What's a question or paradox that bugs you and have never gotten a satisfactory answer for...

(nothing to do with fears)
Spooky Action = Quantum entanglement.
Einstein coined the phrase "spooky action at a distance" back in the mid 30's.
I don't understand it.

nice dubs
Actually it makes perfect sense.
> Simply blacked (watching from the corner fapping) is a power thing. A) I got you a nigger to fuck b/c I'm tired and not performing for your ass. B) I own you bitch and will degrade you by having you fuck a nigger for my enjoyment.
Basically both people are pawns for the observer's in person porn.
Or you have the inverse square rule. 'I hate blacks b/c I'm scared them' allows for an individual to assume the sub role in a safe environment and a lot of people get off to shame.

Attached: Seamen.jpg (550x667, 139K)

I think you need to reevaluate what you want in life.
You don't want me to answer. Just say it then.

Oh that's easy, feelings of inferiority cause them to seek external validation in vicariously claiming the achievements of other people who happen to be white but they have nothing to do with (kind of like fans of a sports team cheering a win, but more extreme). That inferiority still remains, that's a inwardly direct self-loathing, which is why they like to see them being made to look inferior and get off on it.
For the external validation thing, some people join cults, or become vegan or atheist or born again christian or other wise join 'communities' that give them an identity to be proud of.

>You don't want me to answer. Just say it then.
So far you've not given me reason to think you'd be able to answer at all.
But let's go back to my original post:
Why does spooky action (quantum intanglement) occur?

Aside form the fact that every time over the last 6 years I reevaluate I always come up with the same thing, how would I reevaluate what I want if I can't ask good questions?

Ah, thanks anons, makes more sense now. Now if only we could get said retards to stop spamming the board, we could all be happier.

Attached: 1583065612923.gif (200x159, 655K)

I don't have one that bugs me because I understand and have accepted that paradoxes have two conclusions, even though they contradict each other. Thought I was clear on that.

>What's a good real life example of it in practice?

>find a community college near you
>look in upcoming schedule
>find a "Logic" or "Quantitative Reasoning" course
>register
>sign up for class
>attend
>?
>profit

Told you what mine was, but I don't live where you do so I have no idea what it would be called there.

I was for the longest time operating under the assumption it was a hapa/asian false flag.

Why is there something in the universe, instead of nothing at all?

Doesn't it make more logical sense for nothing, not space nor matter nor energy, to have ever existed?

Attached: 8W8xIFa.jpg (960x698, 74K)

>>What's a good real life example of it in practice?
That's not what I meant - I meant where did the skills you learnt in Quantitative Reasoning find real life applications or contexts where it changed outcomes in tangible or dramatic ways to if you didn't have those new logic capabilities?
Any financial decisions, maybe how you attacked moving furniture and thought about which order to move it, load it, and unload it... anything as long as it had real life applications.

>Doesn't it make more logical sense for nothing, not space nor matter nor energy, to have ever existed?
No because "nothing" is the absence of a thing or "something", you can't have the concept of nothing in absence of a thing.
I get what you mean though - that all the stuff, particles, and forms in the universe are the product of complex causal chains that goes back to the big bang, and what was before that? There must have been something before the big bang, and something before that, and something before that... how is it even possible that there is this infinite cycle of creation with no beginning.
We naturally assume that before there was something, be it the big bang, or life on the earth - there was a period of 'nothing'.
Well the only reason we have the concept of 'nothing' is because there's something - therefore it's not logical for there to be "only" nothing. Although maybe that's just semantics and I'm just pic related

Attached: Operator.jpg (250x245, 12K)

>you can't have the concept of nothing in absence of a thing.
whoops. I meant you can ONLY have the concept or idea of nothingness if there is something to compare it against

1) Where does motivation/interest come from, as in what are the correct steps to make yourself interested in a subject?
2) If easy access to generic porn has been proven to reduce the number of rape cases, why do people assume that taboo porn genres have the opposite effect?

Attached: other (9).jpg (1024x768, 80K)

It is not OP's intention to address the questions he can't answer, nor to admit to that fact.
He only wants to be a "clever troll" - which would be same as a "clever idiot" - so a contraditction in terms. In short, time is wasted here.

