I considered posting this on /x/ on their dream general, but since you are more knowledgable on the matter...

Thomas Reid's common sense philosophy might help. Sounds like some common sense is not lost on you, anyway.

>sufficient, but not necessary.
Absolutely necessary, just not sufficient for sound judgement as you have just shown. Don't confuse that for coherent experience which still presupposes a universe that is causal rather than chaotic. Empirical habit in a non-causal universe is a contradiction because it depends on coherent experience which is only possible in a causal universe.

What exactly do you have in mind when saying 'coherent experience'? What would be incoherent experience?

This is just too funny

Whatever it means, consider yourself lucky. I only get visited by my next door neighbor who peers into the window next to the front door at impossible angles and silently stares at me while I'm jerking off.

b

I have not seen enough evidence that the more natural reality undefining interpretations of aspects of quantum mechanics is true.

If it is true I have reason to be weary such is true, due to potential for personal gain. If it is true that it is possible to actually create a lack of causality in this universe, it would be true that the universe is a simulation/creation.

There are only a handful of claims that attempt to suggest non causality is possible. The superposition in the particle theories thought experiments of particle X having 50% of being particle A and 50% chance of being particle B and a particle Y with 50% chance of being particle A and 50% particle B: That these particles when created are a 50-50 'ball' of 'uncertainty' at this point (in space and time):

When particle X is finally measured by scientists, they see that it is particle B.

One theory is that in that moment of measurement, the 50-50 ball of A/B zapped into an exact B, and ""INSTANTANEOUSLY"" (infinitely faster than light) and sent a signal instantly to ball Y (which prior to that moment of measurement was 50-50 A/B), ball Y which was a million or billion or trillion giga light years away.

There is no substantial evidence yet that this occurs. Some of the grander claims of assumptions about this theory being true for over any distance of space, even though any thus far experiment would have been done on earth, in earth and solar systems gravity well, as well as galaxy, especially considering the relative ignorance about the actual form and contents of gravity space, and all these concepts of packed in universal fields.

There could be a field that is faster than light that makes this happen, there is an assumption, and it would instill causality:

Their assumption is that: You can take these two particles nearly infinitely far apart, and 1 is an A/B and the other is an A/B.

Measure 1 and its B. Without 'anything touching anything' (in air sound happens because touching air of atoms, material, a distant buoy can be bobbed by touching the near by water, thats a medium, em waves travel through space and thats how phones can communicate at a distance with seemingly their immediate physical bodies not touching), any physical information being sent across a real distance of space, in this case, nearly infinite distance:

And they 'communicate without touching', so that the other 50-50 A/B flips into A.

There is no reason to presume, and assume, that when the particles are created and sent out in their directions: one was an A, one was a B. When one was detected, and seen to be a B, the other had been an A, and seen to be an A.

There is no evidence, only the simple deranged theory, which if could be made to get people to believe is true, then it would follow that the universe must be a creation of God.

But even if they could prove that in some distance, on Earth to Earth, or Earth to satellite,
or Earth to Moon or Mars or beyond Jupiter,

Tell the fat Scotsman about how much you love Rousseau.

Why am I laughing so hard

>The program works (presumably) with logic gates. Material implication (etc) =/ physical causation.
When does an action occur, a relation to material and energy in space and their momentums and directions, in which 'some facts and relations about the surrounding states of material and energy and their momentum' did not directly play the role of the following occurrence?

One direction to get into maybe, in regards to causality, is the idea of random. I dont know much about random number generators, or what other attempts at random devices are made. I have never seen evidence of there existing any bit of material or energy that did something that its exact physical conditions and the exact physical conditions of the surrounding material universe did not cause and/or aid.

>He went furious with rage and drowned me in a bathtub.
Guess you got humeiliated.

Time to accept the big Dave is right.

I like this post

Embrace it, brother.

Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus.

Hume... easy on the haggis

I fucking hate Veeky Forums.

What about Sigmund Freud - The Interpretation of Dreams???

Shut your trap, this thread has been good so far.

Freud a shit. All intuitive understanding and minimal hard evidence.

I'm just being tongue in cheek with ya.

That's what you get for breaking your mind by trying to make tulpas

Ok OP here, I followed some of your advice and this is what happened this night.
I was dreaming about being in an enormous field of grain. While looking to find some civilization I felt a tap on my shoulder and when I turned, sure enough, the fat bastard was waiting to inquire on human nature.
I tried to counter him with but I was just beginning when Hume put his index finger in my mouth and shushed me before continuing to beg me to provide counter examples to his theory.
I tried to use but I was halfway there when Hume said "STOP", grabbed my arms and fucking french kissed me. His disgusting tongue rolled around mine like a turbine and his awful breath flew inside my lungs. He then threw me to the ground before pinning me and trying to remove my pants.
At this point I was in a semi-lucid state (aware of the dream but not able to control it) and I was panicking. Even though I hadn't properly read his confutations of Hume, I tried to somehow invoke Kant, but nothing happened.
Just when he was about to tear away my underwear, someone punched his face and his fat body was sent rolling down the hills. When I looked up, Schopenhauer was standing there, bare chested.
Hume got up and unleashed a flying kick towards Schopie which he dodged it easily. After gaining some distance, Schopie made a speech too long to remember. I think it was something about Hume starting to frame the question of causality but not answering it.
Nevertheless, Hume got pissed and made a tard scream. Schopie told me to run away and so I did never looking back.
After this a bunch of unrelated dreams came and went before I found myself in a school waiting for a lecture. Schopenhauer entered. I was excited and I loudly thanked him. He gave me a big thumbs up before starting his 'reasons why Hegel sucks' lecture.

I kind of swapped one philosopher for another, but I like Schopie so I am not complaining.
Anyway thanks guys. Nothing you suggested worked, but I am sure that if you hadn't, the outcome would have been different.
If the thread survives, I'll update tomorrow to inform you if Schopie is still there to protect me.

Schopenhauer is love, Schopenhauer is life

Schopenhauer is my spirit animal. I'm glad he is yours too.

reeeddddddiiiiittttttt

Is this LARPing?

Why don't you just say pretending?

hm

Who cares? I'm amused and that's all that matters.