I've always assumed it's associated with taking something up that particular orifice.
 
Butthurt isn't english, it's 4chanese. >_>...
 
12:48 PM
I mean I kinda did? But then I wondered.
 
Yeah, good point. I don't have any references to back this up, that's just what first comes to mind.
 
Wouldn't you know it:
3
Q: Etymology of "Butthurt"

MowzerWhat is the etymology of the term Butthurt? This link suggests a relevance to anal rape. But the reference is not explicitly described as etymological. Merely suggestive. And the comments point out some logical problems with anal rape as the etymology.

@Tonepoet apparently it's older than 4chan.
 
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 'Tis my mistake.
 
@Tonepoet It does seem to be the kind of word they'd latch on to and boost
 
Well, I'll be. This seems to suggest you're right: knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt
Ah, same source quoted there.
Not sure how correct they are though.
Or, rather, not sure whether the quoted etymology reflects the current connotations carried by the word.
 
12:58 PM
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 'Tis one of their favorite insults and has been for many years.
 

« first day (2322 days earlier)      last day (2598 days later) »