>1) Where does motivation/interest come from, as in what are the correct steps to make yourself interested in a subject?
Short answer is to leverage areas where you're already motivated, interested, or have a vested interest in - you successively expose yourself to the new subject in a way that causes assonance with things you're already invested in. This is basically how branding works.
>2) If easy access to generic porn has been proven to reduce the number of rape cases, why do people assume that taboo porn genres have the opposite effect?
The real answer is - the mere presence of the taboo taints the whole genre, it's sort of the inverse of the above. Negative assonance.
To play devil's advocate firstly it's presumed that after a certain point the image alone becomes not enough and they want the "real thing" and secondly it's because humans are a mimetic species and seeing the presence of taboos alone is enough to increase the chances of them performing those taboo acts. Contemplating them as a possibility in the abstract is not the same as seeing the acts performed pornographically.

I'm OP, you don't speak for me and the That second one is actually me.

I speak for whomever I want, in particular when you only wish to make noise, and not actually be helpful.

Well let me speak for you, you're projecting the exact same trolling noise making you're accusing me of. You didn't answer either of our questions. And you're making inferences as to the motives of people you've never met. Also you're sexually aroused by the thought of... uhhh... Terry Crews having sex with a... starburst coloured fur unicorn on top of a Cadiliac.
See cunt, I'm not the only one who can speak for whomever they want!
Now - answer that other user's question about quntum mechanics if you're so against creating noise!

Oh you utter and complete tosser.
I AM the user asking about Spooky Action.
The one YOU ignored.
So fuck you very much and enjoy your thread.

Well then would you care to answer my question and I'll do the best to answer yours despite my lack of a degree in Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Probability? Nor not knowing what Einstein meant by 'spooky'?
Would that be satisfactory in it's non-trollish non-noise making?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Attached: God.png (407x376, 288K)

Attached: 6A828691-ADD5-4ACD-BF1E-58F1DF763D3B.jpg (474x323, 20K)

Oh, ok.

1/2

My dad is a great guy, but unfortunately he's a died-in-the-wool Republican, to the point that, just like the rest of the GOP anymore, Party > Country. In other words, there is nothing someone can do that he would be ok with if they have a "(D)" after their name.

He's also from Texas. As such, even though he doesn't live there, the whole "we gotta build the wall" bullshit line is at the top of his priorities (I have a buddy who's a Trump voter where I live & his priority issue is 2nd Amendment, so they come in all stripes).

I got into it w/ my dad over the holidays a little but when he pulled the old reliable "we gotta send 'em all back because they're all rapists, murderers, drug gang members & thieves" I had to act.

I got him to STFU & stop "ree-ing" for a couple minutes and proposed a step-by-step hypothetical, using our family as an example.

God made evil.

I’ve never been able to untaught famous “there will be a pop quiz this week” paradox.

*to untangle

2/2

>be us
>we're from ____ (pick a country south of Texas)
>government is legitimately corrupt (and not "oh, the party in charge isn't mine, they're corrupt", I mean literally stealing from public coffers, overlooking police brutality, killing political dissidents, etc- REAL corruption)
>what he makes IRL now in one month, in this hypotehtical, he makes in one YEAR
>opportunity to emigrate to the US appears
>opportunity to emigrate almost bankrupts him, but he, me, bro & mom all move N to the US
Get to the border, try to cross it then:
>immediately rounded up
>me & bro are forcibly separated from them & sent to a dilapidated tent
>he & mom are sent to a cage
>cops & Border agents sneering, pointing & laughing all the time
>see footage of idiot in White House talking about border refugees
>our entire family are referred to as "illiterate, corrupt, lazy, drug-infested gang members"
>additionally, mom referred to as a "whore"

Laid ALL that out. Then asked my dad:

>would you feel that is a fair representation of our family, or any friends that were with us?
>would you feel welcome in an environment like that?
>would you support the man saying this about you?
>the people who DID support that man, how would you feel about them?

I got him to concede every single thing on that last bit of the list and he did so solemnly & seriously. At that point I felt like “jesus, I actually fucking got through to him! And 90 seconds later, he fucked it all up by going right back to “derp, we need to BUILD THE WALL, Trump 2020!”

I love the guy, but jesus he’s a fucking dipshit sometimes. When I dumb it down and get him, point by point, to accept that his position on an issue is wrong, and then he goes right back to it in the next breath? Sadly, there’s no hope for him. But he’s my dad & I love him.

