Source Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=Ugxa8kX-L2hl8g04yYd4AaABAg
5:24 It's a complete mess. As Doug Breitbart continues to say, we all want a system to handle it and nobody has it. Why don't we have it? Because there's nobody actually interested to build it, including the GCC, so it'll stay a mess, now and forever.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=UgyuQJGewP1ZIzaIhkF4AaABAg
2:11:46 Tim Berners-Lee probably did it properly, you guys are nowhere near it despite such themes are invoked constantly. I guess that's because the lack of technologists, so there's nothing going on around semantic data, instead, the focus is on visual, manual map renderings and the old crappy WWW way.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=UgwF1ATgbuS7utcaZG14AaABAg
1:49:39 Noo, the present is ONE specific state and the future that actually happens is too ONE specific state, BUT in the present, we can take actions and make decisions that determine which one of the MANY potential futures (potential states) will become the present, so there's a huge difference in quality and quantity, we're choosing the future as the new present we want to be in -- except you're assuming materialistic determinism, but just the assumption doesn't change reality anyway. Yeah, sure, there's the subjective relativism, but that is only one extreme, the objective reality will dictate what you'll get to see or not to see, regardless if you want to interpret it differently. Just as if the world would cease to exist when humans cease to exist, that's probably not true.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=UgzRmERiDaaFUJQOIVV4AaABAg
1:39:35 That might be physically true, but it doesn't mean that the previous past states didn't exist and that the decisions in the present won't determine the future present. And I don't understand how you can miss the point that systems are set up and running in ways that are destructive for the future present if left on their own, they are not affected by any thinking of ours or appreciating them, if we're not fearful enough that they can destroy our future that drives us to change them now, well, we have to expect and project that they'll create a future present for us we wouldn't like to experience now if it were the present already.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=Ugzhv38WDqWkxZmeeyx4AaABAg
48:35 Just because it's unknown doesn't necessarily mean it's infinite, and then there are several types of infinity as you surely know.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=UgyWC9r5jwgUjQ4YCtZ4AaABAg
48:30 Be careful here, Planck length is of course related to Planck time, so...
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=UgxTB2carzgEoRThDW94AaABAg
46:54 That's why it is not so smart to plainly dismiss flat earth theory or hollow earth theory or any of that, because the question how physical space is constructed can easily be obfuscated by not recognizing that we also have to question the "view pane" we're experiencing. Physical space (including us, all particles and our lenses) could be curved, and who knows if there would be a way for us to find out? Could we "see" it? Other quick note: have you seen a 4D shape rotating observed from a 3D space or have you heard about hyperbolic space?
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=UgxTB2carzgEoRThDW94AaABAg.8m69aTn7Ve98mKkxDo4HG6
In Reply To: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfPkAy8Yoog&lc=UgxTB2carzgEoRThDW94AaABAg
Yes, but the downside is that reality always wins and doesn't comply with your imagination. So the real question is what's real, and suspending the current view of what's real can be a useful tool to learn something new, but it's also costly and dangerous, especially when suspending something that is "known to be real". There are other, better tools with less risk to arrive at the same conclusions of what's real.