Quote from: username18333 on July 22, 2015, 08:02:21 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on July 22, 2015, 07:06:09 AM

I = space + time.

I = spacetime

I am non-trivial, why are you? Huh

Quote from: username18333 on July 22, 2015, 05:45:33 AM

Quote from: University of Victoria (The Department of English), Argument of the Beard, The UVic Writer's Guide, 1995

This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.

A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.

(There is not particular point where probability waves become a human; therefore, the "I" is an element of the hyperreal - a symbol that references other symbols (namely, those of a self-concept) yet not the real.) "Non-trivial," however, as "I" used it, indicates that the investment - whatever form it could assume - was of a nature that left imprudent an attempt upon the PoW of the PoW-coin therewith.

I wrote a poem about a man who lived out the idea of being a symbol. https://generalizethis.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/4/ He made one of the most powerful album covers of all time--but I'd hardly call it success. Now Hamlet let it all go and drove himself as far as anyone in his time and probably ever since, but he was smart enough to value his existence in that he talked himself out of suicide by the knowledge that worse nightmares may follow--that's valuing your life. now Socrates was so set on the value of being right that he talked himself into drinking poison--Hamlet was quantum, Socrates was binary. For Hamlet everything was possible and nothing. For Socrates the question became,: If nothing can be proven, then nothing can be certain. Hamlet would have talked Socrates out of suicide only to talk him back into it once he realized Socrates couldn't value anything but the idea of being right, that he couldn't accept that everyone's perception was playing out a quantum cosmos where words, desires, genius, and madness where all singular moments of the observer--all equally valid and equally absurd. So you can keep repeating your mantras, but remember each word has its own histories, presents and futures and we are combining them here, not with the idea that ideas can be pinned down and robbed of their mulltiness, but that thoughts can launch forward to new destinations, new paths, new memes or worse--at least that is why I'm here. Not really sure what your agenda is, not sure i care. If you want to talk about how economic totalitarianism might emerge, you should probably start doing that--I believe corporations will swallow governments and those corporations will be swallowed up by DACs. What is your theory or stance?