Attached: Fox News toilet.jpg (480x752, 38K)

When you get down to it, no one really yet understands why entanglement occurs. We're still in the process of discovering particles. We're still replicating results in labs. We don't have the precise math or methods to explain quantum entanglement. If anything, the fact that you admit you don't understand puts you ahead of countless others who claim otherwise

The other answers are wrong. Its simply because they obsess over it and therefore create a taboo. Humans can't resist breaking taboos. They develop repressed sexual urges for bbc either because their white supremacist obsession with black people created a taboo, or because they were a bbc obsessed homosexual before and tried to divert that into ostensibly hating blacks.

>Then he is malevolent.

Attached: 1574723876245.png (640x640, 125K)

>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
He did though, he gave man free will.
>Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
From man. Man has absued the gifts god gave him, god does not intervene because that would be to impinge on the freedom of man.
It's kind of like when you fuck up and you ask your parents for help and there like
>>"nope junior, you made this mess, you've got to clean it up. You're going to answer to Old Man Johnson and make amends for breaking his window yourself"

One tip: whenever possible think about asking questions in a way that will get a measurable or actionable answer.
Examples:
Instead of asking “how dangerous are bears” ask “what percentage of hikers are attacked by bears” or something.

Instead of asking “how do I make more money” ask “if I want to get job x what should be my next steps from here?”

>Then he is malevolent.

>is omnipotent
>knows literally everything including past and future
>created man
>somehow didn't know exactly what man would do
u wot m9

Attached: 1570595880234.png (828x487, 280K)

>>knows literally everything including past and future
Firstly omnipotence is different from omniscience. Secondly, just because he has the power and the knowledge doesn't mean he exercises them - because, again, doing so would interfere in the free will of man.
Not intervening in the actions of free-agents is not the same as being evil.

You are using two different definitions of the word religion.

Definition one is about simply having a stance in regards to whether or not God exists. You are effectively claiming 'religion' is simply having a stance as to whether or not God or something similar exists. What you are saying is
>believe God exists => religious
>believe God doesn't exist => also religious

Definition two is whether or not you place faith in God - not just a stance as to whether or not God exists, but the stance that God exists and a faith in Him.

If you use a single definition for religion (whichever one you pick), you can come up with a single definition for atheism.

Found the fascist

Attached: Jews on b full.jpg (492x329, 55K)

Where does space end? What's beyond that?

thanks for sharing that user.

Space doesn't 'end', space refers to the area around matter. After matter is space, after space is more space.

well actually I should of said the 'void' around matter.

>If you use a single definition for religion (whichever one you pick), you can come up with a single definition for atheism.

Absolutely. However, as you yourself concede, there is more than one definition for "Atheism". Upon inspection, each of those two definitions are proper, correct, true and factual. Therefore, it's only proper & fair that both deserve consideration.

It is in that dual consideration that the paradox of "atheism = / = religion" can exist. Because if you insist on clinging to only using one definition, then the paradox is impossible. But it's not impossible: it is indeed possible for the simple fact that (again, as you conceded) there are two definitions of the word "Atheism".

Thus it is impossible to be beholden to just one of those definitions and call the argument on the topic "rational" or "well-reasoned" when it is borne out of willful aversion of an inconvenient second definition.

I'm kinda white supremacist. And I like "casting porno". Psicoanalize me.

Attached: 75505987_473812936850208_261831218347663947_n.jpg (640x640, 51K)

first define 'kinda' and then I'll be happy to give you a totally amateur psychoanalytic reading

Now I know civilization just happen to white people and just don't happen to black people.

I know I have nothing to do with it too.

Attached: 584871d2e4e6f86ab5c3359e.png (800x720, 65K)

how thick is our flat earth? why haven't we drilled or dug deep enough to fall through yet?

>I wear the same colours as the guy who kicked the goal, therefore I helped
Oh sorry, Copurnicus, I didn't realize we had the guy who discovered the geocentric universe in this thread. My bad.
Everyone EXCEPT COPERNICUS HERE contributed nothing to the advancement of civilisation. And William Shakespeare, but I think he's on /bant/ at the moment, so unless he crops up in this thread I don't think I need to worry

why did god put my g-spot up my ass

is that a signal or something

The layer of molten mantle is kept in place by giant electromagnetic machines specifically to cause a barrier to prevent any mad scientists from drilling through and discovering the under-worlds underneath.
It also is responsive to drilling and will wrap around any drill heads if it goes lower than normal.

And that void continues for infinity? How can infinity for into a big bang scenario?

Here, I'll try:

You feel guilty about your white supremacy; you know it's wrong, yet it's how you feel. But you can't "square" that feeling with your conscience because, again, you know it's wrong. And the conscience never lies.

