davidgro @ davidgro @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

1,188

Joined

2 yr. ago

Exactly. That's why I think the only useful definitions of free will are those that are weak enough to distinguish between the animal and the rock in a situation like that.

You're right.

It would have to be multiple timelines or single consistent history. Of the two, I think multiple timelines is a little more likely.

The LLM answer was deleted even before I posted the link. As mentioned the header is always a joke, and in this case it's referencing that, but over the next few days I expect that link to become increasingly useful.

Yeah, but I feel like if it were feasible to violate the condition we would have done it by now (besides the Casimir effect). That's just an opinion of course, and I'm just an interested layperson, but I know physicists have been trying for at least a few decades.

I can think of a couple ways around that, the easiest is that I actually think time travel is impossible. (Like this for example)

If it's not impossible, then single-timeline travel probably is, and all (backwards) travel would start a new timeline.

Short of that, maybe something ridiculous would have happened when the traveler "first" went back, like one of them tripping or whatever, and the handshake they agreed to try didn't go as planned, and then "still" didn't the traveler's second time. Basically this.

https://explainxkcd.com/3032/

Posting this link so I can tap on it.

I believe it's impossible in the real universe.

Sure there are solutions of general relativity that contain time loops, but they require stuff like an infinitely long cylinder, or escaping a spinning black hole, or negative energy. I just don't believe beings made of finite matter and with finite energy will ever be able to time travel (except into the future at various rates) and that's the only kind of beings I think exist.

I think from a physics standpoint, strict free will is already an illusion and the only useful definitions of free will basically boil down to "choices can be made", perhaps as far as "Slight differences in initial conditions can lead to different choices" (but somehow excluding random processes). That kind of definition doesn't even require consciousness, and is compatible with a deterministic universe like ours seems mostly to be. Would also be compatible with the time traveler unwittingly doing everything as must happen, but still via individual choices.

Same. One of the first things I did (after rooting it) was find the kernel 'files' to make it stop at 79%. Battery life seems about the same as the first month I got it.

I also have a Wear OS watch (TicWatch Pro 3) that I manually charge to about 79% (with Tasker to alert me on the phone when it's there) and it's still using only around 30%/day after nearly 4 years.

Statements like that make me feel like an alien who just landed here: I believe you, but it's so totally outside my experience that I genuinely can't make sense of it.

That part doesn't make sense to me either - people don't generally intentionally stub a toe or bite their tongue or whatever, but those activities would release endorphins also.

Exercising is about as close as I can think of that people regularly do and releases endorphins, but it of course has direct benefits and not doing it has drawbacks, and it should not really hurt that much to begin with.

Getting a tattoo would also, but I assume most people do that for the result and not the experience.

I fully agree, to me it doesn't add any flavor at all and even overwhelms other flavors the food would have.

But it's kinda funny that the comment my client currently shows directly below yours says "The pain itself is a flavour!"

Sounds like you have built up a decent tolerance already.

Just sensitive. There's an extremely small range between nothing and pain where maybe it feels like heat to me, but then physical heat also just becomes pain when there's enough of it.

It's the same word in a different grammatical situation.

That almost makes sense to me, the same way something like slapping one's own face might.

Huh. Yeah, still can't imagine a flavor that good.

And even very mild spicy food strikes me as less flavorful than without the capsaicin, mostly because of the (even slight) pain taking my attention from the food itself.

Singular 'they' is centuries old. Apparently even older than singular 'you'. It's only recently that people tried to make it a rule that it should only be used as a plural, but really it's used in natural language as a singular all the time like I did. (Did you notice it in the middle of my previous comment, not just the end?)

The obvious issue with 'it' as a pronoun for a person (or in my opinion a mammal or other sentient animal) is that it's literally objectifying them: The main use of 'it' is for inanimate objects. Sometimes that's used for effect, for example calling a pedophile an it. But unless you really dislike a person of nonspecific gender, just call them a them.

I'm going to be the 'tenth dentist' here and say eating spicy food.

I understand that eventually people build a tolerance so it hurts less but I can't comprehend being willing to even reach that point, especially since it's still not completely pain free I have been told.

Those I've asked say it's a really good flavor, but to me that sounds like being willing to eat a handful of broken glass (assuming no long term damage) as long as it tastes good. There are other foods that taste good and don't hurt, not even slightly.