White supremacy comes in several different forms, and it's not just "black man bad". Those who adhere to this POV also tend to be very sexist; they see a woman's place as in the home, caring for & raising children and being subservient to their man. "Traditional" roles, if you will.

Now, back to the race angle, "casting porn" is a live representation of something (miscegenation) that you find abhorrent and are adamantly opposed to. On the surface, it should disgust you to the point of revulsion and, at an extreme, dry heaves.

However, being a hetero male, you love looking at attractive females without their clothes on. In a good amount of the "blacked" videos, the girls are VERY submissive; the very essence of being dominated. Seeing the girls in that position in and of itself is very titillating to you.

Now, as repulsed as you are, even though seeing this domination of a white girl take place at the hands (and cocks) of a dominant race that you, ironically, feel superior to, enrages you, you can't help but watch. Because doing so accomplishes two things on a racial level:

>it confirms that miscegenation does, in fact, occur
>it serves as fuel for your racism

Thus, in opposition to your conscience telling you "white supremacy is bad", the high you get from watching that kind of porn affirms and validates the rest of you that just wants to kill niggers & keep the white women locked up & pregnant, obeying your every command.

Amirite?

Attached: Algebra cows.jpg (700x703, 152K)

Why does society seek to eradicate public health issues like smoking through legislation, yet won't institute more stringent restrictions on all motor vehicle drivers which causes far too many deaths?
The lobbyist argument doesn't work, because the smoking lobby is very well funded, probably more so than the auto manufacturer lobby.

Promising thread got real gay real quickly

Hate trump but your argument is neither quantitative nor logical, it’s just empathetic. You assumed without evidence that the migrants are all fleeing bad circumstances and are hard working and law abiding. You didn’t address or disprove your father’s concerns

Not "probate," you idiot, PROSTATE!

Attached: Eddie Valiant.jpg (583x317, 65K)

yes it continues for infinity. Because it's an abstract notion. Space isn't actually a thing. When they speak of space time and you see those visualizations of it as a grid or a surface that gets flexed as per relativity - that's just a representation - space isn't a tangible thing.
>How can infinity for into a big bang scenario?
What?

>Promising thread got real gay real quickly
care to take the reigns then? I'm just trying to bump this shit.

Untrue. The question was "an instance where logic can be used in real life to address a paradox". Paradox, again, being a situation where two separate conclusions about a given topic can, on their own, make absolute sense but, when contrasted, contradict one another. In this instance, my dad's go-to position was to lump all immigrants under the same grouping (lazy, drug addicted gang members), which, is itself (to use your words) "assumed without evidence".

I simply structured a series of questions to elicit a response from my dad that, at the conclusion, was logical, rational and well-reasoned, yet completely contradicted his previous (and subsequent) conclusion, that "we need the wall because brown immigrants are bad".

>You assumed without evidence that...

Well yeah. That's how hypotheticals work, dude. And in a hypothetical, "evidence" is irrelevant. Had I given a specific example of a Guatemalan family we knew, then yes, evidence would have been necessary. But the "evidence" was likewise assumed considering WE were the subjects of the hypothetical, and WE know what kind of people we are. Ergo, "evidence to prove" that my own family are hard-working, law-abiding citizens when I'm talking to my own dad would be completely fucking stupid.

Besides, you're just arguing semantics & it doesn't really matter: the guy I originally wrote all that for already responded & he wasn't trying to parse words, trying to "get me on a technicality.

I should have made myself more clear - I wasn't trying to weigh one definition over the other. I was trying to make clear the importance of specifying. If someone is going to debate those things, then I think they should take some time out to agree upon definitions of the terms they are using.

So yes, these words can mean a few different things at different times, and that's why I don't think there is a paradox.

>trying to "get me on a technicality
Fuck You I was trying to learn how to ask better questions and you fucking went on a irrelevant tangent about how you used rhetoric on your father.
You offered me nothing of actual utility - I didn't ask about persuasion, I asked about questions and problem solving. And how quantitative reasoning had real life applications - winning an argument is NOT a real life application.
I was just to polite to tell you that it was totally fucking useless. I was just to polite to tell you it was of no utility to anyone.

Humans have plant DNA and animal DNA in them. I'm assuming this is because you are what you eat. So when I hear that humans also have nigger DNA, it makes me wonder did we used to eat niggers, like did we herd them like farm animals?

Attached: 70c.jpg (800x662, 114K)

kek.

The dude asked your for an example of where quantitative reasoning class helped you ask better questions and this was the example you gave, which was just about shilling empathy rather than quantitative questioning.

And your hypothetical is rhetorically worthless unless it has some bridge to reality or other utility. One can do the same in reverse: assume, hypothetically, that every Guatemalan is a rapist. Assume further that the wall is would keep them all our cost effectively. Then wouldn’t you feel dumb about not supporting the wall? Check mate libturd

It's not bad. But in "casting porno" there are not black man involved the most of the time, almost never.

Yet I can still understand the part you say

"Those who adhere to this POV also tend to be very sexist; they see a woman's place as in the home, caring for & raising children and being subservient to their man. "Traditional" roles, if you will."

I think this is the right path but idk why.

>this was the example you gave, which was just about shilling empathy rather than quantitative questioning.
Bingo

Attached: 1555417367298.jpg (440x440, 16K)

don't be fooled. it is a r/hapas r/asianidentity & tenda spencer who do it 99 percent of the time. I've had plenty of conversations with tenda in those threads and he admits that he monitors Cred Forums daily on his website halfasian.org.

go to 8kun dot top/tenda and read all the content if you want to understand his mental state and his internet history.

Attached: 1582162913895.jpg (1000x1000, 374K)

Ok ok. I'm redpilled now. But tell me, how long do you think it will take the Black Copernicus to come. Or the Black Shakesapere. I just ask you bc I still can't see the Black Aristoteles anywhere.

Attached: 5P4ihxdU_4x.jpg (2428x2432, 1.06M)

hi tenda spencer. still mad at the fact that you're a virgin while white men fuck asian thots at will?

tl;dr

That's the wrong question, the real question is: if all members of the white race are so great why aren't you - you yourself - achieving something on the level Aristotle, or Copernicus?
Because I thought whites were supreme, it seems to me there's a few tentpoles lifting it up for the rest of us.

Did you see my answer here: ? This mindset really changed my life. If your goal or question isn’t measurable it’s usually poorly defined.

No I didn't, but also what metric do you use in any given situation. Especially for qualitative things.
For example let's just say I'm a painter - I'm not so don't obsess over the specifics - and I ask myself "which competitions should I enter my painting into"? How would go about solving that problem and more clearly defining what is ill-defined?
How could I work out the percentage chances of winning each one since I'd assume it's a total crapshoot pursuant to the individual tastes of the judging panel, the competition that year etc. etc. etc. ?

I don’t meant always measurable quantitatively but there needs to be a concrete goal if you can.

Just to play with your example, begin with the end in mind and work backwards. The problem is you don’t have a handle on WHY you’re entering the competitions. Do you want to win as many as you can, if so look for easy ones. Do you want maximum prestige, if so look for the most respected ones. So if I were in that position I’d find some people I respect in the field (critics? Professors? Other artists?) and try to say, for example, “I want to win a painting competition as a pure ego stroke or because it’s on my bucket list, could you have a look at my work and suggest a few contests you think I’d have the best shot of winning?”

Bumping this one. Sorry for the crappy pic but it explains the paradox

Attached: EB48CB9D-DC87-4A53-AD04-F1BD651BAB43.jpg (638x479, 108K)

Sorry about the delay - I have captcha troubles.
Hmmm... okay well this sounds like stuff I already do. I'm very teleological minded. I never do anything without the word 'purpose' or 'outcome' or like in your examples - answering the question 'why'.
The 'why' is natural for me.
The 'how' always fucks me up. I need to learn to dissect problems and their causes better. Ask the right 'questions' so as to get the right answers.

It’s not just about why, it’s about being able to have a concrete vision of what success looks like. Again using your paint example, “win some contests” is vague. “Win at lest one amateur painting competition” is concrete. Maybe If you give a real example I can give you ideas?

Or brainstorm with a friend or colleague or mentor. Gotta go now good luck

>The teacher gives the definition that they would not when they come into the class that the quiz was going to be given that day

Pardon my second learned English skills, but what does that mean?

Atheism isn't the absence of a belief in anything, as that would be impossible. Everyone believes something, whether implicitly (like the belief in the existence of an object, the identity of that object, and the consciousness used to perceive that object), or explicitly (like the belief in the existence God or the belief that no God exists). Thus, going by your definition of religion, Atheism is still a religion.

why is 13% also more than half

Attached: 1567829606655.jpg (474x436, 61K)